There is generally the belief that the reason why land claims do not get settled and disputes with the Canadian Government are still lingering, is entirely the fault of the Federal or Provincial Governments. In fact, in many or most instances, the Government would be only too happy to get things settled - it is to their advantage - but they run up against what can become an insurmountable barrier - factionalism at Six Nations.
It should be noted that factionalism is not something seen only or largely at Six Nations. From the earliest of days of settlement, soon after 1784, factionalism reared its ugly head at Tyendinaga, Mohawk Territory (near Deseronto, Hastings County). It came to a head when in or about 1800 the parties supporting Chief John Deserontyon and those supporting Chief Isaac Hill got into a series of physical altercations, which on one occasion resulted in the murder of three members of one family (Claus). The then Indian Agent, John Ferguson, was called in to investigate the matter and the lengthy proceedings of this work illustrate perhaps better than any other document, the extreme factionalism there at that time. Many Band members, disgusted at the dissension, eventually moved to Six Nations, the largest of these migrations being in the 1830s as "Bay of Quinte Mohawks". The problem was, things were not much better in their new home.
Serious schisms and disagreements between groups are nothing new to Six Nations either. As a matter of fact, evidence of it can be found as far back as the records go, for example between the supporters of Chief Joseph Brant and the young warriors who disagreed with his policies (e.g., allowing Whites to settle on the Reserve). An example of the constant fractiousness pertains to the events of 1817 where riots and recriminations peaked (another "peak" period being the 1830s). A litany of complaints were flooding into the offices of the staff of the Indian Department. In 1815 Chief Francis Cotter and others of the Upper Mohawks formerly of Canajoharie, NY complained to the Government Indian agents and Council that the Lower Mohawks, formerly of Ft. Hunter (Tiononderoge) NY were discriminating against them. It was at this time that his mother was visciously assaulted. Acrimonious disputes arose time and time again and it is hard for someone at present to get a good handle on the true reasons. Things became so serious that two years later, in 1817, the grandson of Chief Joseph Brant, Isaac Brant Jr., was killed when one of these disputes got out of hand. Cotter became so disenchanted with matters that he and his family picked up stakes and moved south to join the Wyandots of Anderdon Township near Detroit.
From what the records can tell us, it seems that in the early days of the Confederacy there were few major disputes between the Confederacy Hereditary Chiefs who were representatives at the Grand Council in Onondaga near Syracuse NY, and the local chiefs. The Village (Pine Tree) Chiefs such as Joseph Brant tended to hold power at the local level, and this was not challenged by the Hereditary Chiefs - but throughout time, various groups would emerge to support one side of a dispute or another - say one chief over another. When the Six Nations moved to the Grand River the disputes were present, but kept under control by having one Chief assigned to speak for all Six Nations (he was given power of attorney in 1796 over land and financial matters). Such was the respect by all parties, both Native and non-Native that Chief Joseph Brant commanded. This in part may be because he was married to the daughter of Tekariogen, the head Chief of the Turtle Clan, and whose name always appeared at the top of any deed from the Six Nations. When Brant died, a power vacuum resulted and there was no single individual who could in even a modest way command the respect that followed Chief Brant.
Chief Brant led more by charisma than force, but when the powerful leaders were taken out of the equation, their respective societies fell back into factional disputes. An example of where factionalism can take us, can be found in the events at a Mohawk Reserve, Akwesasne, in 1990. The events are best described by a witness to the conflict, Douglas M. George-Kanentiio in his book, Iroquois on Fire: A Voice from the Mohawk Nation, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 2006, describing the "civil discord caused by infighting". Basically for years the people had been arguing over any of a number of issues, but some "debates" were so heated that the "pot boiled over". There were more casinos at Akwesasne than anywhere but Las Vegas and New Jersey. There was an anti- gambling and pro-gambling faction, and the acrimony grew since organised crime had followed in the wake of the introduction of slot machines, and drug wars were also on the horizon. Thuggery, bribes, coercion, payola, vigilantism reigned supreme there. Then "drive - by - shootings, physical assaults, and constant verbal threats" (p. 104) became par for the course. Some had no qualms about using extreme violence to press their case. Things came to a head in 1990 when anarchy replaced the rule of law. Then out came the automatic assault weapons. George-Kanentiio lists the weapons available at Akwesasne in the 1990s. These included, "weapons ranging from Uzis to at least one .50-caliber machine gun, modified Mini-14s, AK-47 automatics, grenades, and a host of handguns" (p. 108). No one was safe. Many went across the River to Cornwall Ontario to seek the protection of the Government. Others watched as the fabric of their community was torn apart as arson and gun battles intensified, and people died in the contest. George-Kanentiio described it as "the curse of factionalism" (p. 127).
Factionalism is nothing new to the Mohawk community of Kanesatake (Oka), in the 1880s the problems became acute enough that some families left Kanehsatake to move to Gibson (Wahta) in the Muskoka District on Ontario (where their descendants live to this day). As George-Kanentiio notes, in the same year as the Akwesasne flare up, 1990, the Kanehsatake (Oka) Mohawk community was riddled with the same problems, and the factions enlisted the assistance of the experienced Akwesasne warriors. The result, among others, was the shooting death of Corporal Marcel LeMay of the Surte du Quebec. If Six Nations is not careful, the effects of these sorts of internal divisions may be replayed here. We need to learn from history.
So, given the pervasiveness of factionalism in Iroquois communities, is it any surprise that to this day, at Six Nations, there is a chaotic set of groups each claiming that they should have the say in relation to this or that issue? By far the most serious split is between the elected council of chiefs and the hereditary council of chiefs. If one were to point to the most pressing split which has most adversely impacted the ability to deal effectively with various Government agencies, these two stand out head and shoulders over all the rest.
In 1924 after a flood of petitions from the "progressives" at Six Nations, and realising that the council then in place seemed unable to work with officials in a productive way, the Federal Government used the provisions of the Indian Act to put locks on the Longhouse and oust the Hereditary Council who were spokespersons for the "conservatives". They were replaced by an Elected Council. To this day both groups still exist and each claims the right to speak for Six Nations on all important matters. The reality of this situation is that the Government and others do not know who to negotiate with. The Elected Council is the legal authority according to Canadian law, but the Hereditary Council claims a moral right in that they have never accepted the authority of the Elected Council. To them, they possess authority from the Great Law, and the "Good Message" (Gaiwi:yo:h), which supersedes all else. See, William N. Fenton, The Great Law and the Longhouse: A Political History of the Iroquois Confederacy, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1998.
This factional dispute did not go away after 1924, it escallated where members of the Hereditary Chiefs padlocked the Council House where the Elected Council met. Apparently things became very heated, and ultimately the two groups resorted to the Courts. In Isaac et al. vs. Davey et al., 4 October 1974: This
action requires the resolution of a dispute between two groups of Indians of
the Six Nations residing on the Six Nations Reserve near Brantford. The
plaintiffs, who are or were members of the elected Council of the Six Nations
Band, support the form of government by elected Council pursuant to the Indian
Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6, and claim that the Council is lawfully entitled
to govern the reserve. The defendants support the traditional form of
government by hereditary chiefs and claim that the hereditary chiefs are still
the lawful government of the Six Nations Confederacy, which they assert owns in
fee simple the lands occupied by its members. See here for the complete document. Despite the ruling that, Considering the powers of Parliament to legislate in relation to
Indians and lands reserved for Indians under head 24 of s. 91 of the British North America Act, 1867, I find no provision in the Indian Act relevant to this case that is rendered inoperative by the kind of discrimination to which the Canadian Bill of Rights relates. In particular, its provisions for the election of councillors and for government of the band by the elected Council are in my opinion valid and operative the HCCC continues to ignore any ruling that is not in its favour - even from the Supreme Court of Canada.
So to this day the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) continue to "duke it out" in almost every conceivable matter. Over the years there have been repeated attempts to find common ground and to get the two groups to sit at the table together and agree on something. Generally one or the other party walks away, and nothing is accomplished. So it generally falls to the Elected Council to somehow try to do everything from try to find an acceptable way to get a water filtration system established, to putting forward initiatives such as the McKenzie Meadows Project, to negotiating with the Federal Government over land claims. With few exceptions, either the NCCC or one of their "agencies" will try to thwart the work that SNEC has done or is attempting to do.
In considering the role of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council, one must understand that many groups claim authority under the HCCC, then become virtually autonomous groups that develop their own agenda and act accordingly. I have already blogged about the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) who claim the right to negotiate with any party whomsoever in not only the Grand River Tract, but all of Southern Ontario, and to collect "fees" and assert their authority with a bulldozer or whatever will get the job done. If the developer has been told that SNEC is the body who has legitimate authority, and they decide to try and circumvent the HDI, they do so at their own risk. Then, even when a developer attempts to play by the Six Nations "rules", it guarantees little. In 2008, as reported by Turtle Island News (see here) while attempting to develop lands in the Johnson Settlement, developer Steve Charest, while attempting to get the HDI to outline precisely what was required to avoid a work stoppage, another group known as the Men's Fire stepped forward and claimed jurisdiction. They, as with the HDI, are affiliated with the HCCC. So even if one were to accept that it is necessary to deal with the HCCC as opposed to SNEC (the latter having largely turned land development matters over to HCCC after the "Caledonia crisis"), which group affiliated with HCCC is the "proper" and "authorized" party with whom to open discussions? It is interesting to note that right up to November 2013, the same Steve Charest is still a land developer in Brantford, but has allied himself with two Six Nations members, Bryan Porter (architect) and Steve Williams (former Six Nations police officer), but is still facing protests from Men's Fire and others re his Birkett Lane (Erie Ave.) property. What a confusing situation. Would any of this be faced by developers in say Richmond Hill. The answer is no. This begs the question as to why developers would bother with attempting any project in the Grand River Watershed (especially in communities surrounding the present day Six Nations Reserve), when costly work stoppages could occur at any time at any stage in the work.
Another group claiming authority under the HCCC are the Mohawk Workers who have taken over Kanata Tourism Village site, a former educational center located across from the landfill "mountain" along Mohawk Street. It is unclear who is paying the rent, or utilities or even whether their occupation is legal - but they soldier on. Their primary focus at present is in overseeing the return of the Burtch lands (a contested part of the Surrender of 1841, 1844), including the perceived Government responsibility to clean up the site of any environmentally hazardous materials that is part of the plan. They appear to be proposing that the Mohawk have special rights beyond those of general Six Nations members. Bill Squires and Jason Bowman (latter non-Native as far as I know) are the major players here. See here for the dissension being caused by the actions of this group.
This brings us to the Men's Fire, also a group claiming authority under the HCCC. The above article and comments give a flavour as to what the group is about - what its supposed mandate was, and how their "work" has morphed. The most recent effort was to support a young woman who was a probationary employee (now former) of the Niagara Penninsula Aboriginal Area Management Board (NPAAMB) with offices at the Oneida Business Park along Highway 6. G.T., who had three weeks service, claimed that her firing was due to the executive director punishing her for attending the 17 October 2013 blockade. G.T. left during work hours. The director claims this is "insubordination". G.T. put up signs in front of the business park such as "Extreme Abuse of Power!" What I cannot understand in all this though is that, "Six Nations Men's Fire helped Gina Thomas shut down NPAAMB offices" (Turtle Island News, October 30 2013, p. 7). The Men's Fire are also known as Hodiskeagehda. A statement of their perceived role and rights can be found here.
A good example of the militancy and intransigence of some of the members of the Men's Fire can be seen in the article, "Six Nations blocks Highway 6 in support of Elsipogotog FN" (Turtle Island News, 23 October 2013, p. 2). Here the reporter said that, Bill Monture, a member of the Six Nations Men's Fire, said the situation reminded him of the support that went out across the country when Six Nations was raided by the OPP during the Caledonia reclamation in 2006. 'We are standing with our brothers and sisters in New Brunswick', he said. 'We all need to be unified at this point. People have got to realize, the government's not our friend. Never has been and never will be'. The bold print is that of the present author. Now the above Bill Monture (not to be confused with the incumbent Bill Montour), although a member of the Hereditary Confederacy Chief's Council, is running for Chief of the Six Nations Elected Council. One wonders what would happen if a radical member of the Hereditary faction were to become chief of the Elected faction. The mind boggles.
Another complication arose very recently in relation to the development on Erie Avenue in what was the "Eagle's Nest Tract", one of the areas suject to a Six Nations land claim. Protocol now demands that everyone go through "due process" (the HCCC and the HDI) before proceeding with new development of this nature. So here, The Men's Fire, made up primarilly of Mohawks, were upset that another Mohawk group, the Mohawk Workers, was securing a deal without their involvement (Two Row Times, November 6th, 2013, p. 3).
Factionalism runs so deep and criss crosses in so many directions, it is difficult to see any sort of calm resolution to such matters. This was precisely what all candidates for the role of Elected Chief said in a recent candidates debate with, all five candidates calling for unity and an end to the factionalism (Two Row Times, November 6th, 2013, p. 4).
Earlier, on 14 July 2009, Councillor Helen Miller, penned a Letter to the Editor of the Brantford Expositor, wherein she argues that indeed factionalism is at the root core of the reasons why developers and more or less everyone else are confused as to who speaks for Six Nations (see here). Surely any rational person would agree that the old expression, "Too many chiefs, not enough Indians" applies here. At any time anyone may pop out of the woodwork and claim that they are "in charge". This is sheer chaos.
Miller believes that, "Only elected council can speak for Six Nations". Of course this makes excellent sense because these individuals are accountable to their constituents and can be voted out of office if their performance is substandard. In theory the Hereditary Council is responsible to the Clan Mothers who appointed them. In practise, various subgroups from within the HCCC tend to go their own way, and there does not seem to be any monitoring or accountability. In days gone by, a Chief would be "dehorned" by the Clan Mother who appointed him should he act in a manner unbecoming a chief, or prove lazy or ineffective. However today, appointments tend to be for life. How can one trust the "product"? If one were to be a bit cynical and a bit blunt, then when putting the Hereditary system of today under the microscope, it has in many ways fallen apart. Chiefs are being borrowed from ineligible families and even clans. One of the chiefs of the Mohawk is of the Ball Clan. The traditional Mohawks had a Turtle. Wolf and Bear Clan only. The old ways are eroding, the lament being that it is just not like it was. Finding suitable people for all roles in the Longhouse is more and more difficult, and who is overseeing the process?
One cannot legitimately compare the Hereditary Council today to what would have been in place say in the mid 1800s. Even a casual reading of Shimony's well respected work on conservatism at Six Nations in the mid 1900s shows how far the system has strayed from earlier days. See Annemarie Anrod Shimony, Conservatism among the Iroquois at the Six Nations Reserve, Syracuse, Syracuse University Press, 1994 (reprint from 1961). Even when Seth Newhouse wrote his history of the Six Nations Confederacy, some of the practises of the day (e.g., ceremonies) were remembered differently by different informats - such as John A. Gibson (Seneca). See, Seth Newhouse, Cosmogony of DeKanawidas Government of the Iroquois Confederacy. The Original Literal Historical Narratives of the Iroquois Confederacy (National Archives, MG19, F26, 1885). Even here though, there were "vacancies" and chiefships that belonged to families in the U.S., so the process of moving away from the "old ways" had begun a long time past. This is evident in Edward M. Chadwick, The People of the Longhouse, London, Church of England Publishing, 1897 with his list of all 50 chiefs (or chiefly positions) circa 1870 to circa 1895.
Returning to Miller's above letter, she states boldly, every week a different group of people springs up claiming to speak on behalf of Six Nations. She emphasises how for example the Men's Fire, or Ruby Montour were not elected or authorised by Six Nations to speak on their behalf. Nor is the HDI supported by the elected council or the community at large. Councillor Miller believes that it is the media who give these people coverage on the front page, and it becomes essentially attention seeking behaviour. She believes that the majority of Six Nations are fed up with protests, the smoke shops along Highway 6, and so on. She described the process whereby after Caledonia, the Elected Council gave over the mandate to negotiate for the Plank Road lands and other claims, and to take responsibility for the barricades at Douglas Creek Estates - thus the Elected Council had largely backed away from matters involving land claims. However by 2009, when no progress was forthcoming, the Elected Council reinstated the 1995 land claim litigation, but also wished to negotiate at the same time - seeing these as not being mutually exclusive.
The mind simply boggles at the "complexity" at Six Nations, and it is understandable why so many on and off the Reserve are left scratching their heads time and time again. Who is in charge? Who does one go to when one wants something done? And this is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the cross current of factions at Six Nations! I have not yet mentioned the Mohawk Warriors since this group is largely centred elsewhere (e.g., Akwesasne) - but arrive at Six Nations when their "special talents" are needed. Their flag, a common sight at Six Nations, has come to symbolize resistance, armed or otherwise. Perhaps they "deserve" their own blog post.
DeYo.
Wednesday 6 November 2013
Monday 4 November 2013
Do the Six Nations and Aboriginal People Have a Special Relationship to the Environment Beyond that of their Non-Native Neighbours?
It is believed by many in the population at large that aboriginal Americans are in possession of some sort of spiritual connection with all things in the environment, and especially with the land and living things that sustain them. Perhaps this is true, but surely only in part. I certainly "get" the concept of the "three sisters" or "life sustainers", and the long history that this conceptualization has had on the culture. It would be folly to argue that Six Nations do not have a special connection to the land they consider to be aboriginal. Douglas George-Kanentiio has spoken eloquently on the matter. He summarizes things in, a singular belief common to all Haudenosaunee, namely that which exists has spirit, and that which has spirit must be addressed in thought, prayer, and action. With this cardinal rule the Haudenosaunee developed a culture which was distinct in that it enabled humans to physically prosper without inflicting harm on the natural world (p. 40).
However, in the practical world, a fellow up the road, on the Reserve, was allowing builders to dump construction waste such as asphalt shingles with nails, on his land for a fee. The matter received considerable coverage in the local Indian newspapers. To their credit, many residents pointed out that this goes against the responsibility of Six Nations people to be guardians and stewards of the land. The Great Law (Kayenhera:koa) speaks of the need to consider the 7 generations that will follow before committing acts that might impact these descendants. However there are other such incidents too which make it pretty clear that often there is a large gap between the ideal and the real. The ditching of cars is all too well known by all.
So in the ideal, Native peoples have a special relationship with the land, and would or should not defile mother earth. This is in the ideal, but meet the real. One anthropologist followed (I will leave the tribal name blank here) peoples around during their winter hunt. He tallied all of the items they left behind at each temporary camp within their traditional lands. What he recorded was shocking, certainly in the 1980s when the research was done. The refuse included all sorts of imperishable items, including disposable baby diapers. Nasty.
Doubtless many Native and non-Native appologists would attribute the above examples to the corroding influence of White culture. There is a major problem with promulgating these beliefs. The facts show that Native abuse of the environment was tantamount to that of Europeans at the same period. The author, having an interest in such things, has been present when many Native archaeological pre-Contact sites were investigated. All contained extensive midden (garbage dump) areas immediately outside the walls of where the protective pallisade stood. All humans make garbage, all have problems in disposing of it, all at times take the easy way and just toss it in the backyard. It has ever been thus.
I would never argue that Six Nations values do not emphasise a special relationship with everything of the land in their homeland. They surely do. This can be well documented. Of course, people being people, not everyone follows these principles and as is the case everywhere, money sometimes trumps everything else - for some. Clearly the fact that scores of migrating birds will lose their lives, their lifeless bodies being tossed in a bag by the person whose job it is to perform this task, did not factor in the decision of Six Nations to support a whole series of Wind Generator initiatives in the Grand River Valley, as seen here. As a someone who spends a great deal of time watching the birds at my backyard feeder, this problem, and the blight that it causes on the environment, seems to be an inconsistency with stated Six Nations respect for the land and the bounties of Mother Earth.
What I find unsettling is that Whites are considered to be acquisitive, and would sacrifice the land for monetary wealth. This point is entirely true in the case of for example the Grand River Navigation Company (which began in 1837). It used largely Irish labourers to construct dams and locks, all the while trees were cut and the environment badly stressed by these actions. It makes my blood boil to think of it. However, canals and "improvements" were popping up everywhere (such as the Erie Canal across NY State). The countries were a hive of activity and the environment paid the price. However it was not only Europeans or non-Natives who were involved in disrespecting the land. Throughout the 1840s Tyendinaga (Mohawk Territory, near Deseronto, Ontario) the land was being heavily logged by certain families on the Reserve. The Government agents of the Indian Department tried to put a stop to it, as did many of the Chiefs of the community - but the problem was endemic. Tragic for the beautiful primal forests.
A few days ago I came across two "birders" who resided in Hamilton, but were on the Reserve doing their yearly volunteer bird count of the region. We talked birds and during our discussion a bird landed nearby. I said it was probably a red headed woodpecker, those I see frequently at my place. They politely corrected me and said that even though it has a very red head, it was known as a red breasted woodpecker. These men lived and breathed birds. They loved and respected birds and the environment in general. They had a special relationship with the world around them. Are they lesser in some way in the "respect of the land" department?
Often is a group feels isolated or marginalised they will seek ways to assert "superiority", possessing something that the majority culture does not possess or even understand. On the website of Six Nations Lands and Resources, Eco - Center (by the way the first website that I have ever used that will not allow one to copy and paste), here. They state that one of their goals is to, Provide the non-Aboriginal population with information and education on the many aspects of Aboriginal concepts of the land, environment, forests, fish and wildlife and to encourage our community to better understand the differences of the non-Aboriginal attitude towards these same issues. It would be nice to have an example of these Aboriginal non-Aboriginal differences, otherwise it is somewhat insulting to White conservationists to read something of this nature.
I find it somewhat unusual if Six Nations truly believes there is some special Aboriginal value system that sets them apart from say Whites (who of course have ancestors aboriginal to say England), why they would enlist a White man to write editorials on subjects of this nature. For 11 years the editor of the one time most prominent newspaper at Six Nations - New Credit, affectionately know as "Teka", was a non-Native, J.W. whose "philosophy", if that is the correct word, reflects that of a far left wing hard liner - assessed via my own discussions with him and also see here. Apparently he must have been well respected in this role as his tenure only ended when the almost 50 year old newspaper "Teka" folded, after he moved to a position at a newspaper new to the publishing scene on the Reserve - whose owner is a well known Six Nations businessman - see here.
It should be recalled that the great Ojibway Native American environmentalist Wa-sha-quon-in or Grey Owl, trapper turned environmentalist, who by all accounts promoted the aboriginal way so well, was actually an impostor. His real name was Archibald Belaney from Hastings, England. He claimed to be the child of a Scottish father and an Apache mother. His true identity was revealed soon after his death. See here. However his eco views transcended his identity issues, and he was seen as a true environmentalist who reflected aboriginal views. I guess one might say that living among the Ojibway so long, he became one of them - proving that environmental concern is a cultural trait someone learns (or fails to do so) via the experiences of their life.
Also as was noted in an earlier blog, the Missisauga not the Six Nations are aboriginal to the Haldimand Tract. Thus the Nelles, Young, Huff or Dochstader (all of German origin) families who accompanied them could also be considered aboriginal by this understanding. Over the years the Territory became a magnet for people from other tribes in the States such as the Tutelo and Nanticoke, and later the Stockbridge Mahicans. All brought their own perspectives to add to the Six Nations world view.
By the time of the Revolution, the Mohawk were entirely Christian and largely acculturated (e.g., residing in homes often more substantial than their poor German neighbours). It appears that as a Mohawk, having been raised in a community at a time when he only knew an environment which was shared with White people, Chief Joseph Brant wished to re-create the environment that was most familiar when he moved to his new home along the Grand River. Being surrounded by White neighbours and Black servants was very "normal" for Brant and other Mohawk Chiefs of the time. The truth is that today Six Nations includes many who are largely indistinguishable from their White neighbours. Their mind set has been shaped by TV, the Internet, video gaming and the like. Go to the Speedway on a Friday. How different are the spectators from each community?
Thus I would argue, if one believes that there is some sort of qualitative difference in the way Six Nations people interface with the environment, but which local White people do not, then these differences should be plainly and boldly stated for all to consider - and perhaps learn from. As far as I am concerned I see a lot of individual differences on each side of the equation, and a lot of commonalities too. Differences there may be, but do these trump the similarities. A Six Nations conservationist and a White conservationist may be cut from the same cloth.
DeYo.
However, in the practical world, a fellow up the road, on the Reserve, was allowing builders to dump construction waste such as asphalt shingles with nails, on his land for a fee. The matter received considerable coverage in the local Indian newspapers. To their credit, many residents pointed out that this goes against the responsibility of Six Nations people to be guardians and stewards of the land. The Great Law (Kayenhera:koa) speaks of the need to consider the 7 generations that will follow before committing acts that might impact these descendants. However there are other such incidents too which make it pretty clear that often there is a large gap between the ideal and the real. The ditching of cars is all too well known by all.
So in the ideal, Native peoples have a special relationship with the land, and would or should not defile mother earth. This is in the ideal, but meet the real. One anthropologist followed (I will leave the tribal name blank here) peoples around during their winter hunt. He tallied all of the items they left behind at each temporary camp within their traditional lands. What he recorded was shocking, certainly in the 1980s when the research was done. The refuse included all sorts of imperishable items, including disposable baby diapers. Nasty.
Doubtless many Native and non-Native appologists would attribute the above examples to the corroding influence of White culture. There is a major problem with promulgating these beliefs. The facts show that Native abuse of the environment was tantamount to that of Europeans at the same period. The author, having an interest in such things, has been present when many Native archaeological pre-Contact sites were investigated. All contained extensive midden (garbage dump) areas immediately outside the walls of where the protective pallisade stood. All humans make garbage, all have problems in disposing of it, all at times take the easy way and just toss it in the backyard. It has ever been thus.
I would never argue that Six Nations values do not emphasise a special relationship with everything of the land in their homeland. They surely do. This can be well documented. Of course, people being people, not everyone follows these principles and as is the case everywhere, money sometimes trumps everything else - for some. Clearly the fact that scores of migrating birds will lose their lives, their lifeless bodies being tossed in a bag by the person whose job it is to perform this task, did not factor in the decision of Six Nations to support a whole series of Wind Generator initiatives in the Grand River Valley, as seen here. As a someone who spends a great deal of time watching the birds at my backyard feeder, this problem, and the blight that it causes on the environment, seems to be an inconsistency with stated Six Nations respect for the land and the bounties of Mother Earth.
What I find unsettling is that Whites are considered to be acquisitive, and would sacrifice the land for monetary wealth. This point is entirely true in the case of for example the Grand River Navigation Company (which began in 1837). It used largely Irish labourers to construct dams and locks, all the while trees were cut and the environment badly stressed by these actions. It makes my blood boil to think of it. However, canals and "improvements" were popping up everywhere (such as the Erie Canal across NY State). The countries were a hive of activity and the environment paid the price. However it was not only Europeans or non-Natives who were involved in disrespecting the land. Throughout the 1840s Tyendinaga (Mohawk Territory, near Deseronto, Ontario) the land was being heavily logged by certain families on the Reserve. The Government agents of the Indian Department tried to put a stop to it, as did many of the Chiefs of the community - but the problem was endemic. Tragic for the beautiful primal forests.
A few days ago I came across two "birders" who resided in Hamilton, but were on the Reserve doing their yearly volunteer bird count of the region. We talked birds and during our discussion a bird landed nearby. I said it was probably a red headed woodpecker, those I see frequently at my place. They politely corrected me and said that even though it has a very red head, it was known as a red breasted woodpecker. These men lived and breathed birds. They loved and respected birds and the environment in general. They had a special relationship with the world around them. Are they lesser in some way in the "respect of the land" department?
Often is a group feels isolated or marginalised they will seek ways to assert "superiority", possessing something that the majority culture does not possess or even understand. On the website of Six Nations Lands and Resources, Eco - Center (by the way the first website that I have ever used that will not allow one to copy and paste), here. They state that one of their goals is to, Provide the non-Aboriginal population with information and education on the many aspects of Aboriginal concepts of the land, environment, forests, fish and wildlife and to encourage our community to better understand the differences of the non-Aboriginal attitude towards these same issues. It would be nice to have an example of these Aboriginal non-Aboriginal differences, otherwise it is somewhat insulting to White conservationists to read something of this nature.
I find it somewhat unusual if Six Nations truly believes there is some special Aboriginal value system that sets them apart from say Whites (who of course have ancestors aboriginal to say England), why they would enlist a White man to write editorials on subjects of this nature. For 11 years the editor of the one time most prominent newspaper at Six Nations - New Credit, affectionately know as "Teka", was a non-Native, J.W. whose "philosophy", if that is the correct word, reflects that of a far left wing hard liner - assessed via my own discussions with him and also see here. Apparently he must have been well respected in this role as his tenure only ended when the almost 50 year old newspaper "Teka" folded, after he moved to a position at a newspaper new to the publishing scene on the Reserve - whose owner is a well known Six Nations businessman - see here.
It should be recalled that the great Ojibway Native American environmentalist Wa-sha-quon-in or Grey Owl, trapper turned environmentalist, who by all accounts promoted the aboriginal way so well, was actually an impostor. His real name was Archibald Belaney from Hastings, England. He claimed to be the child of a Scottish father and an Apache mother. His true identity was revealed soon after his death. See here. However his eco views transcended his identity issues, and he was seen as a true environmentalist who reflected aboriginal views. I guess one might say that living among the Ojibway so long, he became one of them - proving that environmental concern is a cultural trait someone learns (or fails to do so) via the experiences of their life.
Also as was noted in an earlier blog, the Missisauga not the Six Nations are aboriginal to the Haldimand Tract. Thus the Nelles, Young, Huff or Dochstader (all of German origin) families who accompanied them could also be considered aboriginal by this understanding. Over the years the Territory became a magnet for people from other tribes in the States such as the Tutelo and Nanticoke, and later the Stockbridge Mahicans. All brought their own perspectives to add to the Six Nations world view.
By the time of the Revolution, the Mohawk were entirely Christian and largely acculturated (e.g., residing in homes often more substantial than their poor German neighbours). It appears that as a Mohawk, having been raised in a community at a time when he only knew an environment which was shared with White people, Chief Joseph Brant wished to re-create the environment that was most familiar when he moved to his new home along the Grand River. Being surrounded by White neighbours and Black servants was very "normal" for Brant and other Mohawk Chiefs of the time. The truth is that today Six Nations includes many who are largely indistinguishable from their White neighbours. Their mind set has been shaped by TV, the Internet, video gaming and the like. Go to the Speedway on a Friday. How different are the spectators from each community?
Thus I would argue, if one believes that there is some sort of qualitative difference in the way Six Nations people interface with the environment, but which local White people do not, then these differences should be plainly and boldly stated for all to consider - and perhaps learn from. As far as I am concerned I see a lot of individual differences on each side of the equation, and a lot of commonalities too. Differences there may be, but do these trump the similarities. A Six Nations conservationist and a White conservationist may be cut from the same cloth.
DeYo.
The McKenzie Meadows Land Development Project - A Potential Nightmare for the Six Nations?
Frankly I had never heard of the "McKenzie Meadows Project" (MMP) until I read about it in small print under a title "Six Nations Future: It's Our Community's Future, Let's Talk about it". Clearly for me red flags went up immediately once I realized where the physical position of this "proposal" would be situated. The article on page 3 of Turtle Island News, October 30, 2013 provides the location and details of the project as follows:
The lands are located on the west side of McKenzie Road, South of Fuller Road in the urban area of Caledonia. The developer of the project is 2036356 Ontario Inc., a numbered company owned by Michael Corrado and others. This two-phased residential development project will consist of a minimum of 700 residential units with a maximum of 1000. The entire land holding is approximately 107 acres, in which Phase 1 will develop 25.2 acres and 200 residential units.
The project was announced by Chief William Montour of the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC). A set of three meetings has been set up for "community members" who wish to have further information, and to "have one - on - one discussions with staff". Apparently, "Community members can visit here to get more information about the project". Unfortunately the webpage says absolutely nothing about the project (although much can be found about the various wind generation projects here).
It would seem that something of this magnitude, within the County of Haldimand, would show up in various places on the Internet. Hence I did a search using the name of the project and came up with many links to a golf course in Oregon. When adding Haldimand County two hits were found. The first led nowhere, so I clicked on the cached option and was led to a site that had no bearing on this subject. The second one was also "dead" but using the cache option, I was able to go to the HTML version saved by Google. Perhaps it is just me, but any time I find sites removed from the Internet, I get the impression that something odd, perhaps shady, is going on.
The one working link is found here. Here it can be seen that it is a report submitted by the Haldimand County, General Manager of Planning and Economic Development, for Consideration of Council in Committee. The date is 5 February 2013. The report provides conclusions as to potable water and waste water implications, and as well concerns such as whether it conforms to various requirements such as housing density. The MMP is one of four such applications that was being considered as equivalent proposals, all of which have a "Draft Approval Deadline" of 31 December 2013 (a little more than an month and a half from its public announcement - in the Turtle Island News. If anything has been written about the matter in other local papers such as Caledonia's, The Sachem, I did not notice it.
It seems that great pains have been taken to keep this work quiet until the last minute, which makes me wonder if the parties in on the deal are well aware that it is bound to create controversy at both Six Nations, and in Caledonia. What is mind boggling is that a stone's throw away is the festering sore of the Douglas Creek Estates development, a more restricted project, which was completely shut down by Six Nations members, trashed, and claimed as Six Nations land. The violence and acrimony were so intense (as is well documented) that the Provincial Government had to step in and purchase the property from the legitimate owners and allow it to remain as a weed choked tick infested wasteland fit for nothing. How could Six Nations possibly justify creating an even bigger conglomerate of homes to attract reasonably wealthy Hamiltonians or others to purchase these units, but without the spectre of a riot, and a work stoppage and the actions of thugs and hooligans hell bent on destruction and intimidation. Wait, it is in some way "owned" or managed by Six Nations, so the Mohawk Warriors and other violent elements would have no reason to get fussed up. So I guess Six Nations assumes that Caledonians will welcome this project in some way shape or form that I cannot fathom - once they find out. See map below for locations of the MMP (Fuller Dr. and McKenzie Rd. at lower left of map); and DCE (south down Argyll St. below the Caledonia Baptist Church and nearby creek, where the road before 6th Line is situated).
Clearly before much else is said, I will need to attend one of these meetings and ask pertinent questions. One of the major questions will be to what extent are Haldimand County Mayor Ken Hewitt, and Caledonia Councillor Craig Grice involved? Is this akin to making a deal with the Devil? Also, how does this project factor into the land claims dispute? Who is the owner on title in the Land Registry Office? Also, does everyone really think that after all that has happened, and that the true perpetrators of the atrocities of 2006 have never apologised, and that the Six Nations leadership did not come out personally and acted to defuse the "tense" situation in 2006? Do the Six Nations feel "safe" because they see the lands in the same box as those of the Douglas Creek Estates. Many questions remain unanswered and I simply cannot wrap my mind around how this could all be quietly permitted. Am I wrong or is that an act of supreme hypocrisy of both Six Nations, and equally the local municipal officials? Perhaps I have entirely misinterpreted the matter and it has a much more benign and nuanced aspect but for some reason I must be sporting blinders because I can't see it.
Update:. I am in possession of documents handed out to individuals who attended one of the three meetings for "Six Nations Community Members", as noted in the above Turtle Island News announcement. In the five page handout, never once is the County of Haldimand mentioned. Specifically it outlines how the Developer purchased the land in 2003, and had commenced legal proceedings for a Court Injunction against possible work stopages - as was almost certain to occur as per the incident in 2006 across the road. The document makes it sound as if both the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) were on board with this thing. As was my suspicion, since it is almost unheard of for the two groups to consult and agree, in fact it is only SNEC that was at that point involved in the negotiations with the developer - at least that is how I read the information between the lines.
The handout stated that, Six Nations asserted its rights pursuant to the Nanfan Treaty of 1701 [the Treaty is bogus - the Mississauga were the Aboriginal owners in 1701] and the Haldimand Treaty of 1784 [this claim is demolished by the Holmes Report of 2009]. So once again, one Six Nations group or another has "convinced" a developer that it is in his best interest to go with the plan, or face the prospect of a lot of annoying stoppages, or even some sort of conflagration. There is a word for this in Canadian jurisprudence, and it starts with "ex" and ends in "ion". Either you comply or ............. Did the developer have any real choice, since the OPP has shown that it will not enforce the rights of owners in Caledonia?
So the developer has agreed to withdraw the legal suit against Six Nations that was pending, and "would be required to make financial contributions during the course of the development of the Project". This funding is slated for a new "Private School" (see here for the specifics) which is to be built on Reserve land, thus offering job opportunities for Six Nations Members, and other benefits.
So here a developer has agreed to pay $1,250.00 per residential unit. This would reduce his profit margins substantially, so the obvious question is, who is going to be absorbing the "contributions"? Something doesn't sit quite right. I would wonder how a developer could agree to anything so outlandish, and "volunteer" to pay Six Nations (whoever ends up presenting the bill) when these stakes are so high. A one time payment to the HDI of say $7,000 could easily be absorbed but not $125,000 for 100 units. If all 700 get built - the costs to the developer will be staggering. Further enquiries into this matter need to be made to determine the rest of the story - the part that is missing. For example, it would be important to know if the developer is being "subsidised", and if so, by whom?
Clearly the implication is that parties to the agreement such as both the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council (HCCC) will guarantee no interference with the project (such as happened at the Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) Project literally across the road) - but what guarantees are there? As relayed by my contact, the difference here, according to the coordinator, is that the parties in the new project negotiated a mutually advantageous agreement, so the acknowledged title on record in the Haldimand County Record Office is considered valid by Six Nations (but recall that this was not the case at the DCE where SN would have received no "favours"). What is ironic, however, is that The individual who was at the meeting reported that the coordinator of this Project was aware that there could be opposition and resistance from some people at Six Nations and in Caledonia. He did not say that HCCC had approved the project.
In one sense, the co-operative venture could have benefits and a net positive effect (although certainly not on traffic flow), but the chance of success would have been far greater had 2006 not happened - and the spectre of upcoming disruptive events such as road blockades was not hanging over everyones heads all the time. There is one nagging problem though. Six Nations in no way shape or form have any "Colour of Title" to any of the lands outside the consolidated Reserve (the final shape taking place in 1850 after the report of Lord Elgin). So it is all really a sham.
As to Haldimand County residents, it is probably too late to obtain the support of anyone who was adversely impacted by the most serious of the incidents. I would not in the least be surprised if some citizens decided to use the same tactics that brought the developer of DCE to their knees. Fair is fair. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, or some such rationale. Time will tell.
Update 2: Well, my batting average has gone up dramatically of late, based on the article, Private school to reap benefits of development deal, Turtle Island News, November 13, 2013, p. 4. Indeed, the organisers of the consultation group were disappointed in the turn out at the Community meetings - with just about a dozen members turning up in the 6 hours allotted for the event.
Secondly, as predicted, when the HDI got wind of the project, they made their oh so predictable comments. So, HDI legal adviser Aaron Detlor called the meetings 'false consultation' and said that the Confederacy had not been consulted. He accused Six Nations Elected Council of having made a deal, and then 'rubbing [sic] stamping it' through community costulation [sic]. Later in the article, Detlor stated that the HCCC had not been consulted, and thus, We were not aware that this was going ahead. So, as night follows day, the HCCC takes exception to something that SNEC has done without going through what Detlor, and his HCCC and HDI employers, believe is a mandatory part of the process. Apparently one must play by their rules, or not at all.
We get back to the obvious question, when one mega housing project is the subject of the most horrendous and vitriolic dispute Canada has ever seen; will the one next door be expected to go smooth as silk? Apparently not.
Stay tuned.
DeYo.
The lands are located on the west side of McKenzie Road, South of Fuller Road in the urban area of Caledonia. The developer of the project is 2036356 Ontario Inc., a numbered company owned by Michael Corrado and others. This two-phased residential development project will consist of a minimum of 700 residential units with a maximum of 1000. The entire land holding is approximately 107 acres, in which Phase 1 will develop 25.2 acres and 200 residential units.
The project was announced by Chief William Montour of the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC). A set of three meetings has been set up for "community members" who wish to have further information, and to "have one - on - one discussions with staff". Apparently, "Community members can visit here to get more information about the project". Unfortunately the webpage says absolutely nothing about the project (although much can be found about the various wind generation projects here).
It would seem that something of this magnitude, within the County of Haldimand, would show up in various places on the Internet. Hence I did a search using the name of the project and came up with many links to a golf course in Oregon. When adding Haldimand County two hits were found. The first led nowhere, so I clicked on the cached option and was led to a site that had no bearing on this subject. The second one was also "dead" but using the cache option, I was able to go to the HTML version saved by Google. Perhaps it is just me, but any time I find sites removed from the Internet, I get the impression that something odd, perhaps shady, is going on.
The one working link is found here. Here it can be seen that it is a report submitted by the Haldimand County, General Manager of Planning and Economic Development, for Consideration of Council in Committee. The date is 5 February 2013. The report provides conclusions as to potable water and waste water implications, and as well concerns such as whether it conforms to various requirements such as housing density. The MMP is one of four such applications that was being considered as equivalent proposals, all of which have a "Draft Approval Deadline" of 31 December 2013 (a little more than an month and a half from its public announcement - in the Turtle Island News. If anything has been written about the matter in other local papers such as Caledonia's, The Sachem, I did not notice it.
It seems that great pains have been taken to keep this work quiet until the last minute, which makes me wonder if the parties in on the deal are well aware that it is bound to create controversy at both Six Nations, and in Caledonia. What is mind boggling is that a stone's throw away is the festering sore of the Douglas Creek Estates development, a more restricted project, which was completely shut down by Six Nations members, trashed, and claimed as Six Nations land. The violence and acrimony were so intense (as is well documented) that the Provincial Government had to step in and purchase the property from the legitimate owners and allow it to remain as a weed choked tick infested wasteland fit for nothing. How could Six Nations possibly justify creating an even bigger conglomerate of homes to attract reasonably wealthy Hamiltonians or others to purchase these units, but without the spectre of a riot, and a work stoppage and the actions of thugs and hooligans hell bent on destruction and intimidation. Wait, it is in some way "owned" or managed by Six Nations, so the Mohawk Warriors and other violent elements would have no reason to get fussed up. So I guess Six Nations assumes that Caledonians will welcome this project in some way shape or form that I cannot fathom - once they find out. See map below for locations of the MMP (Fuller Dr. and McKenzie Rd. at lower left of map); and DCE (south down Argyll St. below the Caledonia Baptist Church and nearby creek, where the road before 6th Line is situated).
Clearly before much else is said, I will need to attend one of these meetings and ask pertinent questions. One of the major questions will be to what extent are Haldimand County Mayor Ken Hewitt, and Caledonia Councillor Craig Grice involved? Is this akin to making a deal with the Devil? Also, how does this project factor into the land claims dispute? Who is the owner on title in the Land Registry Office? Also, does everyone really think that after all that has happened, and that the true perpetrators of the atrocities of 2006 have never apologised, and that the Six Nations leadership did not come out personally and acted to defuse the "tense" situation in 2006? Do the Six Nations feel "safe" because they see the lands in the same box as those of the Douglas Creek Estates. Many questions remain unanswered and I simply cannot wrap my mind around how this could all be quietly permitted. Am I wrong or is that an act of supreme hypocrisy of both Six Nations, and equally the local municipal officials? Perhaps I have entirely misinterpreted the matter and it has a much more benign and nuanced aspect but for some reason I must be sporting blinders because I can't see it.
Update:. I am in possession of documents handed out to individuals who attended one of the three meetings for "Six Nations Community Members", as noted in the above Turtle Island News announcement. In the five page handout, never once is the County of Haldimand mentioned. Specifically it outlines how the Developer purchased the land in 2003, and had commenced legal proceedings for a Court Injunction against possible work stopages - as was almost certain to occur as per the incident in 2006 across the road. The document makes it sound as if both the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) were on board with this thing. As was my suspicion, since it is almost unheard of for the two groups to consult and agree, in fact it is only SNEC that was at that point involved in the negotiations with the developer - at least that is how I read the information between the lines.
The handout stated that, Six Nations asserted its rights pursuant to the Nanfan Treaty of 1701 [the Treaty is bogus - the Mississauga were the Aboriginal owners in 1701] and the Haldimand Treaty of 1784 [this claim is demolished by the Holmes Report of 2009]. So once again, one Six Nations group or another has "convinced" a developer that it is in his best interest to go with the plan, or face the prospect of a lot of annoying stoppages, or even some sort of conflagration. There is a word for this in Canadian jurisprudence, and it starts with "ex" and ends in "ion". Either you comply or ............. Did the developer have any real choice, since the OPP has shown that it will not enforce the rights of owners in Caledonia?
So the developer has agreed to withdraw the legal suit against Six Nations that was pending, and "would be required to make financial contributions during the course of the development of the Project". This funding is slated for a new "Private School" (see here for the specifics) which is to be built on Reserve land, thus offering job opportunities for Six Nations Members, and other benefits.
So here a developer has agreed to pay $1,250.00 per residential unit. This would reduce his profit margins substantially, so the obvious question is, who is going to be absorbing the "contributions"? Something doesn't sit quite right. I would wonder how a developer could agree to anything so outlandish, and "volunteer" to pay Six Nations (whoever ends up presenting the bill) when these stakes are so high. A one time payment to the HDI of say $7,000 could easily be absorbed but not $125,000 for 100 units. If all 700 get built - the costs to the developer will be staggering. Further enquiries into this matter need to be made to determine the rest of the story - the part that is missing. For example, it would be important to know if the developer is being "subsidised", and if so, by whom?
Clearly the implication is that parties to the agreement such as both the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council (HCCC) will guarantee no interference with the project (such as happened at the Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) Project literally across the road) - but what guarantees are there? As relayed by my contact, the difference here, according to the coordinator, is that the parties in the new project negotiated a mutually advantageous agreement, so the acknowledged title on record in the Haldimand County Record Office is considered valid by Six Nations (but recall that this was not the case at the DCE where SN would have received no "favours"). What is ironic, however, is that The individual who was at the meeting reported that the coordinator of this Project was aware that there could be opposition and resistance from some people at Six Nations and in Caledonia. He did not say that HCCC had approved the project.
In one sense, the co-operative venture could have benefits and a net positive effect (although certainly not on traffic flow), but the chance of success would have been far greater had 2006 not happened - and the spectre of upcoming disruptive events such as road blockades was not hanging over everyones heads all the time. There is one nagging problem though. Six Nations in no way shape or form have any "Colour of Title" to any of the lands outside the consolidated Reserve (the final shape taking place in 1850 after the report of Lord Elgin). So it is all really a sham.
As to Haldimand County residents, it is probably too late to obtain the support of anyone who was adversely impacted by the most serious of the incidents. I would not in the least be surprised if some citizens decided to use the same tactics that brought the developer of DCE to their knees. Fair is fair. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, or some such rationale. Time will tell.
Update 2: Well, my batting average has gone up dramatically of late, based on the article, Private school to reap benefits of development deal, Turtle Island News, November 13, 2013, p. 4. Indeed, the organisers of the consultation group were disappointed in the turn out at the Community meetings - with just about a dozen members turning up in the 6 hours allotted for the event.
Secondly, as predicted, when the HDI got wind of the project, they made their oh so predictable comments. So, HDI legal adviser Aaron Detlor called the meetings 'false consultation' and said that the Confederacy had not been consulted. He accused Six Nations Elected Council of having made a deal, and then 'rubbing [sic] stamping it' through community costulation [sic]. Later in the article, Detlor stated that the HCCC had not been consulted, and thus, We were not aware that this was going ahead. So, as night follows day, the HCCC takes exception to something that SNEC has done without going through what Detlor, and his HCCC and HDI employers, believe is a mandatory part of the process. Apparently one must play by their rules, or not at all.
We get back to the obvious question, when one mega housing project is the subject of the most horrendous and vitriolic dispute Canada has ever seen; will the one next door be expected to go smooth as silk? Apparently not.
Stay tuned.
DeYo.
Sunday 3 November 2013
Legal Title to the Former Henco Industries Ltd. Lands - the Site of the 2006 Caledonia Protest
The destructive "protests" of 2006, led by Six Nations activists, were focused on their belief that the lands upon which a large housing development (the Douglas Creek Estates) was in progress, had not been surrendered and were still part of the Six Nations land base. Perhaps some believed this to be so, there are some who believe that the Haldimand Tract is to this day all Six Nations land. However the reason given to me by Six Nations elders as to why the matter came to a head pertained to something quite different. I was told that there was a real concern at Six Nations about two related matters. First, many felt hemmed in by encroaching development in Caledonia, which is relatively close to the northeast end of the Six Nations Reserve. Secondly the question was asked, "where will we have space for generations of our people to come?" The bottom line is, however, that the reason given to the press was that the land was never ceded and should not be developed without the say of the Six Nations, and later the reason was given is that the "protest" would bring renewed interest in getting all Six Nations land claims settled.
This is not the place to rehash the fall out from the disagreement, but a few representative items will be useful. First illegal destruction of property such as the hydro towers used to barricade Argyll Street was common. Subsequently the protesters required local residents to obtain passes ("passports") to be able to access their property on 6th Line and elsewhere. Residents were harassed in every imaginable way, for example by having ATVs driven at full throttle across the area where their backyards were situated. Masked men from the Mohawk Warriors group intimidated motorists and residents and there were direct and veiled threats of violence. Perhaps the worse instance of violence was the Native bashing on the head of builder Sam Galtieri with an oak bat such that the man suffered permanent debilitating brain damage. On and on. Meanwhile the Ontario Provincial Police did nothing to defuse the situation - like enforcing the law. Residents learned that the OPP were now "peacekeepers" not officers whose duty it was to serve and protect. Phone calls for emergency service to the OPP or other first responders went unanswered if the call came from someone who happened to reside beyond the barricades. The Stirling Street Bridge was torched and the Fire Department was forced to retreat when a series of death threats were issued. Of course the overtime for the officers sent to the site, to wait and watch, mounted into the millions of dollars. As noted in a previous post, anyone who wants to learn what the effect was on the population of Caledonia should read the book "Helpless" by Christie Blatchford. Some sense of the suffering of the local residents, and the Provincial Government's "compensation package" can be found here. It should also be noted that the issue continues to flare up even to the time of the writing of this blog. One wonders if it will ever end. A good overview of the land dispute can be found here. An additional recommended reading is the article by Horsnell (2010). Click here to view this excellent research report.
So all this, and for what? If the Six Nations had a valid case in terms of their stated rationale (a land claim dispute), that would be one thing. However, there are few who are willing to put the facts on the table for all to consider. I have yet to see one single piece of paper in support of the claims of the Six Nations. Those involved continually refer in an ambiguous fashion about lands being unceded. However is this really the case? What does the evidence indicate? Is the matter clearcut?
Actually all of these questions have answers, but the fact remains that many on the Six Nations side see true documentary evidence as irrelevant. Many say they "know" that the claim is just and valid. Well, just how do they know. I say that I know that the claim is without any merit whatsoever. What would make me willing to be so direct in my assertions?
The Henco Industries Ltd. lands were indeed part of a land claim for thousands of acres, including the Town Plot of Caledonia. This case was filed on 18 June 1987. It is listed as Claim 5 (of 29) and is described as, "Hamilton - Port Dover Plank Road Oneida and Seneca Townships". Details of the claim are on pages 13 to 14 of the following document. Click here to view. However this is a claim that the Government has ruled to be without support in fact since the lands were part of a legal series of surrenders beginning in 1841. Specifically, Canada submits that Six Nations surrendered these lands for sale in 1841 and affirmed its decision to sell in 1843 and 1844 (p. 14).
I have direct knowledge of all of the key paperwork that pertains to the matter. In an earlier post I cited three separate Court cases where in each instance the adjudicating party concluded that the surrenders (agreements) of 1841, 1842, 1844, 1848, 1850 etc. were valid and met every litmus test for being considered legitimate. My own researches in the primary source documents from the National Archives in Ottawa support and confirm these rulings. Thus an amateur historian with long experience in researching Native files has without prejudice and without malice and for no other reason that an attempt to seek the truth, agrees - the surrenders are valid in whole and in part.
The properties detailed in the 1844 Land Inspection Returns for Oneida Township describe all parcels of land in this township in exacting detail. I have personally examined every page of this record. There are no gray areas here. The lands were surveyed, ownership documented and compensation provided to individuals if necessary and ultimately the lands were placed "on title" in the Haldimand County Land Registry Office in Cayuga. There can be no doubt that the only part of Oneida Township not surrendered were the six lots in each of the six concessions between Indian Line (Town Line) near Hagersville, and VI Line Road, plus lots 1 to 12 in the River Range. These lands are all adjoining Tuscarora Township in the west, and in the east along the west aspect of what was termed Range West of Plank Road (along what was the Hamilton and Northwestern Railway Line). These reserved Indian Lands, described in Lord Elgin's report of 1850, were no where near Caledonia - there being 6 one hundred acre lots between the Reserve and what was to become the Douglas Creek Estates lands. See here for a map of the DCE property and surrounding lands.
After the lands were surveyed, inspected, and surrendered in various agreements between 1841 and 1844, they were available for sale to buyers, who would then be given a Crown grant, each of which is registered in the Land Registry Office. The first purchaser of the property in contention was one George Marlot Ryckman who received his Crown deed for the property in 1848. Since that time the land has remained registered, without liens and encumbrances, and sold in 1992 to Henco Industries Ltd. Anyone can check these records in the Registry Office, and they are microfilmed and available in locations such as the Archives of Ontario. Anyone who is not prepared to go this route can simply view the H.R. Page & Co. Haldimand County Atlas for 1879 to see that all of the lots in that township were then occupied - including the property that was to become so problematic. See here for a copy of this map.
I presently have all of the relevant documents in front of me - there are no irregularities, the Henco Industries Ltd. title was good, the Six Nations have absolutely no valid claim (by any stretch of the imagination) to the property (which is now owned by the Province of Ontario). See also a legal perspective by a local lawyer here.
So the obvious question is, what could possibly possess the Six Nations to believe that the Douglas Creek Estates and other lands they have also recently pointed to as "unceded". There is not a shadow of a doubt that the Douglas Creek Estates were surrendered for sale by the 1844 agreement, and confirmed by the documentation noted elsewhere relating to the Land Inspection Returns for Oneida Township, 1844. There is no "wiggle room" here. The lands in question were purchased and sold as recorded in the Haldimand County Record Office. Hence why would the Province indulge the Six Nations, usurping the rights of the legal owner in favour of a party which has absolutely no legal claim to the property whatsoever (as acknowleded by the Federal Government)? I expect that the answer is politics, and without anyone in Government with a true backbone, the Six Nations may well get what it wishes which will make a mockery of the justice system, but "keep the peace". So threats and intimidation trump the law and the facts. Is this Ontario? It is not the Ontario of my youth - it is an Ontario brought to its knees by a handful of vocal radicals spurred on by anarchistic elements in society at large. Jolly - and the OPP stand by as enablers while the radicals run roughshod over those who would abide by the rule of law. If there is any place where this sort of situation is allowed to happen, I would not chose to live there. Alas, this is my home and I must make the best of it - and expect threats, intimidation and possible violence from any of a series of parties who would rather keep the lid on things and the truth be damned!
In but two pages, in a letter to then Mayor of Haldimand, Marie Trainer, he articulately and succinctly gives a reasoned and fact - based statement as why it is folly for local government and developers to feel pressured into negotiating with Six Nations - there is nothing in history or law that would indicate otherwise, as seen here.
There is no shortage of those who have proposed "solutions" to the impass, although without an intimate knowledge of both the Caledonia and the Six Nations perspectives, simplistic ideas are likely doomed to failure. As but one example of those who have offered a reasoned argument for solving the impass, is that of a recent article in the Undergraduate Journal of Anthropology, as seen here.
The complete set of relevant documents to literally prove what is asserted above will be the subject of a later blog post.
The "Caledonia crisis" should never have happened. I am unaware of any acknowledged responsibility on the part of the Six Nations who, despite the undeniable evidence, continue to insist that the land is theirs. Belief is a very powerful force - but should, one would hope, be subject to change when the facts are so entirely clear. Hence I wonder whether facts and evidence, as is commonly understood the world over as the underpinning to the truth, will ever prevail in certain quarters.
DeYo.
This is not the place to rehash the fall out from the disagreement, but a few representative items will be useful. First illegal destruction of property such as the hydro towers used to barricade Argyll Street was common. Subsequently the protesters required local residents to obtain passes ("passports") to be able to access their property on 6th Line and elsewhere. Residents were harassed in every imaginable way, for example by having ATVs driven at full throttle across the area where their backyards were situated. Masked men from the Mohawk Warriors group intimidated motorists and residents and there were direct and veiled threats of violence. Perhaps the worse instance of violence was the Native bashing on the head of builder Sam Galtieri with an oak bat such that the man suffered permanent debilitating brain damage. On and on. Meanwhile the Ontario Provincial Police did nothing to defuse the situation - like enforcing the law. Residents learned that the OPP were now "peacekeepers" not officers whose duty it was to serve and protect. Phone calls for emergency service to the OPP or other first responders went unanswered if the call came from someone who happened to reside beyond the barricades. The Stirling Street Bridge was torched and the Fire Department was forced to retreat when a series of death threats were issued. Of course the overtime for the officers sent to the site, to wait and watch, mounted into the millions of dollars. As noted in a previous post, anyone who wants to learn what the effect was on the population of Caledonia should read the book "Helpless" by Christie Blatchford. Some sense of the suffering of the local residents, and the Provincial Government's "compensation package" can be found here. It should also be noted that the issue continues to flare up even to the time of the writing of this blog. One wonders if it will ever end. A good overview of the land dispute can be found here. An additional recommended reading is the article by Horsnell (2010). Click here to view this excellent research report.
So all this, and for what? If the Six Nations had a valid case in terms of their stated rationale (a land claim dispute), that would be one thing. However, there are few who are willing to put the facts on the table for all to consider. I have yet to see one single piece of paper in support of the claims of the Six Nations. Those involved continually refer in an ambiguous fashion about lands being unceded. However is this really the case? What does the evidence indicate? Is the matter clearcut?
Actually all of these questions have answers, but the fact remains that many on the Six Nations side see true documentary evidence as irrelevant. Many say they "know" that the claim is just and valid. Well, just how do they know. I say that I know that the claim is without any merit whatsoever. What would make me willing to be so direct in my assertions?
The Henco Industries Ltd. lands were indeed part of a land claim for thousands of acres, including the Town Plot of Caledonia. This case was filed on 18 June 1987. It is listed as Claim 5 (of 29) and is described as, "Hamilton - Port Dover Plank Road Oneida and Seneca Townships". Details of the claim are on pages 13 to 14 of the following document. Click here to view. However this is a claim that the Government has ruled to be without support in fact since the lands were part of a legal series of surrenders beginning in 1841. Specifically, Canada submits that Six Nations surrendered these lands for sale in 1841 and affirmed its decision to sell in 1843 and 1844 (p. 14).
I have direct knowledge of all of the key paperwork that pertains to the matter. In an earlier post I cited three separate Court cases where in each instance the adjudicating party concluded that the surrenders (agreements) of 1841, 1842, 1844, 1848, 1850 etc. were valid and met every litmus test for being considered legitimate. My own researches in the primary source documents from the National Archives in Ottawa support and confirm these rulings. Thus an amateur historian with long experience in researching Native files has without prejudice and without malice and for no other reason that an attempt to seek the truth, agrees - the surrenders are valid in whole and in part.
The properties detailed in the 1844 Land Inspection Returns for Oneida Township describe all parcels of land in this township in exacting detail. I have personally examined every page of this record. There are no gray areas here. The lands were surveyed, ownership documented and compensation provided to individuals if necessary and ultimately the lands were placed "on title" in the Haldimand County Land Registry Office in Cayuga. There can be no doubt that the only part of Oneida Township not surrendered were the six lots in each of the six concessions between Indian Line (Town Line) near Hagersville, and VI Line Road, plus lots 1 to 12 in the River Range. These lands are all adjoining Tuscarora Township in the west, and in the east along the west aspect of what was termed Range West of Plank Road (along what was the Hamilton and Northwestern Railway Line). These reserved Indian Lands, described in Lord Elgin's report of 1850, were no where near Caledonia - there being 6 one hundred acre lots between the Reserve and what was to become the Douglas Creek Estates lands. See here for a map of the DCE property and surrounding lands.
After the lands were surveyed, inspected, and surrendered in various agreements between 1841 and 1844, they were available for sale to buyers, who would then be given a Crown grant, each of which is registered in the Land Registry Office. The first purchaser of the property in contention was one George Marlot Ryckman who received his Crown deed for the property in 1848. Since that time the land has remained registered, without liens and encumbrances, and sold in 1992 to Henco Industries Ltd. Anyone can check these records in the Registry Office, and they are microfilmed and available in locations such as the Archives of Ontario. Anyone who is not prepared to go this route can simply view the H.R. Page & Co. Haldimand County Atlas for 1879 to see that all of the lots in that township were then occupied - including the property that was to become so problematic. See here for a copy of this map.
I presently have all of the relevant documents in front of me - there are no irregularities, the Henco Industries Ltd. title was good, the Six Nations have absolutely no valid claim (by any stretch of the imagination) to the property (which is now owned by the Province of Ontario). See also a legal perspective by a local lawyer here.
So the obvious question is, what could possibly possess the Six Nations to believe that the Douglas Creek Estates and other lands they have also recently pointed to as "unceded". There is not a shadow of a doubt that the Douglas Creek Estates were surrendered for sale by the 1844 agreement, and confirmed by the documentation noted elsewhere relating to the Land Inspection Returns for Oneida Township, 1844. There is no "wiggle room" here. The lands in question were purchased and sold as recorded in the Haldimand County Record Office. Hence why would the Province indulge the Six Nations, usurping the rights of the legal owner in favour of a party which has absolutely no legal claim to the property whatsoever (as acknowleded by the Federal Government)? I expect that the answer is politics, and without anyone in Government with a true backbone, the Six Nations may well get what it wishes which will make a mockery of the justice system, but "keep the peace". So threats and intimidation trump the law and the facts. Is this Ontario? It is not the Ontario of my youth - it is an Ontario brought to its knees by a handful of vocal radicals spurred on by anarchistic elements in society at large. Jolly - and the OPP stand by as enablers while the radicals run roughshod over those who would abide by the rule of law. If there is any place where this sort of situation is allowed to happen, I would not chose to live there. Alas, this is my home and I must make the best of it - and expect threats, intimidation and possible violence from any of a series of parties who would rather keep the lid on things and the truth be damned!
In but two pages, in a letter to then Mayor of Haldimand, Marie Trainer, he articulately and succinctly gives a reasoned and fact - based statement as why it is folly for local government and developers to feel pressured into negotiating with Six Nations - there is nothing in history or law that would indicate otherwise, as seen here.
There is no shortage of those who have proposed "solutions" to the impass, although without an intimate knowledge of both the Caledonia and the Six Nations perspectives, simplistic ideas are likely doomed to failure. As but one example of those who have offered a reasoned argument for solving the impass, is that of a recent article in the Undergraduate Journal of Anthropology, as seen here.
The complete set of relevant documents to literally prove what is asserted above will be the subject of a later blog post.
The "Caledonia crisis" should never have happened. I am unaware of any acknowledged responsibility on the part of the Six Nations who, despite the undeniable evidence, continue to insist that the land is theirs. Belief is a very powerful force - but should, one would hope, be subject to change when the facts are so entirely clear. Hence I wonder whether facts and evidence, as is commonly understood the world over as the underpinning to the truth, will ever prevail in certain quarters.
DeYo.
"We Require an Accounting for the Funds Administered or Held by the Crown for the Six Nations People, and Restitution of Any Funds Unaccounted For"
The title of the post is taken directly from the "Eight Points of Jurisdiction" manifesto of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council written in the HDI Wikipedia page. See here.
Crown jurisdiction over the matter no longer exists in any direct manner. Despite various Six Nations groups approaching the authorities in Great Britain (the Crown), the latter always state that the aggrieved party will have to approach the party whose responsibility it is to administer the former duties of the Crown, and that would be the Federal Government of Canada, and more specifically, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development". The wording of the Indian Act is very confusing at best. For example:
18. (1) Subject to this Act, reserves are held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of the respective bands ....
Since Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy, it is understandable to see "Her Majesty" mentioned in legal documents but the defacto relationship between parties is as noted above (confusing, yes).
Also, the "We require" is of course a demand. It is generally a good idea that a demand be made only in a very restricted range of circumstances, such as when something really drastic has just recently occurred. For example, changing the Indian Act (which was last revised in 2013) which say changes the ability of Bands to governs their own membership lists. However as a blanket way of dealing with Government - not a good idea.
In the general population if one wants an investigation of a matter than extends back to the era when the British Crown did hold sway over "Indian Affairs", then does it seem reasonable to "require" that the taxpayers of Canada pay for what might be (say due to the condition of the records) a very long and arduous process. Considering the rather large sums of taxpayers dollars that flow into Six Nations coffers each and every year, Band researchers may best be able to use some of these resources (or those from for example the HDI) to obtain details from the records, have a report submitted, then if the Federal Government disagrees with the work, they would then need to conduct their own enquiry. Would it not make sense that the two research teams collaborate, especially since in the past the Six Nations have refused to acknowledge the conclusions of the Government researchers and their legal advisers. Since, as has already been noted, some collections of records have been removed to the Band Research Office, the Government may be embarking upon a project with one hand tied behind their back - and when records are incomplete, no one ends up being satisfied with the findings, potentially being riddled with holes.
If the matter is recent, then sending in ones own auditors would make good sense - they could flag any discrepancies. However, do the Six Nations really trust the Government to do the work for them?
Of course the exercise may open up a can of worms that will occasionally work to the disadvantage of the Six Nations. What if multi-millions of dollars of taxpayer money had been dispersed, but upon detailed enquiry, there is found to be no legal reason why these funds had been released? Would the taxpayers be reimbursed?
This could be a knotty or thorny problem, and there are times when one should be careful what one wishes for - it all may come back to bite you.
Perhaps the statement, one of the "eight points" is meant to refer to matters of long ago, where normally the statute of limitations would apply. However it seems that some in some matters "everyone" has come to believe that the Six Nations were cheating in this or that situation, and that compensation is due. What comes to mind as a classic case is the funds invested circa 1837 in the Grand River Navigation Company. Is this what the Chiefs have in mind?
DeYo.
Crown jurisdiction over the matter no longer exists in any direct manner. Despite various Six Nations groups approaching the authorities in Great Britain (the Crown), the latter always state that the aggrieved party will have to approach the party whose responsibility it is to administer the former duties of the Crown, and that would be the Federal Government of Canada, and more specifically, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development". The wording of the Indian Act is very confusing at best. For example:
18. (1) Subject to this Act, reserves are held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of the respective bands ....
Since Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy, it is understandable to see "Her Majesty" mentioned in legal documents but the defacto relationship between parties is as noted above (confusing, yes).
Also, the "We require" is of course a demand. It is generally a good idea that a demand be made only in a very restricted range of circumstances, such as when something really drastic has just recently occurred. For example, changing the Indian Act (which was last revised in 2013) which say changes the ability of Bands to governs their own membership lists. However as a blanket way of dealing with Government - not a good idea.
In the general population if one wants an investigation of a matter than extends back to the era when the British Crown did hold sway over "Indian Affairs", then does it seem reasonable to "require" that the taxpayers of Canada pay for what might be (say due to the condition of the records) a very long and arduous process. Considering the rather large sums of taxpayers dollars that flow into Six Nations coffers each and every year, Band researchers may best be able to use some of these resources (or those from for example the HDI) to obtain details from the records, have a report submitted, then if the Federal Government disagrees with the work, they would then need to conduct their own enquiry. Would it not make sense that the two research teams collaborate, especially since in the past the Six Nations have refused to acknowledge the conclusions of the Government researchers and their legal advisers. Since, as has already been noted, some collections of records have been removed to the Band Research Office, the Government may be embarking upon a project with one hand tied behind their back - and when records are incomplete, no one ends up being satisfied with the findings, potentially being riddled with holes.
If the matter is recent, then sending in ones own auditors would make good sense - they could flag any discrepancies. However, do the Six Nations really trust the Government to do the work for them?
Of course the exercise may open up a can of worms that will occasionally work to the disadvantage of the Six Nations. What if multi-millions of dollars of taxpayer money had been dispersed, but upon detailed enquiry, there is found to be no legal reason why these funds had been released? Would the taxpayers be reimbursed?
This could be a knotty or thorny problem, and there are times when one should be careful what one wishes for - it all may come back to bite you.
Perhaps the statement, one of the "eight points" is meant to refer to matters of long ago, where normally the statute of limitations would apply. However it seems that some in some matters "everyone" has come to believe that the Six Nations were cheating in this or that situation, and that compensation is due. What comes to mind as a classic case is the funds invested circa 1837 in the Grand River Navigation Company. Is this what the Chiefs have in mind?
DeYo.
1924, the Year an Infamous Atrocity was Committed at Six Nations - or Was It?
It is widely believed that 1924 was a year when the Canadian Government, using the RCMP to do their dirty work, without any provocation and without any good reason, attempted to promote assimilation into Canadian society by locking the doors to the Hereditary Confederacy Chief's Longhouse and imposing an elected system. It would be something of an understatement to say that this event continues to ripple through Six Nations to this day.
So, what are the facts? First a belief that is very commonly heard at Six Nations.
In looking for a typical view of a Six Nations writer in relation to the subject, I Googled "1924 Six Nations" and came up with a relevant statement from a fellow blogger. It is as follows:
In October 25, 1924, the RCMP brutally threw out the Confederacy Chiefs from the Council House to install the Indian Act Council and implement the illegal Indian Land Acts throughout the country. A resolution was quickly passed that Deskaheh no longer represented the Six Nations. He was murdered shortly after by agents of Duncan Campbell Scott. See here (retrieved 3 November 2013).
Now, the question as usual is whether the facts support the beliefs. So who does one turn to for events that occurred close to 100 years ago when no one is alive who can offer first hand information? I have found that the anthropologists who were trusted by those of the Six Nations to discuss sensitive and even at time sacred things are a good resource. There can be no better source on the Confederacy Chiefs and Clan Mothers and "Conservative" practises than Annemarie Anrod Shimony, Conservatism Among the Iroquois at the Six Nations Reserve, Syracuse, Syracuse University Press, 1964.
The preamble to this book sums up nicely what I have read in other respected sources. For example, Shimony wrote, Since there had been decades of agitation to replace the Confederate Council, the Canadian Government now felt sufficiently pressured by the progressive elements to call for an investigation. The result was an Order in Council which installed an elected body in place of the uncooperative and dysfunctional hereditary chiefs (p.xxxiv). Shimony goes on to describe the physical violence between the factions that led to the act of locking the Longhouse. What is true is that after much dissension and acrimony, the Government acted to effect a resolution of the problem that plagued Six Nations by virtue of the constant infighting between the more acculturated elements, and the more conservative elements.
More specifics of the chronology of events leading up to 1924 will help set the stage. In Sally M. Weaver, Six Nations of the Grand River, Ontario in William C. Sturtevant (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, Northeast, Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institute, 1978, the author provides a good introduction to the subject based on her ethnographic work at Six Nations between the years 1963 and 1974. Dr. Weaver describes the general tone of factionalism that was pervasive in the Community for as far back as anyone can recall. As the years progressed and the Community was divided into conservative / traditional and progressive groupings and it was inevitable that the divisive matters would be formally presented to the Indian Department officials.
There were elements at Six Nations which wanted acculturation to proceed at a more rapid pace, and believed that the Hereditary Council was dragging their feet when it came to promoting for example agriculture and eduction, hence in 1861 a group of Christian Mohawks petitioned the Department for an elected council - a move that at the time was not supported by the government (p. 529). They were likely aware that the Hereditary Council at two Seneca Reservations had been abolished in 1848 to be replaced by elected counterparts (p. 436). The lack of success did not deter the "progressive" element who began to mimic what they saw in the more successful Whites in surrounding communities. They even formed their own Orangemen's Lodge (a largely Protestant and anti - Catholic benevolent group) on the Reserve in the 1890s. The "Protestant ethic" was becoming a force at Six Nations, with the consequence that a Farmer's Institute and a Women's Institute was added to the roster of groups who had little to do with the Hereditary Council, and who gained ascendancy (p. 530). A reform group known as the "Progressive Warriors" believed that the slow progress was due to a closed system of leaders, and hence "education should be a requisite for council office" (p. 532). In 1890 another petition was submitted by 20% of the male adults on the Reserve, "urging the government to apply the elected system to the reserve". This attempt went nowhere, but in 1906 a group known as the "Indian Rights Association" or "Dehorners" initiated, a campaign to remove the chiefs from power.
More petitions followed in 1907 and 1910, however the government, held to its noninterference policy. As with so many things in Canada, the "Great War" of 1914 served to be a catalyst to change. The Chiefs refused to participate in any conscription plan, unless asked to do so by the king himself, once again using the opportunity to assert their claim to sovereignty. None the less hundreds of Six Nations men volunteered, and when they returned home they found the conditions intolerable and petitioned the government, to establish an elected system. Divisions at Six Nations grew, and the Government of Canada found itself in the embarrassing situation of having Confederacy Chief Deskahe travel to London and Geneva to put forth a grievance of the lack of recognition of sovereignty. Council was also operating in a ponderously slow manner and frustrating the government officials. This lack of cooperation was pretty well the last straw. Since there was considerable agitation at Six Nations to install an elected council, they acted quickly and perhaps somewhat precipitously, in sending the RCMP to lock the Longhouse, and to establish elections at Six Nations which resulted in a new Elected Council (composed largely of literate, Engllish speaking Mohawks) which from that moment became the "official" voice of Six Nations in dealings with the government.
However the Hereditary Council had no intention of just capitulating. They refused to disband, and stood firm in their belief that only they were the legitimate form of governance at Six Nations, and continued to agitate for a return to the rule of the Confederacy (p. 532). Since 1924 they (now the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council or HCCC) have continued to maintain a shadow or parallel council. Today the schism is as deep as it was in 1924, with the HCCC and their agencies such as the HDI (Haudenosaunee Development Institute) claiming jurisdiction in such matters as determining whether a development within the Grand River Tract will be allowed to proceed unchallenged.
The point here, however, is that it is entirely wrong to blame the Canadian Government for 1924. This situation was initiated by groups within the Six Nations community who were dissatisfied with the Hereditary Council and for over 60 years had been petitioning the government to install an elected system. None the less, to this day, "1924" is a rallying cry against the supposed injustices imposed by the Colonialist Canadian Government. Clearly it is not that simple - but many believe and wish it were so.
The above blogger makes an allegation as to a murder happening, and asserts who perpetrated the act - the then Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs. I can find nothing whatsoever that would substantiate this claim so it remains to this day another of the many beliefs that are in common currency at Six Nations. Duncan Campbell Scott may have been an avowed assimilationist (for the record, a practise that the present author does not condone), but that is as far as it goes in the realm of facts. See here.
Upddated: 13 December 2013
DeYo.
So, what are the facts? First a belief that is very commonly heard at Six Nations.
In looking for a typical view of a Six Nations writer in relation to the subject, I Googled "1924 Six Nations" and came up with a relevant statement from a fellow blogger. It is as follows:
In October 25, 1924, the RCMP brutally threw out the Confederacy Chiefs from the Council House to install the Indian Act Council and implement the illegal Indian Land Acts throughout the country. A resolution was quickly passed that Deskaheh no longer represented the Six Nations. He was murdered shortly after by agents of Duncan Campbell Scott. See here (retrieved 3 November 2013).
Now, the question as usual is whether the facts support the beliefs. So who does one turn to for events that occurred close to 100 years ago when no one is alive who can offer first hand information? I have found that the anthropologists who were trusted by those of the Six Nations to discuss sensitive and even at time sacred things are a good resource. There can be no better source on the Confederacy Chiefs and Clan Mothers and "Conservative" practises than Annemarie Anrod Shimony, Conservatism Among the Iroquois at the Six Nations Reserve, Syracuse, Syracuse University Press, 1964.
The preamble to this book sums up nicely what I have read in other respected sources. For example, Shimony wrote, Since there had been decades of agitation to replace the Confederate Council, the Canadian Government now felt sufficiently pressured by the progressive elements to call for an investigation. The result was an Order in Council which installed an elected body in place of the uncooperative and dysfunctional hereditary chiefs (p.xxxiv). Shimony goes on to describe the physical violence between the factions that led to the act of locking the Longhouse. What is true is that after much dissension and acrimony, the Government acted to effect a resolution of the problem that plagued Six Nations by virtue of the constant infighting between the more acculturated elements, and the more conservative elements.
More specifics of the chronology of events leading up to 1924 will help set the stage. In Sally M. Weaver, Six Nations of the Grand River, Ontario in William C. Sturtevant (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, Northeast, Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institute, 1978, the author provides a good introduction to the subject based on her ethnographic work at Six Nations between the years 1963 and 1974. Dr. Weaver describes the general tone of factionalism that was pervasive in the Community for as far back as anyone can recall. As the years progressed and the Community was divided into conservative / traditional and progressive groupings and it was inevitable that the divisive matters would be formally presented to the Indian Department officials.
There were elements at Six Nations which wanted acculturation to proceed at a more rapid pace, and believed that the Hereditary Council was dragging their feet when it came to promoting for example agriculture and eduction, hence in 1861 a group of Christian Mohawks petitioned the Department for an elected council - a move that at the time was not supported by the government (p. 529). They were likely aware that the Hereditary Council at two Seneca Reservations had been abolished in 1848 to be replaced by elected counterparts (p. 436). The lack of success did not deter the "progressive" element who began to mimic what they saw in the more successful Whites in surrounding communities. They even formed their own Orangemen's Lodge (a largely Protestant and anti - Catholic benevolent group) on the Reserve in the 1890s. The "Protestant ethic" was becoming a force at Six Nations, with the consequence that a Farmer's Institute and a Women's Institute was added to the roster of groups who had little to do with the Hereditary Council, and who gained ascendancy (p. 530). A reform group known as the "Progressive Warriors" believed that the slow progress was due to a closed system of leaders, and hence "education should be a requisite for council office" (p. 532). In 1890 another petition was submitted by 20% of the male adults on the Reserve, "urging the government to apply the elected system to the reserve". This attempt went nowhere, but in 1906 a group known as the "Indian Rights Association" or "Dehorners" initiated, a campaign to remove the chiefs from power.
More petitions followed in 1907 and 1910, however the government, held to its noninterference policy. As with so many things in Canada, the "Great War" of 1914 served to be a catalyst to change. The Chiefs refused to participate in any conscription plan, unless asked to do so by the king himself, once again using the opportunity to assert their claim to sovereignty. None the less hundreds of Six Nations men volunteered, and when they returned home they found the conditions intolerable and petitioned the government, to establish an elected system. Divisions at Six Nations grew, and the Government of Canada found itself in the embarrassing situation of having Confederacy Chief Deskahe travel to London and Geneva to put forth a grievance of the lack of recognition of sovereignty. Council was also operating in a ponderously slow manner and frustrating the government officials. This lack of cooperation was pretty well the last straw. Since there was considerable agitation at Six Nations to install an elected council, they acted quickly and perhaps somewhat precipitously, in sending the RCMP to lock the Longhouse, and to establish elections at Six Nations which resulted in a new Elected Council (composed largely of literate, Engllish speaking Mohawks) which from that moment became the "official" voice of Six Nations in dealings with the government.
However the Hereditary Council had no intention of just capitulating. They refused to disband, and stood firm in their belief that only they were the legitimate form of governance at Six Nations, and continued to agitate for a return to the rule of the Confederacy (p. 532). Since 1924 they (now the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council or HCCC) have continued to maintain a shadow or parallel council. Today the schism is as deep as it was in 1924, with the HCCC and their agencies such as the HDI (Haudenosaunee Development Institute) claiming jurisdiction in such matters as determining whether a development within the Grand River Tract will be allowed to proceed unchallenged.
The point here, however, is that it is entirely wrong to blame the Canadian Government for 1924. This situation was initiated by groups within the Six Nations community who were dissatisfied with the Hereditary Council and for over 60 years had been petitioning the government to install an elected system. None the less, to this day, "1924" is a rallying cry against the supposed injustices imposed by the Colonialist Canadian Government. Clearly it is not that simple - but many believe and wish it were so.
The above blogger makes an allegation as to a murder happening, and asserts who perpetrated the act - the then Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs. I can find nothing whatsoever that would substantiate this claim so it remains to this day another of the many beliefs that are in common currency at Six Nations. Duncan Campbell Scott may have been an avowed assimilationist (for the record, a practise that the present author does not condone), but that is as far as it goes in the realm of facts. See here.
Upddated: 13 December 2013
DeYo.
Dangerous Allies: Six Nations and non-Native Communist Advisors
You can learn a lot about a person by the friends they keep. This simple aphorism applies very well at Six Nations. If you are willing to make a pact with the Devil, what does it say about you and your cause? The answer is, plenty.
I don't know when the relationship between Six Nations radicals and members of the Communist Party of Canada first began, but evidence of their liaison was all to apparent during and subsequent to the "Caledonia crisis" of 2006.
Until recently major world powers such as the Soviet Union and China were Communist regimes guided by the teachings of Karl Marx who wrote "Das Capital", and Chairman Mao who wrote his "Little Red Book". However things have dramatically changed since the 1960s. Both Russia and China found that the theory did not exactly match up with the practise and the systems basically folded in on themselves. If not entirely Capitalist in outlook, both regimes are definitely looking strongly in this direction, and have abandoned the Communist dogma of the 1950s to permit their countries to better thrive in the modern world. Alas, this reality has not sunk in with youthful idealists in Western countries who still read Marx, and believe in the black and white, Communism = good, Capitalism = bad. Generally these youth abandon these "ideals" when faced with the reality that they have to get a job and support themselves. One way around this unsettling realisation is to stay enrolled perpetually in a graduate University programme, usually Sociology, History, and Political Science. Here one is sheltered from life's realities, and is actually encouraged to spout their far left rhetoric under the guise of academic freedom.
So sometime in or about 2006, the Six Nations and various Communists, Anarchists, and radical union members entered into an unholy alliance for the purpose of advancing their respective causes. These White radicals and their allies, such as Palestinian groups, Black Panther derivatives, and other unsavoury elements which were brought to Six Nations to radicalise the Natives, and provide practical advice on "resistance" and being pro-active in furthering "the cause" - with an ethos that the ends justify the means. In other words if physical violence and psychological warfare will do the trick, then so be it. That the Six Nations would make alliances with these groups speaks volumes about whether they might be concerned with obvious moral - ethical dilemmas when confronting their neighbours, who had never done them any harm, but could be used as pawns in a deadly game of ever escalating violence and the sacrifice of innocents.
Residents of Caledonia could fill books with information about their direct contact with the supreme organiser of these groups, one Tom Keefer, a graduate student in Political Science at York University in Toronto. An excellent reference to Keefer and his agenda can be found here. His long graduate "career", criminal involvement, and the tactics he is willing to use in the service of his Communist - Anarchist aims are all profiled with examples. However you really have to talk to Caledonia residents to get to know the "real" Tom Keefer, an articulate individual who cuts an imposing figure. This belies an utter ruthlessness to achieve goals. For years he has been a familiar figure at any rally of locals, giving the Six Nations radicals advice on how best to proceed with the "defense". See here for even more details of Keefer and his antics used against victims of the 2006 "Caledonia crisis". He and friends from the same niche (radical leftists) would stand side by side with the Six Nations radicals, watching while the impotent defanged OPP shielded them, and instead turning their wrath toward the locals. I expect that Keefer had many a good laugh at this scenario which fit very well with the goals of the leftist groups. The motto of the Ontario Anarchists is, "In Chaos we see beauty". Well, at least they are letting the rest of us know in the clearest possible terms where they are coming from. To get a sense of CUPE Local 3903, and its agenda, see here.
The leftists must have been wringing their hands in glee when they obtained the support of the Six Nations in the attempt to entirely shut down Caledonia on a busy weekend 28 April 2012. And it worked like a charm, and created the desired level of chaos so important to "the cause".
The event was portrayed as a, "Peace and Friendship Walk and Rally" (also called parade) to promote healing between the local Caledonia residents, and the Six Nations. In interviews, however, the organisers gave the real reason - to pressure Ottawa to return to land claims talks. So Caledonia was to be "used" once again to facilitate the agenda of others, in this case those who touted themselves as members of the "Six Nations Solidarity Network". Prior to the event, Keefer and others tried to "soften up" the locals by holding a picnic in the Kinsman Park (with Keefer and his jackbooted your female followers orchestrating all), and holding meetings with Caledonia residents. See here for a discussion of the lead up to the "parade". The problem was that absolutely nothing anyone said meant anything - only the pre-arranged agenda which would go ahead irrespective.
The parade came off as planned with a handful of Six Nations people (including one Chief), and included the expected radicals that are always at such events. They were, however, vastly outnumbered by contingents from Toronto and elsewhere, many bussed in by CUPE (as an aside - how do members feel about their Union dues being used in this way?). A huge banner that was at a guess 30 by 150 feet representing the Two Row Wampum, was furled horizontally, carried by White radicals, raised up and down like a Chinese dragon at Chinese New Years. Many carried flags, waving in the light breeze, each representing their specific group. I saw flags of the Communist Party of Canada, the Anarchist League (or something like that), the Palestinians, the Black Panthers and of course CUPE (the Canadian Union of Public Employees). The event shut down Argyll Street, which is the main street of Caledonia, and the event was "monitored" by the OPP - who could not prevent the traffic chaos that was expected by locals. Apparently the fact that the organisers did not have a parade permit was insufficient to result in any consequences. The parade went from the north side of Caledonia, across the bridge, and along the southern extent of Argyll Street to the gates (if that is what you can call severed hydro towers) at the former Douglas Creek Estates, and into the lands claimed by the Six Nations. See here for an overview of the "parade", with pictures of what transpired at the event.
In order to hopefully defuse any further inroads by the leading Communists and Anarchists, at least one local citizen as well as at least one elected official wrote letters to each of the academic advisers of Keefer and one of his cohorts Luke Stewart, as well as to the Chancellor of each University, requesting assistance to reining in their students who were causing so much pain to Caledonia. It remains to be seen how much, if any, effect these efforts had.
Actually there is considerable more that can be said, but for the purposes of the blog this is sufficient to give a strong flavour of the problem. A bottom line is that the Six Nations are keeping bad company, and you are known by the company you keep. Seeing the Communist Party of Canada flag (along with the flags of even worse radical elements), is like placing a red flag before a bull for those who are old enough to recall the Cold War and the Communist repressions in Europe and Asia.
What occurs, however, is that there is an undetermined number at Six Nations who "believe" that the end justifies the means. Sadly, this does not bode well for propping up the sagging relationship between the Six Nations and Caledonians.
Update: According to Two Row Times, November 13th, 2013, in an article entitled, "Union delegation joins the work at Oshkimaadziig Unity Camp", it appears that Keefer (although not mentioned by name) and crew may be headed north to import their agenda to Penetanguishene (p. 5). Here, a delegation from the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 3903 joined the Oshkimaadziig Unity Camp ...... and build new relationships with Anishinabek people. Tom Keefer is a member of Local 3903, and clearly this group senses a new opportunity to "convert" a new group of First Nations and bring them into the fold. The article asks a question which will resonate with Haldimand and Brant residents, why are a group of members of a union representing contract faculty, teaching assistants and graduate assistants at York University, joining the work at this unity camp? The answer given is that, Some of the CUPE 3903 members described the mutual benefits in a relationship between unions and land reclamations.
This all sounds so familiar to those of us who have lived through the various CUPE 3903 sponsored and supported events in Caledonia and vicinity from prior to 2006 to at least late 2012. Perhaps the welcome mat is no longer out for Keefer here, and he and colleagues must look further afield for opportunities to express their Communist agenda. All I can say here is, "good luck to the people of Penetanguishene and surrounds". We here know what you are in for.
Update: Since the newspaper, Two Row Times, is the new kid on the block, it is expected that there will be some shuffling around until a strong working group of employees can be assembled. What I noticed this week, was that the newspaper, instead of reflecting the Community at Six Nations, is also reflecting of the White leftist anarcho-communist "supporters" of Six Nations. One would presume that there is a difference. So now, in addition to Senior Writer Jim Windle (a non-Native activist from Brantford), we now find two very significant additions to the staff - well actually one in two roles. The General Manager is Tom Keefer, who is also, along with Six Nations member Jonathan Garlow, the second member of the Editorial Team. As has been noted in a number of blog posts, Mr. Keefer, a non-Native, has a long and sordid history with Caledonia. His unabashed Communist Party and Ontario Anarchist Party ties apparently do not concern his employers. See here for example. A google search will turn up a great deal on his "work" with CUPE 9303, and his radical past. Perhaps he has given up after his many years at York University, on working to obtain a Ph.D. in Political Science. In 2010, according to his curriculum vitae seen here, he was in year 6 of his doctoral programme - so now year 8, well beyond the allotted maximum in most such settings. I am sure that there is a story as to the departure, or leave of absence, and I will add a link if this can be located. I am predicting "creative differences" with this assembly of publishing staff, but only time will tell.
DeYo.
I don't know when the relationship between Six Nations radicals and members of the Communist Party of Canada first began, but evidence of their liaison was all to apparent during and subsequent to the "Caledonia crisis" of 2006.
Until recently major world powers such as the Soviet Union and China were Communist regimes guided by the teachings of Karl Marx who wrote "Das Capital", and Chairman Mao who wrote his "Little Red Book". However things have dramatically changed since the 1960s. Both Russia and China found that the theory did not exactly match up with the practise and the systems basically folded in on themselves. If not entirely Capitalist in outlook, both regimes are definitely looking strongly in this direction, and have abandoned the Communist dogma of the 1950s to permit their countries to better thrive in the modern world. Alas, this reality has not sunk in with youthful idealists in Western countries who still read Marx, and believe in the black and white, Communism = good, Capitalism = bad. Generally these youth abandon these "ideals" when faced with the reality that they have to get a job and support themselves. One way around this unsettling realisation is to stay enrolled perpetually in a graduate University programme, usually Sociology, History, and Political Science. Here one is sheltered from life's realities, and is actually encouraged to spout their far left rhetoric under the guise of academic freedom.
So sometime in or about 2006, the Six Nations and various Communists, Anarchists, and radical union members entered into an unholy alliance for the purpose of advancing their respective causes. These White radicals and their allies, such as Palestinian groups, Black Panther derivatives, and other unsavoury elements which were brought to Six Nations to radicalise the Natives, and provide practical advice on "resistance" and being pro-active in furthering "the cause" - with an ethos that the ends justify the means. In other words if physical violence and psychological warfare will do the trick, then so be it. That the Six Nations would make alliances with these groups speaks volumes about whether they might be concerned with obvious moral - ethical dilemmas when confronting their neighbours, who had never done them any harm, but could be used as pawns in a deadly game of ever escalating violence and the sacrifice of innocents.
Residents of Caledonia could fill books with information about their direct contact with the supreme organiser of these groups, one Tom Keefer, a graduate student in Political Science at York University in Toronto. An excellent reference to Keefer and his agenda can be found here. His long graduate "career", criminal involvement, and the tactics he is willing to use in the service of his Communist - Anarchist aims are all profiled with examples. However you really have to talk to Caledonia residents to get to know the "real" Tom Keefer, an articulate individual who cuts an imposing figure. This belies an utter ruthlessness to achieve goals. For years he has been a familiar figure at any rally of locals, giving the Six Nations radicals advice on how best to proceed with the "defense". See here for even more details of Keefer and his antics used against victims of the 2006 "Caledonia crisis". He and friends from the same niche (radical leftists) would stand side by side with the Six Nations radicals, watching while the impotent defanged OPP shielded them, and instead turning their wrath toward the locals. I expect that Keefer had many a good laugh at this scenario which fit very well with the goals of the leftist groups. The motto of the Ontario Anarchists is, "In Chaos we see beauty". Well, at least they are letting the rest of us know in the clearest possible terms where they are coming from. To get a sense of CUPE Local 3903, and its agenda, see here.
Tom Keefer
The leftists must have been wringing their hands in glee when they obtained the support of the Six Nations in the attempt to entirely shut down Caledonia on a busy weekend 28 April 2012. And it worked like a charm, and created the desired level of chaos so important to "the cause".
The event was portrayed as a, "Peace and Friendship Walk and Rally" (also called parade) to promote healing between the local Caledonia residents, and the Six Nations. In interviews, however, the organisers gave the real reason - to pressure Ottawa to return to land claims talks. So Caledonia was to be "used" once again to facilitate the agenda of others, in this case those who touted themselves as members of the "Six Nations Solidarity Network". Prior to the event, Keefer and others tried to "soften up" the locals by holding a picnic in the Kinsman Park (with Keefer and his jackbooted your female followers orchestrating all), and holding meetings with Caledonia residents. See here for a discussion of the lead up to the "parade". The problem was that absolutely nothing anyone said meant anything - only the pre-arranged agenda which would go ahead irrespective.
The parade came off as planned with a handful of Six Nations people (including one Chief), and included the expected radicals that are always at such events. They were, however, vastly outnumbered by contingents from Toronto and elsewhere, many bussed in by CUPE (as an aside - how do members feel about their Union dues being used in this way?). A huge banner that was at a guess 30 by 150 feet representing the Two Row Wampum, was furled horizontally, carried by White radicals, raised up and down like a Chinese dragon at Chinese New Years. Many carried flags, waving in the light breeze, each representing their specific group. I saw flags of the Communist Party of Canada, the Anarchist League (or something like that), the Palestinians, the Black Panthers and of course CUPE (the Canadian Union of Public Employees). The event shut down Argyll Street, which is the main street of Caledonia, and the event was "monitored" by the OPP - who could not prevent the traffic chaos that was expected by locals. Apparently the fact that the organisers did not have a parade permit was insufficient to result in any consequences. The parade went from the north side of Caledonia, across the bridge, and along the southern extent of Argyll Street to the gates (if that is what you can call severed hydro towers) at the former Douglas Creek Estates, and into the lands claimed by the Six Nations. See here for an overview of the "parade", with pictures of what transpired at the event.
In examining the photo for Native faces, there do not seem to be many (or any). This event was largely orchestrated and carried out by the Communists - Anarchists - Radical Unionists - Other Radical Groups, seen here carrying the Two Row Wampum banner.
In order to hopefully defuse any further inroads by the leading Communists and Anarchists, at least one local citizen as well as at least one elected official wrote letters to each of the academic advisers of Keefer and one of his cohorts Luke Stewart, as well as to the Chancellor of each University, requesting assistance to reining in their students who were causing so much pain to Caledonia. It remains to be seen how much, if any, effect these efforts had.
Actually there is considerable more that can be said, but for the purposes of the blog this is sufficient to give a strong flavour of the problem. A bottom line is that the Six Nations are keeping bad company, and you are known by the company you keep. Seeing the Communist Party of Canada flag (along with the flags of even worse radical elements), is like placing a red flag before a bull for those who are old enough to recall the Cold War and the Communist repressions in Europe and Asia.
What occurs, however, is that there is an undetermined number at Six Nations who "believe" that the end justifies the means. Sadly, this does not bode well for propping up the sagging relationship between the Six Nations and Caledonians.
Update: According to Two Row Times, November 13th, 2013, in an article entitled, "Union delegation joins the work at Oshkimaadziig Unity Camp", it appears that Keefer (although not mentioned by name) and crew may be headed north to import their agenda to Penetanguishene (p. 5). Here, a delegation from the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 3903 joined the Oshkimaadziig Unity Camp ...... and build new relationships with Anishinabek people. Tom Keefer is a member of Local 3903, and clearly this group senses a new opportunity to "convert" a new group of First Nations and bring them into the fold. The article asks a question which will resonate with Haldimand and Brant residents, why are a group of members of a union representing contract faculty, teaching assistants and graduate assistants at York University, joining the work at this unity camp? The answer given is that, Some of the CUPE 3903 members described the mutual benefits in a relationship between unions and land reclamations.
This all sounds so familiar to those of us who have lived through the various CUPE 3903 sponsored and supported events in Caledonia and vicinity from prior to 2006 to at least late 2012. Perhaps the welcome mat is no longer out for Keefer here, and he and colleagues must look further afield for opportunities to express their Communist agenda. All I can say here is, "good luck to the people of Penetanguishene and surrounds". We here know what you are in for.
Update: Since the newspaper, Two Row Times, is the new kid on the block, it is expected that there will be some shuffling around until a strong working group of employees can be assembled. What I noticed this week, was that the newspaper, instead of reflecting the Community at Six Nations, is also reflecting of the White leftist anarcho-communist "supporters" of Six Nations. One would presume that there is a difference. So now, in addition to Senior Writer Jim Windle (a non-Native activist from Brantford), we now find two very significant additions to the staff - well actually one in two roles. The General Manager is Tom Keefer, who is also, along with Six Nations member Jonathan Garlow, the second member of the Editorial Team. As has been noted in a number of blog posts, Mr. Keefer, a non-Native, has a long and sordid history with Caledonia. His unabashed Communist Party and Ontario Anarchist Party ties apparently do not concern his employers. See here for example. A google search will turn up a great deal on his "work" with CUPE 9303, and his radical past. Perhaps he has given up after his many years at York University, on working to obtain a Ph.D. in Political Science. In 2010, according to his curriculum vitae seen here, he was in year 6 of his doctoral programme - so now year 8, well beyond the allotted maximum in most such settings. I am sure that there is a story as to the departure, or leave of absence, and I will add a link if this can be located. I am predicting "creative differences" with this assembly of publishing staff, but only time will tell.
DeYo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)