An article entitled, McClung development mobilizes Six Nations, Two Row Times (TRT), 30 March 2016, p.8, warns that Six Nations factions (frequently at odds with one another) are uniting around the banner of their objection against the McClung development east of Caledonia.
Well, what has taken them so long? There have been rumblings of discontent since the development was announced, but only sporadic action (most behind the scenes). Perhaps this lulled many into a false sense of security that anything like 2006 would ever happen again.
Many Haldimand residents also have no desire to see the development, already underway, which would result in a new "city beside a city", in effect "New Caledonia", a community of about 10,000 new residents (thus doubling the present size of Caledonia) now forging ahead east along Highway 54 and up McClung Road. For some time people such as myself (in this blog) have provided alerts and warnings that the pot is simmering, and has the potential of boiling over.
The first move came from Men's Fire (an arm of the Six Nations Hereditary Council) confronting the developers, which resulted in a restraining order and approval to the developers to go ahead. Various groups at Six Nations are now saying that the judge erred, and did not take into consideration Six Nations land claims and "treaty rights". As I have noted in a number of blog postings before, there is no factual basis for any land claim (the land having been surrendered in 1841, and all the t's crossed and i's dotted by 1850 with Lord Elgin's Report), and Six Nations has no "treaty rights" - the "Nanfan Treaty" of 1701 is bogus; and the Haldimand Proclamation of 1784 is not a treaty. Never the less this has never deterred Six Nations from pressing claims of one sort or another (e.g., in South Cayuga) and winning concessions (to avoid the unpleasantness of blockades and riots) in the form of for example monies from wind and solar development.
The land in question here is part of a Land Claim submitted in 1987, with unsubstantiated ownership claims (even with the clarity seen in the Ontario Land Records Registry Office documents; and the "Indian Affairs Papers, RG10 Series" at the National Archives), and "demands" for meaningful consultation, engagement and accommodation that must take place.
What is new in all this is the concatenation of factions now involved in the issue. It is no surprise to see Men's Fire, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) and well as their very radical and controversial enforcement arm the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) come together to contest the development. What is surprising is that their "arch enemy", the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) are joining with (although not necessarily meeting with) the other Six Nations parties to confront this development head on. The TRT article describes the attempts by each of these parties to basically state (warn) the developers (and Haldimand County) that there needs to be meetings, and how each attempt has been rebuffed. So not only are representatives of the HCCC / HDI giving advice to potential buyers saying, exercise caution before investing in this particular development; but the position of SNEC is that they will be, ready to intervene to protect its interests and rights when the time is right. With the latter statement one might picture a coiled snake, poised and ready to strike and inject its poisonous venom against the target group.
It is interesting to note that the article states that, Although divided on many issues, this is one matter that galvanizes all of Six Nations people.
Perhaps the developer considers that the judgement of the Ontario Superior Court is sufficient - which under "normal" circumstances would be true. If that is the case, they don't understand the dynamics in this neck of the woods - or what history should teach us.
In the past I have blogged how Six Nations sees the Empire / McClung Road Development as little more than Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) north. Are people in Haldimand and the developer so naive as to believe that the same situation will not emerge ten years after the April 2006 take over of DCE, which to this day is still under the control of the Six Nations HCCC and HDI. Forty acres of tic infested wasteland (no top soil), surrounded by a fence, and guarded at the entrance to Surrey Street. No level of government has been willing to act and arrest the trespassers and return the land to its rightful owners (now the Province of Ontario). That describes DCE to April 2016. By now there should have been a few hundred new homes, and a thriving community. That never happened. What we got was chaos, anarchy, rule by force, and the abandonment of the people of Caledonia to thugs by all levels of government, and particularly the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) who established "no go" zones and citizens were left to their own devices after the violent take over ("reclamation") with the road blockades, assaults, infrastructure meltdowns, arson destruction (burning of the Stirling Street Bridge which has not been rebuilt to this day) - and billions of taxpayer dollars spent keeping a lid on things over the last 10 years. Those who do not live here can be forgiven for forgetting - but those of us on the front line cannot forget the violence and acrimony and lack of any support by any law enforcement agency. So perhaps we can be forgiven for being a little "twitchy" about the matter - been there, seen that, done that - the refrain being echoed last time was "never again" - so things could get ugly.
The article ends with a summary to the effect that, According to Six Nations people across the board, the $80 million proposed subdivision sits on unceded Six Nations land. This was the same argument that triggered the reclamation of Douglas Creek Estates located on the other side of the river. There is more than a veiled warning in all this rhetoric.
While on a personal level I vehemently oppose the development, my reasons are different. As noted, I am aware that the land was properly surrendered in 1841 and ratified at various points until 1850 so disagree with the rationale being put forward by Six Nations. However I don't want to see this development come to fruition because it will have a devastating effect on the environment and cultural aspect of Caledonia.
If things progress further, as I have said before, it is not hard to prove (it has already been done by the Superior Court of Ontario in Brantford, 2009) that the land claim is without foundation; or that so called "treaty rights" do not exist for the Six Nations refugees who came to Ontario in 1785 - nor their descendants (including myself). What is also important to the present writer, who only seeks the truth based on the preponderance of the evidence, Six Nations is not "playing fair", and therein lies the rub.
As noted in a previous post, in the 1980s agents of the Band Council arrived at the Indian Office in Brantford and systematically looted records that belonged to the Government of Canada. These documents were taken to the Woodland Indian Cultural Educational Center in Brantford, where they were microfilmed. I personally saw these documents in the library there and know that they, and the microfilm, were transported to the Land Office where I presume they remain to this day. What is particularly upsetting is that all of these records were in the process of being sent to the National Archives in Ottawa, but ultimately only part of the collection made it there because of a petition by D.H., a resident of Caledonia who wanted the records to remain locally so they could be studied by locals interested in family history. Alas, before she passed away D.H. came to my house and tearfully said that this was the worst decision she had ever made in her life - although little could she have anticipated what would transpire and is in no way to blame for a later act of theft.
The result is that the Land Inspection Returns (1844) for Oneida Township (where DCE is located) are at the National Archives of Canada and anyone can access the records. However the same collection, the Land Inspection Returns for Seneca Township (where the Empire / McClung Development is taking place) are hidden away and not open for inspection. Fairness would dictate that all parties have access to the same documents but that is simply not the case. The Six Nations have the upper hand here, although I don't imagine that anyone but the land researchers there and myself know the whole truth. However what seems to be reasonable and fair is that, in my opinion, any level of government refuse to negotiate on any land matter until the stolen records are turned over to the rightful owners, the Government and people of Canada. Then we can talk.
Before people get too worked up about fall out and consequences, they may wish to read some of my previous blogs where I have given a very clear rationale as to why a Caledonia 2006 is unlikely to morph into McClung 2016 - with geography playing the major role in the dynamic. Never the less, the threats will escalate, and there will without a doubt be forays and skirmishes which might include blockades (common in the past) to show the developers and Haldimand County that they are serious about claiming the land (or at the very least being included in discussions).
So get your collective heads out of your collective ............. and realize that the problem is not going away. I do hope that the developer, Haldimand County, and the OPP are all prepared for any and all contingencies - although again, I don't want to see the development proceed any more than the many factions at Six Nations do. I doubt that I will be standing against Six Nations, and may well be among them when the crunch comes - common cause and all that. Too early to know for sure.
DY.
Thursday, 31 March 2016
Sunday, 20 March 2016
More Paranoid Conspiracy Theories - This Time About White Settlers Committing Genocide and Burying the Bodies in Mass Graves or Hiding them in Museum Basements
Although upset by a completely off the wall if not bizarre statement in an Editorial in Two Row Times (16 March 2016, page 6) entitled, Our bones threaten them, I agree with most of what the author says.
The Editor makes the point that there are thousands of Native American skeletons housed in boxes in museums across North America. Of this there can be no denying. I also agree that it is (at least in today's view) disrespectful to treat human remains in this way. To add my opinion, the remains should be studied (and DNA tests be done to learn the stories about health and ancestry which the bones can tell us), ultimately they must be returned to the lineal descendants. If this is not possible, then they should be buried with due ceremony in the location in which they were found.
The editor cites the work of Samuel J. Redman who estimates that there are about half a million Native American remains held in various repositories in the USA and Canada, and an equal number in museums in Europe. I believe that this figure is on the high side, but there is no argument from me that there are large numbers, widely distributed throughout the Americas and to some degree Europe. The Editor then makes a rather odd (and unsupported) statement as follows: This figure does not account for indigenous remains stolen by Canadian scientists and officials. It is unclear what the author means here, although clearly the word "stolen" is emotionally loaded. Does this mean that there is some secret repository where aboriginal remains are being studied for some unspecified purpose. In the natural course of events, scientists publish their findings, that is how they justify their existence.
It is not long ago that pot hunting, which included grave robbing and keeping skulls for "trophies", was common in this area (Niagara Peninsula). It upset me to no end to know that these moral imbeciles were desecrating ancestors graves and there was nothing I could do about it. The police had no authority on private land; and frankly few Natives at the time (e.g., 1970s and 80s) seemed to care. Some local residents other than myself were of course outraged but powerless to do anything. Many quietly "did the right thing" when remains were discovered inadvertently (e.g., bones being unearthed during basement renovations, the bones being re interred as close to the home, the original burial site, as was practical. Still the grave robbers continued unrestrained by morality or law. The laws (e.g., Cemeteries Act) and views of what is acceptable have fortunately changed, and now there can be very stiff fines (e.g., $10,000) from someone who knowingly disturbs a human grave. The only people permitted to dig in a known site of cultural significance are licensed archaeologists. If the site is determined to have any First Nations link, then the local aboriginal group(s) will be contacted and invited to help oversee the work. Hence these days the representatives of the Six Nations Elected Council and the Mississauga of New Credit will be paid overseers. Although untrained, the Haudenosaunee Development Institute often demand to be present and paid - but that is another story, and one about which I have blogged about in the past.
The Editor goes on to discuss a rather obnoxious "papal bull" which justified taking property belonging to "pagans" and the like. Full agreement here, the papacy justified the oppression and slavery of indigenous people via such Vatican nonsense, but it had absolutely no influence on the Protestant British - who settled what is today Ontario and who were early on antagonistic towards any Catholic pronouncements. However the Editor states, Anyway, this stupid papal order must also have included the theft of bones because it continues to this day. That does not make sense, and seems tinged with a bit of paranoia. I know many of these (former) pot hunters / grave robbers and their motives were strictly personal (similar to collectors of baseball cards), but often the more principled of the group included a desire to learn more about the past of this country, and some donated their "finds" to local museums and the like since it seemed the proper thing to do (to their way of thinking).
The depth of "suspiciousness" and conspiracy theory thinking escalates with claims that,
Although the Doctrine of Discovery was upheld in Johnson v. McIntosh which was a 1841 Supreme Court case, there must have been other, deeper reasons why our settler friends have been stealing our bones like grave robbing thugs. Maybe it is because "Indian bones" are evidence in a colossal crime scene. If Henry F. Dobyns was correct, upwards of 90 million innocent humans were killed here in the least talked about genocide in human history.
I will pause here to explain that Dobyns was an anthropologist and demographer who is known as a "high counter". In other words the scientific community considers his numbers to be on the high side when in fact we do not know what the early Native population of the Americas was in fact. We only have very skewed estimates. There are three points I wish to make in relation to the Editor's take on things:
1) No matter how you slice things, Dobyns and every other author acknowledges that diseases inadvertently introduced by Europeans killed off the vast majority of how ever many people were here say 1500 AD.
2) In North America there were few documented cases of genocidal action by Europeans, and those involved at most a few hundred people. There were brutal wars such as King Phillip's War in 17th century New England. However, it needs to be noted that the Europeans were guided by and accompanied by Native allies who exacted their revenge against Native enemies. The English did not act alone. Furthermore, the aboriginals were doing precisely the same thing against the settler groups where whole communities were wiped off the face of the earth in barbaric no quarter given acts of genocide. There may be some justification for retaliation, but the scale at times on both sides was high - but nothing like what is suggested by the Editor above.
3) Closer to home, the only documented acts of genocide (things of this nature could not be "hidden" once European onlookers were present) were perpetrated by the Five (now Six) Nations! In what can be considered one of the most egregious and despicable acts of true genocide the perpetrators were the Five (now Six) Nations (which no doubt included my own direct ancestors). The Five Nations of what is today Upstate New York embarked upon wars of complete annihilation of their neighbours and enemies further afield, in what is often termed the "Beaver Wars". The process began in 1638 when the Seneca destroyed their neighbours to the west, the Wenro, whose survivors fled to the Huron / Wyandot near Georgian Bay. The primary conflicts took place between 1642 and 1657. During this time the Confederacy committed acts of genocide on the Huron Confederacy (leaving only a small group at Ancien Lorette near Quebec City, a cluster on Isle d'Orleans, and those who were able to flee to Christian Island then to the Upper Peninsula in Michigan and beyond). The Wyandot Confederacy was completely demolished, and the 20,000 member Nation reduced to a handful. These were the "lucky" ones since the Attiwandaronk (Neurtal), Petun, Eries and others were largely murdered en mass, leaving a few souls for purposes of torture and cannibalism. The evidence was recorded by Jesuit priests who were witnesses, and cross validated by archaeologists who found the remains of mass graves and pieces of bone removed during the torture ritual. There were NO White people living in the area who could be blamed for these acts by later generations of apologists. Our Haudenosaunee ancestors were the perpetrators and the truth demands that we acknowledge the facts. It rather puts the recent charges against Canada of "cultural genocide" in perspective.
Later the Five Nations would turn their attention south and administer the same treatment against the Susquehannoc. For many years Southern Ontario and the Great Lakes region were devoid of any human beings because if not killed (or at times assimilated), the peoples of the area fled west to avoid the inevitable. So when one wants to discuss "genocide" lets look at the home front first. There is no doubt that the Five Nations committed the most hideous and vile acts of genocide, which would fortunately never be repeated in North America by any group at any time.
The Editor then asks the question, Does Canada and the U.S. have something to hide? The answer is a resounding NO, but apparently the Six Nations do since no one seems to call a spade a spade. The Beaver Wars involved true genocide committed by the Five (now Six) Nations - we need to acknowledge this and quit blaming Canada for the ill defined term "cultural genocide". Lets look at real genocide first, and who is the guilt party.
So before Canada and the U.S.A. are blamed for some conspiracy of silence to ensure that people will keep mum on the genocide of countless millions of Native Americans we need to look at the facts - not myth and belief. When we do that it is the Six Nations who are to be seen in a very unfavourable light - as the only group to have committed true, verifiable, acts of wanton genocide. Always look in the mirror before looking beyond.
At the end of it though, I absolutely agree with the Editor that the bones of the ancestors need to rest in peace, and eventually be returned to the soil from which they came. A point well taken, and kudos to the Editor for bringing this matter to the fore.
DeYo.
The Editor makes the point that there are thousands of Native American skeletons housed in boxes in museums across North America. Of this there can be no denying. I also agree that it is (at least in today's view) disrespectful to treat human remains in this way. To add my opinion, the remains should be studied (and DNA tests be done to learn the stories about health and ancestry which the bones can tell us), ultimately they must be returned to the lineal descendants. If this is not possible, then they should be buried with due ceremony in the location in which they were found.
The editor cites the work of Samuel J. Redman who estimates that there are about half a million Native American remains held in various repositories in the USA and Canada, and an equal number in museums in Europe. I believe that this figure is on the high side, but there is no argument from me that there are large numbers, widely distributed throughout the Americas and to some degree Europe. The Editor then makes a rather odd (and unsupported) statement as follows: This figure does not account for indigenous remains stolen by Canadian scientists and officials. It is unclear what the author means here, although clearly the word "stolen" is emotionally loaded. Does this mean that there is some secret repository where aboriginal remains are being studied for some unspecified purpose. In the natural course of events, scientists publish their findings, that is how they justify their existence.
It is not long ago that pot hunting, which included grave robbing and keeping skulls for "trophies", was common in this area (Niagara Peninsula). It upset me to no end to know that these moral imbeciles were desecrating ancestors graves and there was nothing I could do about it. The police had no authority on private land; and frankly few Natives at the time (e.g., 1970s and 80s) seemed to care. Some local residents other than myself were of course outraged but powerless to do anything. Many quietly "did the right thing" when remains were discovered inadvertently (e.g., bones being unearthed during basement renovations, the bones being re interred as close to the home, the original burial site, as was practical. Still the grave robbers continued unrestrained by morality or law. The laws (e.g., Cemeteries Act) and views of what is acceptable have fortunately changed, and now there can be very stiff fines (e.g., $10,000) from someone who knowingly disturbs a human grave. The only people permitted to dig in a known site of cultural significance are licensed archaeologists. If the site is determined to have any First Nations link, then the local aboriginal group(s) will be contacted and invited to help oversee the work. Hence these days the representatives of the Six Nations Elected Council and the Mississauga of New Credit will be paid overseers. Although untrained, the Haudenosaunee Development Institute often demand to be present and paid - but that is another story, and one about which I have blogged about in the past.
The Editor goes on to discuss a rather obnoxious "papal bull" which justified taking property belonging to "pagans" and the like. Full agreement here, the papacy justified the oppression and slavery of indigenous people via such Vatican nonsense, but it had absolutely no influence on the Protestant British - who settled what is today Ontario and who were early on antagonistic towards any Catholic pronouncements. However the Editor states, Anyway, this stupid papal order must also have included the theft of bones because it continues to this day. That does not make sense, and seems tinged with a bit of paranoia. I know many of these (former) pot hunters / grave robbers and their motives were strictly personal (similar to collectors of baseball cards), but often the more principled of the group included a desire to learn more about the past of this country, and some donated their "finds" to local museums and the like since it seemed the proper thing to do (to their way of thinking).
The depth of "suspiciousness" and conspiracy theory thinking escalates with claims that,
Although the Doctrine of Discovery was upheld in Johnson v. McIntosh which was a 1841 Supreme Court case, there must have been other, deeper reasons why our settler friends have been stealing our bones like grave robbing thugs. Maybe it is because "Indian bones" are evidence in a colossal crime scene. If Henry F. Dobyns was correct, upwards of 90 million innocent humans were killed here in the least talked about genocide in human history.
I will pause here to explain that Dobyns was an anthropologist and demographer who is known as a "high counter". In other words the scientific community considers his numbers to be on the high side when in fact we do not know what the early Native population of the Americas was in fact. We only have very skewed estimates. There are three points I wish to make in relation to the Editor's take on things:
1) No matter how you slice things, Dobyns and every other author acknowledges that diseases inadvertently introduced by Europeans killed off the vast majority of how ever many people were here say 1500 AD.
2) In North America there were few documented cases of genocidal action by Europeans, and those involved at most a few hundred people. There were brutal wars such as King Phillip's War in 17th century New England. However, it needs to be noted that the Europeans were guided by and accompanied by Native allies who exacted their revenge against Native enemies. The English did not act alone. Furthermore, the aboriginals were doing precisely the same thing against the settler groups where whole communities were wiped off the face of the earth in barbaric no quarter given acts of genocide. There may be some justification for retaliation, but the scale at times on both sides was high - but nothing like what is suggested by the Editor above.
3) Closer to home, the only documented acts of genocide (things of this nature could not be "hidden" once European onlookers were present) were perpetrated by the Five (now Six) Nations! In what can be considered one of the most egregious and despicable acts of true genocide the perpetrators were the Five (now Six) Nations (which no doubt included my own direct ancestors). The Five Nations of what is today Upstate New York embarked upon wars of complete annihilation of their neighbours and enemies further afield, in what is often termed the "Beaver Wars". The process began in 1638 when the Seneca destroyed their neighbours to the west, the Wenro, whose survivors fled to the Huron / Wyandot near Georgian Bay. The primary conflicts took place between 1642 and 1657. During this time the Confederacy committed acts of genocide on the Huron Confederacy (leaving only a small group at Ancien Lorette near Quebec City, a cluster on Isle d'Orleans, and those who were able to flee to Christian Island then to the Upper Peninsula in Michigan and beyond). The Wyandot Confederacy was completely demolished, and the 20,000 member Nation reduced to a handful. These were the "lucky" ones since the Attiwandaronk (Neurtal), Petun, Eries and others were largely murdered en mass, leaving a few souls for purposes of torture and cannibalism. The evidence was recorded by Jesuit priests who were witnesses, and cross validated by archaeologists who found the remains of mass graves and pieces of bone removed during the torture ritual. There were NO White people living in the area who could be blamed for these acts by later generations of apologists. Our Haudenosaunee ancestors were the perpetrators and the truth demands that we acknowledge the facts. It rather puts the recent charges against Canada of "cultural genocide" in perspective.
Later the Five Nations would turn their attention south and administer the same treatment against the Susquehannoc. For many years Southern Ontario and the Great Lakes region were devoid of any human beings because if not killed (or at times assimilated), the peoples of the area fled west to avoid the inevitable. So when one wants to discuss "genocide" lets look at the home front first. There is no doubt that the Five Nations committed the most hideous and vile acts of genocide, which would fortunately never be repeated in North America by any group at any time.
The Editor then asks the question, Does Canada and the U.S. have something to hide? The answer is a resounding NO, but apparently the Six Nations do since no one seems to call a spade a spade. The Beaver Wars involved true genocide committed by the Five (now Six) Nations - we need to acknowledge this and quit blaming Canada for the ill defined term "cultural genocide". Lets look at real genocide first, and who is the guilt party.
So before Canada and the U.S.A. are blamed for some conspiracy of silence to ensure that people will keep mum on the genocide of countless millions of Native Americans we need to look at the facts - not myth and belief. When we do that it is the Six Nations who are to be seen in a very unfavourable light - as the only group to have committed true, verifiable, acts of wanton genocide. Always look in the mirror before looking beyond.
At the end of it though, I absolutely agree with the Editor that the bones of the ancestors need to rest in peace, and eventually be returned to the soil from which they came. A point well taken, and kudos to the Editor for bringing this matter to the fore.
DeYo.
Saturday, 19 March 2016
Six Nations Land Rights Under Threat - What is All the Fuss Concerning Algonquins in Eastern Ontario?
Of late there have been a few articles on the above captioned subject which concerns conflict between the Iroquois Caucus (IC) and the Algonquins of Ontario (AOO). The most recent article is found in "Two Row Times", March 16th 2016, page 18. The present author has not blogged about the matter since it seems relatively trivial. Now new information has surfaced which puts a whole new spin on the matter.
In essence, the AOO are seeking to establish a land base for nine of the 10 nations they represent. The petition relates to 117,000 acres of supposed "treaty land". The problem (or at least one of them) is that, a large portion of these lands are also part of the traditional land base of Iroquois Nations. Unfortunately it is unclear which Iroquois groups are potentially impacted here - Akwesasne, Tyendinaga, Six Nations or other. Since a Six Nations representative has stated that there are overlapping claims in Hogsbury (near Ottawa) and Innisville (near Barrie), it begs the question as to "by what right do Six Nations have a claim so far removed from the Grand River" - although this author is aware of a rather unique claim for lands near Hawkesbury that was addressed many years ago. The "Six Nations Land Rights Worker" has weighed in, stating that, "if the treaty is approved it will have far reaching affect for indigenous land rights across the board".
Other than apparent overlapping claims, there is another very interesting twist to this matter which bears some consideration since it could entirely alter the dynamics at Six Nations:
The controversy centers around the question, "among the AOO Algonquin group, who is eligible to vote, and what are the criteria for being considered eligible?" This may be of some concern to Six Nations since there was a lot of controversy in the Community over statements made by representatives of the Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) that only those who were 100% Six Nations could expect legal protection in the event of a confrontation with authorities over the attempt by the Federal Government to clamp down on the contraband cigarette trade. Some people became very nervous because, as is well known locally, everyone is admixed with European, the only difference being to what degree. So worries such as, "what if my mother's mother was European / local White, will that exclude me from protection? As I blogged about earlier, things got so tense that the HCCC legal counsel made a statement that they did not have the right to determine who was Haudenosaunee (Six Nations), so as long as a person could show that they were a descendant of a member of the Six Nations of the Grand River Band, they would come under the umbrella of protection.
A Land Claims officer as well as at least one Elected Counsel member have gone on record as being opposed to the AOO agreement, one of their main issues being that the Agreement in Principle includes 7,714 individuals eligible to vote, but only 663 (less than 10%) are Status Indians. Thus the majority are perceived as simply locals by some Six Nations officials, and should not be eligible to vote. Apparently, according to a memo from the Algonquin Nation Secretariat (ANS) who oppose the agreement, the majority here seeking the land base claim rights by virtue of Indian heritage but, their indigenous identity is linked to a "root ancestor" of Algonquin identity. In many cases, the claim of indigenous ancestry goes back to one person in the voter's genealogy in the 17th century. Thus, Algonquins who are relying on these root ancestors have had no intermarriage with anyone of Algonquin or Nipissing ancestry for at least 200, and in some cases, more than 300 years.
Perhaps some at Six Nations sense the possible ripple effect that could dramatically affect the definition of Haudenosaunee (People of the Longhouse - Six Nations of the Grand River). The HCCC has already indicated that they are willing to bring into the fold anyone who can point to a Six Nations of the Grand River ancestor (as far back potentially as 1785 when the people came to the Haldimand Tract). If the situation among the Algonquins is accepted and they get land and / or a monetary settlement, then it opens the door wide to who could have a say in matters concerning Six Nations land. Those of us without a status card, but who do meet the HCCC criteria vastly outnumber those 23,000 or so status Six Nations members and could potentially take over control of the process leaving Band Members in the minority and out voted in land claim disputes with the Federal Government - or at least being able to ratify or not ratify an agreement. That would be a frightening prospect to most at Six Nations since their agenda and that of the wider Haudenosaunee Community may be at odds, and the former would lack the authority to over rule the "root ancestor" group.
Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but surely the Six Nations land negotiators and Council members recognize the dangers if the AOO agreement is ratified. It sets a precedent for what could happen here. So in other words, the worry about overlapping land claims (between Iroquoian and Algonquin groups) may have much much wider implications. I will be watching this matter very closely.
DeYo.
In essence, the AOO are seeking to establish a land base for nine of the 10 nations they represent. The petition relates to 117,000 acres of supposed "treaty land". The problem (or at least one of them) is that, a large portion of these lands are also part of the traditional land base of Iroquois Nations. Unfortunately it is unclear which Iroquois groups are potentially impacted here - Akwesasne, Tyendinaga, Six Nations or other. Since a Six Nations representative has stated that there are overlapping claims in Hogsbury (near Ottawa) and Innisville (near Barrie), it begs the question as to "by what right do Six Nations have a claim so far removed from the Grand River" - although this author is aware of a rather unique claim for lands near Hawkesbury that was addressed many years ago. The "Six Nations Land Rights Worker" has weighed in, stating that, "if the treaty is approved it will have far reaching affect for indigenous land rights across the board".
Other than apparent overlapping claims, there is another very interesting twist to this matter which bears some consideration since it could entirely alter the dynamics at Six Nations:
The controversy centers around the question, "among the AOO Algonquin group, who is eligible to vote, and what are the criteria for being considered eligible?" This may be of some concern to Six Nations since there was a lot of controversy in the Community over statements made by representatives of the Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) that only those who were 100% Six Nations could expect legal protection in the event of a confrontation with authorities over the attempt by the Federal Government to clamp down on the contraband cigarette trade. Some people became very nervous because, as is well known locally, everyone is admixed with European, the only difference being to what degree. So worries such as, "what if my mother's mother was European / local White, will that exclude me from protection? As I blogged about earlier, things got so tense that the HCCC legal counsel made a statement that they did not have the right to determine who was Haudenosaunee (Six Nations), so as long as a person could show that they were a descendant of a member of the Six Nations of the Grand River Band, they would come under the umbrella of protection.
A Land Claims officer as well as at least one Elected Counsel member have gone on record as being opposed to the AOO agreement, one of their main issues being that the Agreement in Principle includes 7,714 individuals eligible to vote, but only 663 (less than 10%) are Status Indians. Thus the majority are perceived as simply locals by some Six Nations officials, and should not be eligible to vote. Apparently, according to a memo from the Algonquin Nation Secretariat (ANS) who oppose the agreement, the majority here seeking the land base claim rights by virtue of Indian heritage but, their indigenous identity is linked to a "root ancestor" of Algonquin identity. In many cases, the claim of indigenous ancestry goes back to one person in the voter's genealogy in the 17th century. Thus, Algonquins who are relying on these root ancestors have had no intermarriage with anyone of Algonquin or Nipissing ancestry for at least 200, and in some cases, more than 300 years.
Perhaps some at Six Nations sense the possible ripple effect that could dramatically affect the definition of Haudenosaunee (People of the Longhouse - Six Nations of the Grand River). The HCCC has already indicated that they are willing to bring into the fold anyone who can point to a Six Nations of the Grand River ancestor (as far back potentially as 1785 when the people came to the Haldimand Tract). If the situation among the Algonquins is accepted and they get land and / or a monetary settlement, then it opens the door wide to who could have a say in matters concerning Six Nations land. Those of us without a status card, but who do meet the HCCC criteria vastly outnumber those 23,000 or so status Six Nations members and could potentially take over control of the process leaving Band Members in the minority and out voted in land claim disputes with the Federal Government - or at least being able to ratify or not ratify an agreement. That would be a frightening prospect to most at Six Nations since their agenda and that of the wider Haudenosaunee Community may be at odds, and the former would lack the authority to over rule the "root ancestor" group.
Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but surely the Six Nations land negotiators and Council members recognize the dangers if the AOO agreement is ratified. It sets a precedent for what could happen here. So in other words, the worry about overlapping land claims (between Iroquoian and Algonquin groups) may have much much wider implications. I will be watching this matter very closely.
DeYo.
Wednesday, 20 January 2016
Here We Go Once Again: The Hereditary Council Seeks to Remove the Elected Council and Return to 1924 Governance
Below is one of the most astute and accurate assessments that I have seen in quite some time. It is worth reading in whole, so it is included from "Two Row Times", 10 January 2016. First some background.
In 1924, after multiple petitions from the progressive element (largely Mohawk) at Six Nations, the Government capitulated and substituted an elected band council for of governance for the crumbling remnant of the age old Hereditary Council. Of course the Canadian Government has taken the blame in the minds of many (despite history and the facts), and its actions, carried out by the R.C.M.P. who locked the doors to the Council Longhouse, are deemed to be an act of "colonialism" etc. etc. The fact is that the Government of the day was having difficulty in providing the agreed upon services and funds to Six Nations due to the growing complexity and the inability of the Hereditary Council (Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council - HCCC) to adapt to the changing circumstances.
Today there are two parallel governance systems at Six Nations. The one who does all the day to day work such as ensuring that there are fire and police services, and that seniors needs are addressed and so on is performed almost entirely by the Elected Council (Six Nations Elected Council - SNEC). It has been this way for almost 100 years, and in the meanwhile the Hereditary Council has been a largely ceremonial entity, constantly harping on how they are the only true body that has the right to govern Haudenosaunee / Six Nations people. What seems to get lost in the shuffle is the indisputable fact that times have changed, and we are never going backwards - only in the minds of some hopeless romantics. Not only that, but there are large fracture lines within the HCCC itself, and serious and acrimonious disagreements - for example about the role of the controversial and militant Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) who claims to represent the HCCC. Factions tear at the fabric of the HCCC, yet they consider themselves the sole legal and moral inheritors of the system in place since well before Henry VIII of England ascended the throne and established the Church of England in the mid 16th Century...................... but which faction has the strongest claim to be inheritors of the "Great Law"? See the blog posting here for further details about the forces that are destined to see the HCCC devolve into a series of squabbling adolescent cliques.
In order to operate a municipality (which is what the Six Nations Reserve is in all but name) requires knowledgeable people who can understand the need to balance the budget, and offer all of the requisite services to the 26,000 or so Haudenosaunee (about half of whom reside on the Reserve). Only a formally educated individual (Grade 12 and preferably some college training) would be in a position to conceptualize the requirements of the issues facing their constituents, and effect a proper solution. Most present Elected Councilors fall into this category. Alas, many in the Hereditary Council do not believe in the value of a "formal" education involving maths and sciences, but rather focus on cultural and language matters as the topics which need to be taught to the youth. The latter simply will not prepare young people for the world that awaits, and by in large will result in their being relegated to marginalized positions by virtue of a lack of skills in the highly technical digital world outside of the immediate boundaries of the insular worlds some create for themselves - or have foisted upon them by well meaning "educators" who will hold back their pupils from competing in a very complex world. Hence "outside advisers" (such as the present legal adviser to the HCCC?) will be needed to bridge the gap. So governing by a group of White folks hired to do the job is the best alternative? What else would work if Six Nations went back to "the old ways"?
So in the following "what if" scenario, what would happen to life at Six Nations if suddenly the Elected Council was replaced by the Hereditary Council? My prediction is utter chaos and a mass exodus - but I guess only time would tell. However this is precisely the specter that hangs over Six Nations at present, since the HCCC are planning a Court challenge to the right of the Elected Council to govern. This is rather ironic since the HCCC do not recognize Canadian or Provincial Courts as having jurisdiction over Six Nations people, the rationale being that the latter are a sovereign people. They have made the assumption, without evidence, that the Six Nations people would rather be governed by the traditional body than the entity recognized by the Indian Act for 91 years, and who have a good track record of being able to manage the many tentacles of a municipal government. So who in the HCCC has knowledge of the water delivery or waste management systems?
Actually one can ask even more fundamental questions such as, "is the HCCC anything more than a shadow or echo of a once powerful system of governing the Six Nations people in place during for example the War of 1812? Is it really the intact lineal descendant of the Councils of that era?" In terms of today, as will be noted, the Mohawk benches are not filled. Those who have been appointed, presumably by Clan Mothers (although many lineages have gone extinct and been replaced by individuals of not only other families, but other Clans) have credentials that are not open to inspection. Hence the is no guarantee that the person appointed is in any way eligible or suitable for the "inherited" role. Most at Six Nations do not know their Clan, and would not know where to turn to find out who represents them in order to petition Council or make a complaint. The old system that served Six Nations well hundreds of years ago is no longer in existence - only a body which most certainly has cultural and linguistic ties to the old ways, but which has not provided effective governance for over 100 years. If it was again parachuted into that role, the harsh reality is that we would not be seeing the intact descendant of that system, but an entity which has of late had only a role (but an unclear one) in pushing forward highly questionable land claims, extorting monies from wind turbine corporations and land developers; but nothing to do with say building a new fire station and ensuring that fire department members have suitable training. That is a whole other ball game and strong arm tactics don't work in these circumstances.
Anyway, the present author could go on ad infinitum about this matter, but in a letter to the Editor of Two Row Times, Elected Councillor Helen Miller has once again been able to "hit the nail on the head" - so here is her take on things, in her own words:
In 1924, after multiple petitions from the progressive element (largely Mohawk) at Six Nations, the Government capitulated and substituted an elected band council for of governance for the crumbling remnant of the age old Hereditary Council. Of course the Canadian Government has taken the blame in the minds of many (despite history and the facts), and its actions, carried out by the R.C.M.P. who locked the doors to the Council Longhouse, are deemed to be an act of "colonialism" etc. etc. The fact is that the Government of the day was having difficulty in providing the agreed upon services and funds to Six Nations due to the growing complexity and the inability of the Hereditary Council (Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council - HCCC) to adapt to the changing circumstances.
Today there are two parallel governance systems at Six Nations. The one who does all the day to day work such as ensuring that there are fire and police services, and that seniors needs are addressed and so on is performed almost entirely by the Elected Council (Six Nations Elected Council - SNEC). It has been this way for almost 100 years, and in the meanwhile the Hereditary Council has been a largely ceremonial entity, constantly harping on how they are the only true body that has the right to govern Haudenosaunee / Six Nations people. What seems to get lost in the shuffle is the indisputable fact that times have changed, and we are never going backwards - only in the minds of some hopeless romantics. Not only that, but there are large fracture lines within the HCCC itself, and serious and acrimonious disagreements - for example about the role of the controversial and militant Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) who claims to represent the HCCC. Factions tear at the fabric of the HCCC, yet they consider themselves the sole legal and moral inheritors of the system in place since well before Henry VIII of England ascended the throne and established the Church of England in the mid 16th Century...................... but which faction has the strongest claim to be inheritors of the "Great Law"? See the blog posting here for further details about the forces that are destined to see the HCCC devolve into a series of squabbling adolescent cliques.
In order to operate a municipality (which is what the Six Nations Reserve is in all but name) requires knowledgeable people who can understand the need to balance the budget, and offer all of the requisite services to the 26,000 or so Haudenosaunee (about half of whom reside on the Reserve). Only a formally educated individual (Grade 12 and preferably some college training) would be in a position to conceptualize the requirements of the issues facing their constituents, and effect a proper solution. Most present Elected Councilors fall into this category. Alas, many in the Hereditary Council do not believe in the value of a "formal" education involving maths and sciences, but rather focus on cultural and language matters as the topics which need to be taught to the youth. The latter simply will not prepare young people for the world that awaits, and by in large will result in their being relegated to marginalized positions by virtue of a lack of skills in the highly technical digital world outside of the immediate boundaries of the insular worlds some create for themselves - or have foisted upon them by well meaning "educators" who will hold back their pupils from competing in a very complex world. Hence "outside advisers" (such as the present legal adviser to the HCCC?) will be needed to bridge the gap. So governing by a group of White folks hired to do the job is the best alternative? What else would work if Six Nations went back to "the old ways"?
So in the following "what if" scenario, what would happen to life at Six Nations if suddenly the Elected Council was replaced by the Hereditary Council? My prediction is utter chaos and a mass exodus - but I guess only time would tell. However this is precisely the specter that hangs over Six Nations at present, since the HCCC are planning a Court challenge to the right of the Elected Council to govern. This is rather ironic since the HCCC do not recognize Canadian or Provincial Courts as having jurisdiction over Six Nations people, the rationale being that the latter are a sovereign people. They have made the assumption, without evidence, that the Six Nations people would rather be governed by the traditional body than the entity recognized by the Indian Act for 91 years, and who have a good track record of being able to manage the many tentacles of a municipal government. So who in the HCCC has knowledge of the water delivery or waste management systems?
Actually one can ask even more fundamental questions such as, "is the HCCC anything more than a shadow or echo of a once powerful system of governing the Six Nations people in place during for example the War of 1812? Is it really the intact lineal descendant of the Councils of that era?" In terms of today, as will be noted, the Mohawk benches are not filled. Those who have been appointed, presumably by Clan Mothers (although many lineages have gone extinct and been replaced by individuals of not only other families, but other Clans) have credentials that are not open to inspection. Hence the is no guarantee that the person appointed is in any way eligible or suitable for the "inherited" role. Most at Six Nations do not know their Clan, and would not know where to turn to find out who represents them in order to petition Council or make a complaint. The old system that served Six Nations well hundreds of years ago is no longer in existence - only a body which most certainly has cultural and linguistic ties to the old ways, but which has not provided effective governance for over 100 years. If it was again parachuted into that role, the harsh reality is that we would not be seeing the intact descendant of that system, but an entity which has of late had only a role (but an unclear one) in pushing forward highly questionable land claims, extorting monies from wind turbine corporations and land developers; but nothing to do with say building a new fire station and ensuring that fire department members have suitable training. That is a whole other ball game and strong arm tactics don't work in these circumstances.
Anyway, the present author could go on ad infinitum about this matter, but in a letter to the Editor of Two Row Times, Elected Councillor Helen Miller has once again been able to "hit the nail on the head" - so here is her take on things, in her own words:
Is HCCC prepared to govern Six Nations?
We all know our community is divided when it comes to governance. But is getting rid of the elected council and turning governance over to the HCCC in the best interest of our community? I don’t mean any disrespect to the HCCC, but it’s been 91 years since the HCCC (a.k.a. Hereditary Chiefs) governed Six Nations. According to the HCCC’s recent newsletter, there’s a move afoot to re-establish some of their own governance structures that existed pre-1924 in preparation for the removal of the elected council. Do we really want our governance to go back 91 years? In all likelihood the governance structures that worked back then won’t even be relevant today.
Six Nations is a completely different world from what our ancestors lived pre-1924. We have a population of over 26,000 people. The elected council has 750 employees to deliver the various programs and services. The elected council monitors the management of an $80 million budget. To protect the interests of Six Nations, the elected council has to keep on top of all the local, regional and national issues. Is the HCCC prepared to do all this?
Furthermore, we know the traditional system of governance is broken. The benches aren’t full and the chiefs who do sit on the benches are divided. It’s the same small group of chiefs and clan mothers who hang around with the HDI. The clan mothers are divided. The Mohawk clan mothers are not even given recognition. When I asked the Haudenosaunee Resource Centre for a list of the clan mothers there was no Mohawk clan mothers listed. Right now the only governance system that is working for the betterment of our community is the elected system.
I’m surprised the HCCC wants to remove the elected council. Since 1991 they have maintained they only wanted to govern the 8 Points of Jurisdiction. The HCCC would certainly have to change the way they do business. No more taking six months to a year to make decisions. No more shutting down for 10 days when someone dies. The HCCC can’t do that if they’re responsible for 750 employees and an $80 million budget. And for sure the HCCC would have to meet more than once a month and treat people equally and justly no matter what their political and religious beliefs and practices. Are they prepared to do all this?
People will tell us they support the traditional system. They support the ceremonies and the longhouses, the mid-winters, etc. But does that mean they would support the HCCC taking over the governance of Six Nations? Detlor claims it does. I disagree. Two years ago, Hazel Hill started a petition asking people to sign in support of the HCCC and very few people signed the petitions that I saw. After a while Hazel pulled the petitions from the stores. Somebody else tried to start a petition but it went nowhere. Some people say the overwhelming support for the land reclamation in Caledonia proved the majority of people supported the HCCC, but far as I know people were there to support the land. That’s why I was there. Other people will say because so few people turn out for the elected council election proves people support the HCCC. I’m of the mind the majority of people don’t support either council. As long as their life is good and their families are taken care of, that’s what matters.
Some people may not like the elected council and the elected system but we need only look around the community to see what the elected council has done for Six Nations. We have a wonderful community, lots of good services and facilities. We have our own Police Service. We have paved roads. We have a housing system that is fair to everyone. We have everything for our young people. Once the Youth & Elder’s Centre is completed we’ll have even more. Our seniors are taken care of.
Clearly the Haudenosaunee people Detlor speaks of are not looking at governance realistically. There would be more benefit to our people and community if the two councils worked together. But if the HCCC’s plan is to launch a court challenge to remove the elected council then our community members deserve to be consulted and deserve nothing less from the HCCC than a comprehensive Plan of Action as to how they plan to govern and to manage the administration.
Councillor Helen Miller
2251 Chiefswood Rd, Ohsweken ON 519 717 2565
2251 Chiefswood Rd, Ohsweken ON 519 717 2565
DeYo.
Thursday, 29 October 2015
Opportunist Ambulance Chasers Try to Scam More Money from the Government over Residential Schools Etc.
In an article entitled Compensation for Sixties Scoop and Day School Abuse, found in "Two Row Times", 28 October 2015, p.4, we learn that some law firm proposes that there are "victims of Canada's assimilation policies through residential schools and other legislative bodies that have fallen through the cracks when it comes to financial compensation". The solution .............. a class action law suit to grab more money from the Canadian taxpayer. Perhaps the election of Trudeau has opened the door to attempts to fleece the taxpayer that never would have flown under the Harper administration.
I have spoken many times in this blog about how controversial the Residential Schools matter is at Six Nations. Many stepped forward to tell stories of supposed woes, garner the sympathy of whoever holds the purse strings, and obtained "compensation" for the pain and suffering they supposedly endured. The party line says that you must all agree that this happened everywhere, not just in remote communities up north, no it was endemic and so all Residential Schools must be tarred with the same brush. The approach worked well at Six Nations with the publication of a book entitled "The Mush Hole", pertaining to the Mohawk Institute in Brantford (actually on the Six Nations Reserve even to this day). However if one looks at the objective facts, and speaks to respected elders who were there and whose stories have NOT been told, you will hear a very different scenario. I have said on more than one occasion, while most will not speak against the party line at "inquiries" and the like, they will to insiders. The most succinct statement of the reality was told to me in this way: "At home we were beaten, had nothing to eat and learned nothing; at school we were beaten, had 3 meals a day, and learned something". To deny these stories is to try to shape the past to fit the common myth - and the truth be damned. Not only this, but most of the teachers at Six Nations in past years were taught at the Mohawk Institute - the story is now so distorted that most are inclined to listen only to those who relay their perceptions of the horrors they claim to have experienced - all other versions are suppressed.
So now some might say that a group of fly by night ambulance chasers are proposing to squeeze more money out of perceived abusers because it is possible that some at Six Nations may have not received enough or even any compensation. Add in something called "Sixties Scoop" and "Day School abuse" where half of the students went home at night, but "were subject to the same life altering abuse as well", and you have the makings of a fine class action law suit. What many seem to fail to realize that many of us across Canada had a rough time at school - it was not only Indian children who experienced brutality at school. I was bullied and abused at Day School - that was indeed the experience of half or more of kids at school in the 50s and 60s, and even into the 80s. I still carry the physical and emotional scars. It was the times, and I don't want a dime in "compensation". The times have changed for the better and methods instituted to ensure what I went through will be far less likely to be foisted on some poor youngster today. Unfortunately there is a group of whiners and complainers who have no ambition and put the blame on everyone and everything but themselves for any misfortunes. A suggestion here would be to take some responsibility and realize that *%it happens and it is how you deal with it that makes you strong - not blood money.
These legal eagles say, as you hear on TV all the time with lawyers offering their personal injury services, that we "will only be paid if you win your case based on a percentage of compensation paid to the client". A cynic here might say that what the lawyers are hyping is that, "you too can also be compensated for 'cultural genocide' and assorted ills, it merely requires you to step forward and sign on the dotted line - what do you have to lose?
It would not be surprising if some would feel contempt for those involved in such questionable actions for monetary gain.
DeYo.
I have spoken many times in this blog about how controversial the Residential Schools matter is at Six Nations. Many stepped forward to tell stories of supposed woes, garner the sympathy of whoever holds the purse strings, and obtained "compensation" for the pain and suffering they supposedly endured. The party line says that you must all agree that this happened everywhere, not just in remote communities up north, no it was endemic and so all Residential Schools must be tarred with the same brush. The approach worked well at Six Nations with the publication of a book entitled "The Mush Hole", pertaining to the Mohawk Institute in Brantford (actually on the Six Nations Reserve even to this day). However if one looks at the objective facts, and speaks to respected elders who were there and whose stories have NOT been told, you will hear a very different scenario. I have said on more than one occasion, while most will not speak against the party line at "inquiries" and the like, they will to insiders. The most succinct statement of the reality was told to me in this way: "At home we were beaten, had nothing to eat and learned nothing; at school we were beaten, had 3 meals a day, and learned something". To deny these stories is to try to shape the past to fit the common myth - and the truth be damned. Not only this, but most of the teachers at Six Nations in past years were taught at the Mohawk Institute - the story is now so distorted that most are inclined to listen only to those who relay their perceptions of the horrors they claim to have experienced - all other versions are suppressed.
So now some might say that a group of fly by night ambulance chasers are proposing to squeeze more money out of perceived abusers because it is possible that some at Six Nations may have not received enough or even any compensation. Add in something called "Sixties Scoop" and "Day School abuse" where half of the students went home at night, but "were subject to the same life altering abuse as well", and you have the makings of a fine class action law suit. What many seem to fail to realize that many of us across Canada had a rough time at school - it was not only Indian children who experienced brutality at school. I was bullied and abused at Day School - that was indeed the experience of half or more of kids at school in the 50s and 60s, and even into the 80s. I still carry the physical and emotional scars. It was the times, and I don't want a dime in "compensation". The times have changed for the better and methods instituted to ensure what I went through will be far less likely to be foisted on some poor youngster today. Unfortunately there is a group of whiners and complainers who have no ambition and put the blame on everyone and everything but themselves for any misfortunes. A suggestion here would be to take some responsibility and realize that *%it happens and it is how you deal with it that makes you strong - not blood money.
These legal eagles say, as you hear on TV all the time with lawyers offering their personal injury services, that we "will only be paid if you win your case based on a percentage of compensation paid to the client". A cynic here might say that what the lawyers are hyping is that, "you too can also be compensated for 'cultural genocide' and assorted ills, it merely requires you to step forward and sign on the dotted line - what do you have to lose?
It would not be surprising if some would feel contempt for those involved in such questionable actions for monetary gain.
DeYo.
Wednesday, 28 October 2015
Continued Threats by HDI and HCCC - Claims of Treaty Rights Etc. Now Recognized as Myths and Fairy Tales - The HDI Outlandish Assertions Fall on Deaf Ears
Well, unsurprisingly, it seems that the once powerful and influential Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), which claimed to speak for the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC), the Hereditary Council replaced by the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) in 1924, is about to sail into the sunset and sink under the weight of its own rhetoric and changing times.
It would not be an understatement to say the not only residents of Caledonia, but also the Provincial and Federal Governments, and even the HCCC itself are getting sick of, or losing faith in, the HDI, which emerged after the Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) / Kanonhstaton reclamation / theft and the brutality, arson and anti - social behaviour on the part of many Six Nations members as the activist - militant group self proclaimed to speak for Six Nations on any matter dealing with "unsurrendered" land (that was in fact sold 170 years ago), and bogus "treaty rights". People are now starting to catch on - rhetoric (attended with non - transparency) and not fact is all they have to offer.
Here I will summarize my take on the events of the last three weeks as seen in the "Sachem", "Turtle Island News" and Two Row Times" newspapers. There is no need here to provide, as I have in all other postings, complete references. The data can be found in the above three newspapers, and in my numerous postings (complete with photographic copies of the actual original documents) below.
Recent Events: HDI is upset because the Province will not negotiate or accommodate or consult with them (or the HCCC) on the following matters:
1) Completing the repairs of the Cayuga Bridge (which the HDI shut down in 2014). The Province maintains that the legally constituted authority to negotiate with them is SNEC - and they are absolutely correct. If the HDI wants to be included they will need to work out things through with SNEC or risk Six Nations be seen as a community divided (which it is), and lose all credibility.
2) Then there is the mega 3000 plus residential homes project along McClung Road to create, eventually, a "second Caledonia" equal in size to the present community. Personally I believe that this would be a disaster, what with one bridge (which also desperately needs to be replaced) and a traffic nightmare on Argyle Street at any time of the day which would rival what one would find anywhere in Los Angeles - and to double the trouble with twice the vehicles crossing the one bridge! So I would love to see this ill conceived project grind to a halt, but the HDI does not have the clout to do it. They tried, using as a pretext the assertion that the archaeology was not properly done. Actually it was. I am very familiar with ASI (Archaeological Services, Incorporated) and they have followed the letter of the law on the matter and have brought in monitors from Six Nations and New Credit - just not the HDI monitors (whose training is questionable and whose demands for payment are embarrassing). At any rate consultation with Aboriginal Communities is a guideline not a standard of practice in archaeology - so by having monitors from both New Credit and Six Nations (just not those with HDI approval) they are actually doing more than is required.
3) A similar situation is brewing at the Tutela Heights residential development project in Brant County.
A Major Problem for the HDI: There is no law or legal precedent or even requirement that HDI be involved in any way. HDI maintains that only they have the connection to the Crown and the governance body which is legitimate. That is only true in a fairy tale world. They say that everything in not only the Haldimand Tract, but Southwestern Ontario is "Treaty land", coming under the supposed "Nanfan Treaty of 1701" and the "Haldimand Proclamation". They even trot out the "Two Row Wampum" arrangement of 1613 to bolster their argument. The problem here is that not one of these entities gives Six Nations any claim to lands beyond the 45,000 plus acres which now comprise the Six Nations Reserve in Tuscarora, Oneida and Onondaga Townships. As I have shown over and over with all the original supporting documentation - the Six Nations claims are a myth, and nothing more. Taking each in turn:
1) The Nanfan document of 1701 is nothing more than a request by 20 Five Nations chiefs that their Sovereign Lord the King of England grant them beaver hunting rights on lands in Southwestern Ontario. A couple of problems here. The document was never given the seal of the then Governor of New York, John Nanfan; nor was it given the Privy Council Seal in England. It is not a treaty, it is a request. Secondly, the Five Nations had no right to request anything in this particular geographical region. After the Five Nations had committed acts of genocide to remove the Wyandotte (Huron), Attiwandaronk (Neutral) and other tribes in the area between 1642 and 1649, by 1696 the Mississauga and their allies had destroyed 8 Haudenosaunee settlements north of Lake Ontario and had taken the lands by conquest from the Five Nations. No group can negotiate for lands that do not belong them.
2) The Haldimand Proclamation of 1784 is not in any legal sense what the HDI is claiming. Southwestern Ontario was Mississauga land in 1784 when Governor Sir Frederick Haldimand purchased the land along the Grand River and allowed the Six Nations and their allies to settled upon these lands, but the title to the lands was vested in the Crown.
3) Going from the sublime to the ridiculous is the supposed "Two Row Wampum" treaty or agreement of 1613. Somewhere, perhaps on the present Onondaga Reserve near Syracuse NY, is a document written in old Dutch supposedly in 1613, but of highly suspect provenance, which is a trade agreement between two Dutchmen (only one of whom can be identified), and four Mohawks whose status is unclear. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that it is a treaty, nor do the signators have authority to make any such arrangement. Somehow this questionable piece of paper became linked to a wampum belt that has two purple rows set on a background of white wampum (shell beads). Its age is unknown, Its provenance is unknown. Its meaning is unknown. However, I would venture to say that many to most at Six Nations believe that this is a valid arrangement between the Crown (despite it being signed long before England took New Netherlands in 1664), and that each purple row represents a vessel - one being a canoe (the Five, later Six, Nations) and the other a ship (the Dutch and later the British Crown). Boiling down the supposed meaning (there being nothing objective to support it) is that the canoe and the ship were to sail independently on their own course not interfering with each other, but interacting to their mutual benefit as befit the circumstances. Sorry not a shred of evidence, but the belief is strong to this day and data or evidence take a back seat to what is believed to be the case - which is also held out as "proof" of a sovereignty arrangement between Six Nations and the Crown - which in fact it does nothing of the sort.
Serious Problems Facing the HDI: So now the HDI is being left out of any consultation process on the bridges along the Grand River, Developments such as the McClung Road Development near Caledonia, and most recently the Tutela Heights Development in Brant County. The Government and the developers are holding their ground this time and in the case of the McClung Development, they have obtained an injunction (Cayuga Court) such that any interference with the project will result in the Ontario Provincial Police being called and the protesters being charged with trespass if they try to impede the developers. This is more or less what happened with DCE, so what is different this time - two things basically. In addition to the fact that the HDI has no legal authority there are some other difficulties they will inevitably face.
First, at long last the County, and the "Little Crown" (Ontario) and the "Big Crown" (Federal Government) are playing hard ball and turning to the law which says they only need to consider any negotiations with SNEC as the proper representatives of the Six Nations people. That is the law.
Second, one might ask why it is not likely that another 2006 take over event will occur at either McClung or Tutela Heights. In a word, geography.
What those who do not live here would not realize is that the DCE property at the south end of Caledonia is within a few minutes of the Reserve and that by driving down 6th Line and taking the dirt road before Argyle Street (old Highway 6) Six Nations reinforcements could stream down to the site in seconds without having to pass through more than a few farms enroute to the protest site. Taking McClung as an example, they would have to find their way to Argyle Street and then get locked in traffic like the rest of us trying to cross the bridge. Even closer access is Stirling Street Bridge which at one time brought traffic from the Reserve to Argyle Street near the Bridge - but that went up in flames during an episode of arson during the 2006 take over of DCE - and it is doubtful that it will ever be rebuilt.
Chiefswood Bridge off Highway 54 (Sutherland Street in Caledonia paralleling the Grand River and leading to McClung about a mile east of the lights) is another access point - but distant. Either way the OPP would have ample opportunity to "discourage" and "disperse" - something not available to them in the 2006 crisis. So in this instance the "phone tree" and social media would not be particularly helpful, and only the most dedicated of souls would venture into such uncertainty where they would not have their neighbours and kinfolk streaming down right behind them. The OPP could send them on "detours" that would highly discourage any organized agglomeration of Six Nations radicals. Here the OPP would be in a position to "shine" and perhaps redeem themselves in the eyes of local residents - something that surely is in their awareness. Any hearty souls who did make it to McClung would probably be met with a lot of angry Caledonians who would be in a position to block the exit of the protesters, and give the OPP the opportunity to arrest the leaders and clip off the head of the snake. All entirely different from the dynamics of 2006.
Also, it has become apparent to many at Six Nations that 2006 created a public relations nightmare and deep wounds. It is questionable whether there would be the same level of support for an event of that nature in 2015 - just as things are beginning to normalize.
Basically the HDI have been partially declawed and defanged, and whatever they do they are likely to run into a "roadblock". Even on the Reserve they are under intense scrutiny by those who see them as lacking in any transparency, and making decisions on their own without Council (HCCC) approval. These are not halcion days for the HDI - these times were in the past. Perhaps some are coming to realize that in order to survive, even the HCCC is going to have to change. Nothing can stay the same from Stone Age times. That is not the way the modern world works - it is more along the lines of adapt or become obsolete and fall by the wayside. This is the danger that the HCCC faces unless it changes to meet the challenges of the times. The HDI would drag them back to maladaptive ways and along paths to meet their ultimate demise. Clearly if HDI is to play a role in the Six Nations community it will need to also change - what it is doing is not working - to continue in this way is called perseveration which is a clear sign of pathology.
DeYo.
It would not be an understatement to say the not only residents of Caledonia, but also the Provincial and Federal Governments, and even the HCCC itself are getting sick of, or losing faith in, the HDI, which emerged after the Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) / Kanonhstaton reclamation / theft and the brutality, arson and anti - social behaviour on the part of many Six Nations members as the activist - militant group self proclaimed to speak for Six Nations on any matter dealing with "unsurrendered" land (that was in fact sold 170 years ago), and bogus "treaty rights". People are now starting to catch on - rhetoric (attended with non - transparency) and not fact is all they have to offer.
Here I will summarize my take on the events of the last three weeks as seen in the "Sachem", "Turtle Island News" and Two Row Times" newspapers. There is no need here to provide, as I have in all other postings, complete references. The data can be found in the above three newspapers, and in my numerous postings (complete with photographic copies of the actual original documents) below.
Recent Events: HDI is upset because the Province will not negotiate or accommodate or consult with them (or the HCCC) on the following matters:
1) Completing the repairs of the Cayuga Bridge (which the HDI shut down in 2014). The Province maintains that the legally constituted authority to negotiate with them is SNEC - and they are absolutely correct. If the HDI wants to be included they will need to work out things through with SNEC or risk Six Nations be seen as a community divided (which it is), and lose all credibility.
2) Then there is the mega 3000 plus residential homes project along McClung Road to create, eventually, a "second Caledonia" equal in size to the present community. Personally I believe that this would be a disaster, what with one bridge (which also desperately needs to be replaced) and a traffic nightmare on Argyle Street at any time of the day which would rival what one would find anywhere in Los Angeles - and to double the trouble with twice the vehicles crossing the one bridge! So I would love to see this ill conceived project grind to a halt, but the HDI does not have the clout to do it. They tried, using as a pretext the assertion that the archaeology was not properly done. Actually it was. I am very familiar with ASI (Archaeological Services, Incorporated) and they have followed the letter of the law on the matter and have brought in monitors from Six Nations and New Credit - just not the HDI monitors (whose training is questionable and whose demands for payment are embarrassing). At any rate consultation with Aboriginal Communities is a guideline not a standard of practice in archaeology - so by having monitors from both New Credit and Six Nations (just not those with HDI approval) they are actually doing more than is required.
3) A similar situation is brewing at the Tutela Heights residential development project in Brant County.
A Major Problem for the HDI: There is no law or legal precedent or even requirement that HDI be involved in any way. HDI maintains that only they have the connection to the Crown and the governance body which is legitimate. That is only true in a fairy tale world. They say that everything in not only the Haldimand Tract, but Southwestern Ontario is "Treaty land", coming under the supposed "Nanfan Treaty of 1701" and the "Haldimand Proclamation". They even trot out the "Two Row Wampum" arrangement of 1613 to bolster their argument. The problem here is that not one of these entities gives Six Nations any claim to lands beyond the 45,000 plus acres which now comprise the Six Nations Reserve in Tuscarora, Oneida and Onondaga Townships. As I have shown over and over with all the original supporting documentation - the Six Nations claims are a myth, and nothing more. Taking each in turn:
1) The Nanfan document of 1701 is nothing more than a request by 20 Five Nations chiefs that their Sovereign Lord the King of England grant them beaver hunting rights on lands in Southwestern Ontario. A couple of problems here. The document was never given the seal of the then Governor of New York, John Nanfan; nor was it given the Privy Council Seal in England. It is not a treaty, it is a request. Secondly, the Five Nations had no right to request anything in this particular geographical region. After the Five Nations had committed acts of genocide to remove the Wyandotte (Huron), Attiwandaronk (Neutral) and other tribes in the area between 1642 and 1649, by 1696 the Mississauga and their allies had destroyed 8 Haudenosaunee settlements north of Lake Ontario and had taken the lands by conquest from the Five Nations. No group can negotiate for lands that do not belong them.
2) The Haldimand Proclamation of 1784 is not in any legal sense what the HDI is claiming. Southwestern Ontario was Mississauga land in 1784 when Governor Sir Frederick Haldimand purchased the land along the Grand River and allowed the Six Nations and their allies to settled upon these lands, but the title to the lands was vested in the Crown.
3) Going from the sublime to the ridiculous is the supposed "Two Row Wampum" treaty or agreement of 1613. Somewhere, perhaps on the present Onondaga Reserve near Syracuse NY, is a document written in old Dutch supposedly in 1613, but of highly suspect provenance, which is a trade agreement between two Dutchmen (only one of whom can be identified), and four Mohawks whose status is unclear. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that it is a treaty, nor do the signators have authority to make any such arrangement. Somehow this questionable piece of paper became linked to a wampum belt that has two purple rows set on a background of white wampum (shell beads). Its age is unknown, Its provenance is unknown. Its meaning is unknown. However, I would venture to say that many to most at Six Nations believe that this is a valid arrangement between the Crown (despite it being signed long before England took New Netherlands in 1664), and that each purple row represents a vessel - one being a canoe (the Five, later Six, Nations) and the other a ship (the Dutch and later the British Crown). Boiling down the supposed meaning (there being nothing objective to support it) is that the canoe and the ship were to sail independently on their own course not interfering with each other, but interacting to their mutual benefit as befit the circumstances. Sorry not a shred of evidence, but the belief is strong to this day and data or evidence take a back seat to what is believed to be the case - which is also held out as "proof" of a sovereignty arrangement between Six Nations and the Crown - which in fact it does nothing of the sort.
Serious Problems Facing the HDI: So now the HDI is being left out of any consultation process on the bridges along the Grand River, Developments such as the McClung Road Development near Caledonia, and most recently the Tutela Heights Development in Brant County. The Government and the developers are holding their ground this time and in the case of the McClung Development, they have obtained an injunction (Cayuga Court) such that any interference with the project will result in the Ontario Provincial Police being called and the protesters being charged with trespass if they try to impede the developers. This is more or less what happened with DCE, so what is different this time - two things basically. In addition to the fact that the HDI has no legal authority there are some other difficulties they will inevitably face.
First, at long last the County, and the "Little Crown" (Ontario) and the "Big Crown" (Federal Government) are playing hard ball and turning to the law which says they only need to consider any negotiations with SNEC as the proper representatives of the Six Nations people. That is the law.
Second, one might ask why it is not likely that another 2006 take over event will occur at either McClung or Tutela Heights. In a word, geography.
What those who do not live here would not realize is that the DCE property at the south end of Caledonia is within a few minutes of the Reserve and that by driving down 6th Line and taking the dirt road before Argyle Street (old Highway 6) Six Nations reinforcements could stream down to the site in seconds without having to pass through more than a few farms enroute to the protest site. Taking McClung as an example, they would have to find their way to Argyle Street and then get locked in traffic like the rest of us trying to cross the bridge. Even closer access is Stirling Street Bridge which at one time brought traffic from the Reserve to Argyle Street near the Bridge - but that went up in flames during an episode of arson during the 2006 take over of DCE - and it is doubtful that it will ever be rebuilt.
Chiefswood Bridge off Highway 54 (Sutherland Street in Caledonia paralleling the Grand River and leading to McClung about a mile east of the lights) is another access point - but distant. Either way the OPP would have ample opportunity to "discourage" and "disperse" - something not available to them in the 2006 crisis. So in this instance the "phone tree" and social media would not be particularly helpful, and only the most dedicated of souls would venture into such uncertainty where they would not have their neighbours and kinfolk streaming down right behind them. The OPP could send them on "detours" that would highly discourage any organized agglomeration of Six Nations radicals. Here the OPP would be in a position to "shine" and perhaps redeem themselves in the eyes of local residents - something that surely is in their awareness. Any hearty souls who did make it to McClung would probably be met with a lot of angry Caledonians who would be in a position to block the exit of the protesters, and give the OPP the opportunity to arrest the leaders and clip off the head of the snake. All entirely different from the dynamics of 2006.
Also, it has become apparent to many at Six Nations that 2006 created a public relations nightmare and deep wounds. It is questionable whether there would be the same level of support for an event of that nature in 2015 - just as things are beginning to normalize.
Basically the HDI have been partially declawed and defanged, and whatever they do they are likely to run into a "roadblock". Even on the Reserve they are under intense scrutiny by those who see them as lacking in any transparency, and making decisions on their own without Council (HCCC) approval. These are not halcion days for the HDI - these times were in the past. Perhaps some are coming to realize that in order to survive, even the HCCC is going to have to change. Nothing can stay the same from Stone Age times. That is not the way the modern world works - it is more along the lines of adapt or become obsolete and fall by the wayside. This is the danger that the HCCC faces unless it changes to meet the challenges of the times. The HDI would drag them back to maladaptive ways and along paths to meet their ultimate demise. Clearly if HDI is to play a role in the Six Nations community it will need to also change - what it is doing is not working - to continue in this way is called perseveration which is a clear sign of pathology.
DeYo.
Friday, 25 September 2015
More Threats by Men's Fire, This Time to "Shut Down" Enbridge Pipeline Work
Well, if it isn't Highway 6, it will be something else. In what seems to be a rather pathetic attempt to keep themselves "relevant", Men's Fire have decided that they must be consulted or dire consequences will ensue. Of course the target is not some trailer park in Drumbo, but the mega wealthy Enbridge's number 9 oil pipeline. The route of the pipeline is shown below:
A close up view of the above would show that Line 9b does not dip anywhere below Highway 403. In other words it does not pass through Six Nations Territory. However, that is of no concern to Men's Fire and like minds - through some twisted logic Six Nations still has a stake in lands that they sold 150 or more years ago.
One issue that will surface, because it always does, is that this is aboriginal land. It is not. The Haldimand Tract was granted to Six Nations for their use, but the title is vested and is still vested in the Crown. The fact that Six Nations have no business to put their noses in matters outside of IR 40 the Six Nations Reserve just simply will not sink in - largely because their claims go unchallenged. No one in Government (Provincial or Federal) has the guts to come out and say to Six Nations that, "you alienated all rights, title and deed to these lands 200 years ago and do not have any legal standing relating to the lands in this area". No one in authority seems willing to tell the truth and challenge the thugs who insist that if they don't get their way, all hell will break loose. It is total insanity, but welcome to politically correct Canada.
In "Turtle Island News" of 23 September 2015 is an article entitled, Enbridge in talks with Six Nations Men's Fire over Line 9 (p.7). Here we are informed that Men's Fire wish to be informed about "pipeline safety and integrity digs" - routine operations for Enbridge. Recently members of Men's Fire met with representatives of Enbridge, in Brantford, to talk about spill safety regarding the company's plan to reverse the flow of oil in its Line 9B pipeline that runs through Haudenosaunee Territory.
Two concerns immediately come to the fore. First, as noted, Six Nations have absolutely no rights relating to what Enbridge does or does not do. Secondly, we are on the verge of hypocrisy here when Men's Fire concern themselves with matters that are actually providing a safe means of transport of oil near Six Nations lands. Surely they are aware that oil rumbles across the aged railway bridge every day on tracks that I, based on personal inspection, would say are "marginal". What if the whole trainload hit a defective spot in the tracks and all the tanker cars ended up in the Grand River one mile east of the Six Nations Reserve? This scenario is better than a well maintained pipeline which, by comparison to railway transport, is many times more safe and secure. The big picture seems to elude Men's Fire. They are well aware that the railway which runs through the area where the Stirling Street Bridge was until it was torched by Six Nations activists in 2006 (and has not, and will not be repaired). The political fall out of addressing anything to do with the railway makes it an unlikely target at present. No one ever seems to think of the monumental environmental disaster which is immanent on their doorstep, but would rather focus on politically expedient topics like pipelines where there is already a host of militant groups that will provide them with support.
Men's Fire question, 'Who gave them the authority to go through our territories?' He [B.M.] said there needs to be an emergency management team in place, manned by Six Nations [presumably paid by Enbridge] people, in case of a spill. 'The people here in the community; they're the ones who know the layout of the land. They know the medicines it (an oil spill) could harm. They know how it could impact the environment. Our people know that.' Really, the average Six Nations person has the expertise to address the effects of an oil spill - how did that come about? Who knows the "layout of the land" in the area north of Highway 403? There are "regular Canadians" who would be in a far better position to have the knowledge to cooperate effectively with Enbridge. Six Nations has a serious problem with the environment on the Reserve - perhaps that should be addressed before claiming some sort of magical expertise to understand the impact of a potential oil spill outside of their own land.
Of course, Men's Fire get to the threats. They told Enbridge that if they don't comply with Men's Fire, they'd shut down the reversal project. That would be an illegal act, and if anyone had any guts they would simply obtain a Court Injunction and have the OPP arrest any who violate the terms of the Injunction. Line 9 is a long way from "reinforcements" available at the Reserve, so it may be a hollow threat - except for the fact that corporations have been known to comply with Men's Fire or HDI (Haudenosaunee Development Institute) since it is politically risky to challenge Indians, the perceived "guardians of the land" (take a trip to the Reserve and see the reality about how well the term "guardians of the land" fits).
Then, enter factionalism. Men's Fire have not been paid for this "required" work. However, B.M., was under the assumption that HDI (Haudenosaunee Development Institute) did get consulting fees (from Endridge). In other words payola has already crossed palms, but Men's Fire did not see any of it. The Director of the HDI denies that any negotiations with Enbridge have taken place, and notes that Men's Fire have not contacted them about the matter of acting in the role of an emergency management plans. The finger of blame was also pointed at the group of Six Nations working with developer Steve Charest (whose project is at Eagle's Nest in Brantford).
As to Enbridge, they noted that the integrity digs have already been completed.
All in all, plenty of blame in relation to a non - issue, once again stirring up the simmering pot at Six Nations.
DeYo.
A close up view of the above would show that Line 9b does not dip anywhere below Highway 403. In other words it does not pass through Six Nations Territory. However, that is of no concern to Men's Fire and like minds - through some twisted logic Six Nations still has a stake in lands that they sold 150 or more years ago.
One issue that will surface, because it always does, is that this is aboriginal land. It is not. The Haldimand Tract was granted to Six Nations for their use, but the title is vested and is still vested in the Crown. The fact that Six Nations have no business to put their noses in matters outside of IR 40 the Six Nations Reserve just simply will not sink in - largely because their claims go unchallenged. No one in Government (Provincial or Federal) has the guts to come out and say to Six Nations that, "you alienated all rights, title and deed to these lands 200 years ago and do not have any legal standing relating to the lands in this area". No one in authority seems willing to tell the truth and challenge the thugs who insist that if they don't get their way, all hell will break loose. It is total insanity, but welcome to politically correct Canada.
In "Turtle Island News" of 23 September 2015 is an article entitled, Enbridge in talks with Six Nations Men's Fire over Line 9 (p.7). Here we are informed that Men's Fire wish to be informed about "pipeline safety and integrity digs" - routine operations for Enbridge. Recently members of Men's Fire met with representatives of Enbridge, in Brantford, to talk about spill safety regarding the company's plan to reverse the flow of oil in its Line 9B pipeline that runs through Haudenosaunee Territory.
Two concerns immediately come to the fore. First, as noted, Six Nations have absolutely no rights relating to what Enbridge does or does not do. Secondly, we are on the verge of hypocrisy here when Men's Fire concern themselves with matters that are actually providing a safe means of transport of oil near Six Nations lands. Surely they are aware that oil rumbles across the aged railway bridge every day on tracks that I, based on personal inspection, would say are "marginal". What if the whole trainload hit a defective spot in the tracks and all the tanker cars ended up in the Grand River one mile east of the Six Nations Reserve? This scenario is better than a well maintained pipeline which, by comparison to railway transport, is many times more safe and secure. The big picture seems to elude Men's Fire. They are well aware that the railway which runs through the area where the Stirling Street Bridge was until it was torched by Six Nations activists in 2006 (and has not, and will not be repaired). The political fall out of addressing anything to do with the railway makes it an unlikely target at present. No one ever seems to think of the monumental environmental disaster which is immanent on their doorstep, but would rather focus on politically expedient topics like pipelines where there is already a host of militant groups that will provide them with support.
Men's Fire question, 'Who gave them the authority to go through our territories?' He [B.M.] said there needs to be an emergency management team in place, manned by Six Nations [presumably paid by Enbridge] people, in case of a spill. 'The people here in the community; they're the ones who know the layout of the land. They know the medicines it (an oil spill) could harm. They know how it could impact the environment. Our people know that.' Really, the average Six Nations person has the expertise to address the effects of an oil spill - how did that come about? Who knows the "layout of the land" in the area north of Highway 403? There are "regular Canadians" who would be in a far better position to have the knowledge to cooperate effectively with Enbridge. Six Nations has a serious problem with the environment on the Reserve - perhaps that should be addressed before claiming some sort of magical expertise to understand the impact of a potential oil spill outside of their own land.
Of course, Men's Fire get to the threats. They told Enbridge that if they don't comply with Men's Fire, they'd shut down the reversal project. That would be an illegal act, and if anyone had any guts they would simply obtain a Court Injunction and have the OPP arrest any who violate the terms of the Injunction. Line 9 is a long way from "reinforcements" available at the Reserve, so it may be a hollow threat - except for the fact that corporations have been known to comply with Men's Fire or HDI (Haudenosaunee Development Institute) since it is politically risky to challenge Indians, the perceived "guardians of the land" (take a trip to the Reserve and see the reality about how well the term "guardians of the land" fits).
Then, enter factionalism. Men's Fire have not been paid for this "required" work. However, B.M., was under the assumption that HDI (Haudenosaunee Development Institute) did get consulting fees (from Endridge). In other words payola has already crossed palms, but Men's Fire did not see any of it. The Director of the HDI denies that any negotiations with Enbridge have taken place, and notes that Men's Fire have not contacted them about the matter of acting in the role of an emergency management plans. The finger of blame was also pointed at the group of Six Nations working with developer Steve Charest (whose project is at Eagle's Nest in Brantford).
As to Enbridge, they noted that the integrity digs have already been completed.
All in all, plenty of blame in relation to a non - issue, once again stirring up the simmering pot at Six Nations.
DeYo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)