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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

DeYo.

Role of Clan Mothers and Female Elders at Six Nations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DeYo.

Canadians Tiring of the "Bottomless Pit" of Spending Directed to First Nations Communities

This has been brewing for some time.  Not so very long ago many to most Canadians were highly sympathetic to the plight of First Nations people.  They were told of the Residential Schools abuses, the grotesque poverty and social ills on many Northern Canadian reserves, the over representation of Natives in the criminal justice system and other such serious problems.  Many agreed that the Federal Government was not doing enough to address these issues.  Well the times, they are a changing.

In the past there was a romanticising of the First Nations peoples, and a tendency to see them as victims.  What with the information age, many abuses have come to light, and lets just say that the government was no longer seen as the prime reason why Native people were in such dire straights across the country.  In the past some would speak of the need to balance entitlements with responsibility - and that the latter was seldom if ever discussed.  It was far easier to just point the finger of blame in one direction - the Federal Government - a convenient target.  In addition, something that might be termed "White guilt" was pervasive, where schools taught that it was Colonialism and assimilationalist policies that keep First Nations peoples from achieving any sort of success in life (with of course some outstanding exceptions).  If a White person dared to assert that Natives needed to shoulder some of the "blame" for their own plight, they were "kept in their place" by being labelled "racists".  This word has been used effectively by First Nations and their "solidarity" supporters in the White community to discourage any honest discussion of the facts.  After all it was "known" that Natives were victims and the perpetrators were the "White settlers" and their government - end of story.  Thus many Canadians bought into the prevailing politically correct view, and academics who dared to challenge the "accepted" view literally were putting their careers on the line.

False beliefs can exist only so long.  Eventually they will be challenged when the facts become so blatantly apparent that only by doing an ostrich head in the sand posture could one not see that the matters that at one time seemed so simple, were anything but.  Perhaps the most outlandish example, possibly the one which made many Canadians say enough is enough, was Chief Theresa Spence's ill conceived hunger strike outside Ottawa, which spawned the "Idle No More" movement.  She was from Attiwaspikat, a Reserve that epitomises the ills that plague First Nations communities across Canada.  Gasoline sniffing youth, domestic violence, alcoholism, prescription drug abuse, poverty, and on and on.  Some reporters became curious about the whole matter and found out that far from being denied money for various services (e.g., to correct the substandard housing), huge sums of money had simply vanished.  There appeared to be no accountability.  The money was either being diverted, or was being misspent such that the problems remained, while curiously the Chiefs and their families were driving around in giant 4x4 trucks and living relatively lavish lifestyles, while the community was floundering under the weight of poverty.  Many First Nations people seem to have adopted a, "well, that is just the way it is" approach and have not demanded that every penny being given to the Community be tracked so that they and Canada would know how their money was being spent.  There is a revolutionary idea.  Unfortunately it seems that the Government of Canada has been quite content to act as enablers and to not demand an audit of the expenditures of tax payer money on every Reserve and First Nations community in the country.  Perhaps the answer would reflect badly on the "Aboriginal Industry", the group of lawyers and employees of the Indian and Northern Affairs etc. departments whose jobs require the maintenance of the status quo.  So don't ruffle any feathers, just keep sending more good money after bad money and hope that the citizens will not question anything - after all only "racists" would call for an accounting of such matters.

Canadians are becoming increasingly fed up, and while the politicians may try to do everything possible to appease the vocal elements within Reserve communities (it being important to appear "sympathetic" which means not asking the hard questions about where the money goes), the Canadian Taxpayers Association and the average Canadian taxpayer is demanding to know why all of the huge sums of monies spent over the years has not even made a dent in the problems, particularly those of the isolated Northern communities.  Now realities such as the over representation of Native people in the criminal justice system is not being seen as a legacy of Colonialism, but rather of the fact that for whatever reason, long after the Colonial era, Native people are committing crimes indicative of social decay (e.g., the wanton domestic abuse, often fueled by alcohol) because they chose to do so.  There is a concept called "personal responsibility", and what with the many entitlements available to First Nations people, nothing seems to make a difference.  People are getting fed up, and sympathy is in shorter supply.  Perhaps the following article is indicative of what I have been speaking of - click here to see, and especially note the comments made by Canadians which are universally negative towards First Nations people - something that would have been rare only a couple of years ago.

Six Nations better begin to realise the tone of what is changing out there, and as the largest and most populous Reserve in Canada should lead the way in showing how the Community can stand on its own two feet without the constant flow of handouts from Canadian taxpayers.  This money will dry up, and to be forewarned is to be given a chance to be proactive.  This will be the first of many blog posts on this subject.

Update:  The 18 december 2013 issue of Turtle Island News (p. 7) includes a brief article entitled, Sasketchewant FN accused of misspending social assistance.  Here it is reported that, New documents show that some members of a Sasketchewan First Nations are facing allegations that they misused money meant for social assistance to buy themselves vehicles, horses and trailers.  I don't know what to say - we will have to await the results of the forensic audit.

DeYo.

Where Do We Turn to Obtain Accurate Facts about Six Nations of the Grand River History and Culture?

I am guessing that the above question would bring forth a variety of answers - but my focus is on reliable and accurate information, data that will not be shown to be wrong based on other sources - although differences of opinion may exist.  If one takes statements at face value, then the representatives of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) would assert that one only need enquire of ones Clan Mother and representative Chief to obtain the requisite information.  In a previous blog I showed how impossible this would be for most at Six Nations, plus the fact that even 100 years ago there were serious errors entered into the collective memory such that what one might obtain today from those who are supposed to be in the know (e.g., the Hereditary Council at Six Nations), is basically an unknown entity.  I would venture to say that there will be no one alive today who could correctly recite all of the warriors and women's names belonging to a particular Nation, Clan, and Ohwachira. 

Something as basic as the date of the founding of the Confederacy (the League of the Five Nations Iroquois) by the Huron / Wyandot Deganawida and the Mohawk Ayenwagtha, is a matter of much debate.  Depending on who one asked, at what time period the question was posed, and to what tribe the informant belonged, there are at least 10 competing versions.  The most persuasive arguments are for a date between the arrival of the Dutch in 1609 back about 150 years.  It is destined to remain an elusive "fact" that will at best be shrouded in the mists of time and remain bookended within a "reasonable" time frame.  One might decide to use the appearance of wampum as a benchmark.  The archaeological record would then delimit the earliest possible date to the 16th Century.  Fortunately, there are other aspects of Six Nations chronology which are much easier to pinpoint.

In 1885, when Seth Newhouse wrote his well - researched study of the traditions of the Six Nations, things, by his admission, had begun to fall apart and he was not entirely sure of some of what his informants gave him (it was sometimes contradicted by other informants).  It appears that what with the cataclysmic upheavals since that time, the problem has deteriorated to the point that if one seeks consistency (a hallmark of the truth), then it will be necessary to turn to those most knowledgeable, those informants deemed to be the most reliable, and whose version can be cross validated with other sources to locate facts that one can "take to the bank". 

For present purposes, I will parse the body of knowledge into two broad categories.

A)  Studies on the archaeology, socio-political history, rituals and related matter relevant to the League of the Iroquois (Five, later Six Nations):

Many historians and anthropologists had the foresight to record for all posterity the recollections of the most trusted Six Nations people.  In the political climate of today, with rampant factionalism in every nook and cranny of Six Nations society, one is not going to find consensus - except by reference to the works published by White authors based on the Six Nations informants who were universally seen as having a trustworthy memory of what the most respected elders had told them.  After the passing of Chief Elliott Moses in the 1960s, an entire era has forever gone, leaving us today without those who at one time all would have agreed, these were elders revered for their knowledge of the oral traditions and history or Six Nations people.  Alas, these days, there does not seem to be a cadre of individuals to whom one could approach for knowledge on most subjects which were well known to those residing here 100 years ago.  These days at the Longhouses "down below", one constantly hears, for example after a fruitless search for someone to recite from memory part of the Great Law, that "we are going downhill" - or words to that effect.  Reasons cited include the lack of any real commitment by the youth of today in applying themselves to learn for example the particulars of the components of the dances used at the spring Strawberry festival.

So there seems to be little choice but to refer to the written texts that for example recorded details of the calendar ceremonies at the times anthropologists visited the Reserve up to the 1960s - after which time there seems to have been little further work done by the White academics visiting Six Nations.  Most of what is available has been published, with the notable exception of the work of Goldenweiser whose cribbed and coded notes have been deposited in the Museum of Civilization at Hull Quebec.

What follows is a list of some of the key authors of published or unpublished work that can be consulted to this day, and whose efforts have born fruit which can largely be relied upon to provide information that when combined with the second source below, offers as close as one can come to a comprehensive and factually correct version of Six Nations society and history.  The focus here is on the "classic" studies to the 1960s.  They are listed in no particular order, simply as they come to mind:

1)  Seth Newhouse (Mohawk)
2)  John A. Gibson (Seneca)
3)  Elliott Moses (Delaware)
4)  John Buck (Onondaga)
5)  Edward M. Chadwick
6)  Charles M. Johnston
7)  John Norton (Cherokee, adopted Mohawk)
8)  John A. Noon
9)  Marianne Shimony
10)  Sally Weaver
11)  Elizabeth Tooker
12)  William N. Fenton
13)  Frank G. Speck
14)  A. A. Goldenweiser
15)  Horatio Hale
16)  J. N. B. Hewitt (Tuscarora)
17)  William M. Beauchamp
18)  Arthur C. Parker (Seneca)
19)  Lewis H. Morgan
20)  Lyman Draper
21)  Duncan C. Scott

If put in a forced choice situation, where I could have one and only one book or other trustworthy resource that would cover as many bases as possible, my choice would be the 924 page volume of the Smithsonian Institute which discusses in detail, the scholarly work of most of the above authors.  Specifically, William C. Sturtevant (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, "Northeast", Washington D.C., Smithsonian, 1978.  Not only are the studies of the above authors relating to the Six Nations included, but also there are chapters on other members of the Six Nations Community, for example the Nanticoke and the Delaware.  If for example one is curious about the percentage of the Reserve Community who adhere to the Longhouse faith, this question has been explored by Shimony and Weaver.  In Weaver's 1978 article, noted elsewhere in this blog, she reported that at the time of the removal to the consolidated Reserve in 1847, the Longhouse group outnumbered all others.  However since about 1865, the number of Christian and Longhouse adherents have remained fairly stable at between about 19% to 24% over a 100 year period to 1974 (see p. 530 in the above book).

B)  Archival documentation pertaining to the Six Nations Reserve and current issues:

The second source for factual material is the original contemporary documentation (e.g., letters from Six Nations Chiefs and elders to the Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs), which for example include the observations and perspectives of men such as John "Smoke" Johnson, a revered Mohawk elder whose family played such a key role in Six Nations life in the 19th Century.  Another example of many would be the Reverend Abraham Nelles, the Church of England Minister at the Mohawk Chapel whose letters express the concern felt for the people at Six Nations.  He had grown up with them, and was sympathetic to the abuses which he knew from direct experience with his parishioners and others who resided along the Grand River. 

The real treasure trove for all of the available documentary material is the Archives of Ontario (now at York University, Toronto), the National Library and Archives (in Ottawa), and a few other repositories such as the Museum of Civilisation in Hull, Quebec.  In addition, there is a wealth of material (e.g., the records of Chief Elliott Moses) in the files at the library of the Woodland Cultural Centre in Brantford.

The judicious use of the above archival sources will provide the only way to address contentious topics such as the various land surrenders by the Six Nations to 1850 or so.  While some records may be missing (for reasons discussed elsewhere in this blog), answers to all of the most pressing questions can be found here - but much is unindexed and it is a long slog to find everything needed to "prove a point".  Still, this is absolutely the only way to dispense with beliefs by any party, and ferret out the facts to arrive at the truth of the matter.

Using these records is not for the faint of heart, they require months to years of study if one is to make any headway.  As a consequence, few have ventured into this realm.

If once again, required to chose only one book that would address the above subject matter best, there is no contest, it would be, Charles M. Johnston, The Valley of the Six Nations:  A Collection of Documents on the Indian Lands of the Grand River, Toronto, The Champlain Society, 1964.

With judicious use of the above materials, it will be possible to put beliefs to one side (and abandon them if necessary) to allow the facts to emerge and have any apparent inconsistencies resolved by a careful weighing of the sum total of the data.  My only complaint about Johnston's work is that he made a couple of omissions, which unfortunately, due to the contentious nature of both, may leave those who have not done their own research, with the impression that much of what one hears at Six Nations and is believed by many or most, could or must be true.  The two omissions are:

a)  The Nanfan Treaty of 1701 which is cited as proof that Six Nations (then Five Nations) have the right to hunt and fish across what is today all of Southern Ontario.  The HDI take the extreme position that any development (e.g., construction of power grids) within this vast domain can only take place after consultation with the representatives of the Hereditary Council (i.e., the HDI).  However, there is an immutable principal at work here.  One cannot assign, give away or sell that which does not legally or in any other way belong to them.  The area deeded to the Crown in 1701 in fact belonged at that time to the Mississauga by right of conquest - they having dispersed all of the 8 settlements of Six Nations north of Lake Ontario.  All of the Six Nations were driven back to what is today Upstate New York by Mississauga warriors and their allies by 1696.  So the deal was established upon a false premise.

b)  While Johnston provides excellent coverage of the various papers and records relating to land dealings within the Grand River Tract by the Six Nations Chiefs in Council, he only takes the matter to the Surrender of 1841.  In fact, the Chiefs in Council executed a number of other Surrenders and these documents, as well as the related Council Minutes, are in the National Archives, but we are left hanging 10 years too soon.  Between 1842 and 1850 the Chiefs in Council had signed Surrenders to all of the Grand River, Haldimand Tract, lands except those which today comprise the consolidated Six Nations Reserve 40; and in the related Council Minutes are recorded their discussions which led to the decision to surrender all other lands to the Crown for sale with the monies from such transactions being applied to their general annuities. 

There is still a pervasive belief at Six Nations that not only do the lands such as the Burch Tract, and the Plank Road lands (including the Douglas Creek Estates - Kanonhstaton) belong to them, but some contend that all of the Grand River Tract was not properly surrendered and is still Six Nations territory.  The facts say otherwise.  In other words the "reclamation" of DCE as Kanonhstaton was illegal, violently usurping the established Land Registry system of Ontario based on false information as to "ownership".  Taking it the next step, if justice is to be served, compensation is due from Six Nations for the many millions of dollars that these actions cost the taxpayers of Canada, and for the inexcusable suffering of those individuals whose only "crime" was to happen to live near the contentious site.

DeYo.

Enforcement of Tobacco Laws in the U.S.A.: Effect on Distributors and Retailers at Six Nations

Turtle Island News, December 3, 2013, p. 4 has an article entitled,  2009 law didn’t halt cigarette deliveries from Indian tribes, shipping records show.  If the gist of this article is correct, the “tax free” cigarette businesses throughout Indian Country are in a lot of trouble.  It seems that after all these years, various laws and fines have convinced shipping companies and wholesalers and pretty well all within the nexus of cigarette product distribution and sales, that perhaps their days are numbered.  Could it be that within a couple of years, the many cigarette shops / shacks which dot the landscape on and around local Indian Reserves will be a fixture consigned to history, and will one by one vanish due to supply side economics.  What is fueling this change is the strict and tight enforcement of the laws that could have been applied years ago – but for sundry reasons the authorities in Canada and the U.S.A. have been less than enthusiastic in going for the jugular on this illegal practise of smuggling and distribution of untaxed cigarettes which are then retailed locally, and internationally (e.g., in Europe). 

 

Many Reserve families have made a small fortune in this business over the past 15 or so years, and this is all in danger of evapourating – removing one major source of “business” revenue on Reserves.  It occurs that the practise was so blatant, and the people involved so brazen, that eventually the whole enterprise had to come collapsing down.  Some reasons include, the lost revenue to for example States such as New York; and the unabashed sale of product to minors.  Under these conditions it is surprising, at least to me, that the status quo has been maintained for so many years with little overt "tampering".

 

Today the name brand (e.g., Marlboro) distribution has dried up, and only the off brand locally made Native cigarettes have been available to the sellers on or near Reserves.  It is estimated that Native Wholesale Supply (apparently an arm of GRE) has sold 1.5 billion dollars of illegal untaxed cigarettes, and the State authorities in Idaho and Oklahoma as well as New York are going after them aggressively with law suits.  Clearly many thought that they better make hay while the sun shines or else they could lose all – which is the process which seems to be facing even a mega operation such as Grand River Enterprises (GRE).  Although there is still the question as to whether anything produced on the Reserve can be taxed, the authorities have gone after other links in the chain and for example sued one of the shippers for $81 million dollars.  So the pipelines to the primary markets (e.g., New York City which has decided to tackle the problem head on using the Courts) can be shut down.  It is unclear at this point what effect these goings on within the upper eschelons will have on the local “ma and pa” retail shops.  Local distribution at Six Nations may survive unscathed since action on this front would bring to the fore the thorny matter of taxing that which is made on the Reserve lands, and stays on Reserve lands.  Not so fortunate will be those operating online sales or “buyers clubs”, which have of late been shut down as these businesses are being revealed for what they are.  Business men involved in these dealings, from Florida to Washington D.C., to Virginia, to Montreal are being indicted and will likely do jail time.  The writing is on the wall.  The U.S. ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) and similar agencies are finally serious about dealing with the problem of the many faceted operations selling untaxed cigarettes.  At the local level, it seems that the shops situated off the Reserve would be most vulnerable if a major crackdown was in the cards.

Cigarettes have been seen by some as a solution to the poverty which for generations has gripped so many Iroquoian Reserves / Reservations, but today circumstances are such that, no one can count on tobacco being part of the tribe’s economic solution much longer.  The article in Turtle Island News was largely focused on the activities in Seneca Country.  If my understanding of information floating about is correct, GRE has seen the future and has diversified, which might buffer it from the full impact of the loss of the cigarette manufacturing and distribution part of its operation.  None the less, this is going to be a serious blow to a once thriving local industry.

 

I often wonder if the business was kept “low key” whether we would be seeing this trend.  What typically happens is that if someone gets away with say smuggling a few cartons of untaxed cigarettes, and the authorities do nothing, a process kicks in.  Those involved become more brazen and up the ante, with the belief that they are impervious to the Federal and State / Provincial laws.  For a time the American and Canadian Governments played the role of enablers.  However, escalation brings expansion and risk taking and eventually a line is crossed and with a full dossier of facts, "the Feds" will act, and once committed, will set their sights on eliminating the problem alltogether.  So once again the facts ultimately demolish the beliefs which were all along built on a weak foundation. 

As it happens, I drive by the GRE headquarters on a frequent basis.  I look at the trappings of an apparently healthy business and wonder what is truly in store for all who are involved.  My guess is that things will begin to unfold pretty quickly at some point - change is in the wind - but it is anyone's guess as to what we will be seeing in terms of the vendors along the local roads.

 

DeYo.

 

The Guswhenta (Erie Ave.) Development Fiasco Tumbles to New Depths

As reported in Turtle Island News, December 3, 2013, p. 7, the Guswhenta fiasco continues to get more complex and more bizarre.  The layers of complexity seem to continue to grow, and still no solution in sight.  At a recent “information” meeting there was a farcical “bar scene” with a drunk heckler, also someone who instigated a brawl, and as well Chief Monture of the Men’s Fire saying that a meeting at Kanata was invalid, such community events should take place “back home down there” (Ohsweken), back in “the bush”.  And the meeting reached new heights (actually lows) with Bill Squire (of the Mohawk Workers) and Aaron Detlor (legal council for the HDI) squaring off in a juvenile name calling session, with Squire asking Detlor who his mother was, with the latter retorting that, At least  I know who my Mohawk mother was.  This confrontation seems to stem from the apparent fact that Detlor is not a Community member and few know what connection he has, if any, with Six Nations.  As if things could get any stranger, instead of providing information on Guswhenta, Squire put charts on the wall about the HDI finances, the Band Council’s McKenzie Meadows Project, and old Confederacy letters questioning the legitimacy of the Chief and Clan Mother names for the first family among the Mohawk (Turtle Clan, Dekarihogea).  It seems that Porter and his Guswhenta development group were at a loss – their main concern being that it is getting to the point where the viability of the project is going to be an issue – delays of this nature being perhaps the kiss of death for everything.  The moderate words of respected elder Jan Longboat did perhaps allow some of the participants to see the immature depths to which their behaviour had descended.

 

So the bottom line is that the Men's Fire and HDI continue to square off against the Kanata Mohawk Workers, each believing that they possess the right to "negotiate" with the developer (a conglomerate of White and Native individuals) to direct what happens in the old Eagle's Nest Tract, when in reality neither have any legal rights whatsoever.  In fact, the land was out of Six Nations hands before 1850, and to assert any rights to direct what happens in this part of Brantford does not jive with the facts.  Much ado about nothing.

 

DeYo.

The HDI: Look Who is Swirling Around the Bowl These Days

It should be apparent to those who read this blog that I am less than enamoured with the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), whose behaviour would give some the impression that they are the enforcers, the shakedown artists for the Hereditary Council - but who, in reality, march to their own drum with one object in mind - extract money from all "eligible" groups or individuals.  Some might even say that the mafia in Naples could take lessons from this group at Six Nations.  I of course will reserve judgement.

 

Frankly, when I see the HDI floundering, it does indeed warm my heart.  If their illegal and amoral activities get them into difficulty, well perhaps that would be true justice.  In Turtle Island News, December 3, 2013 p. 7 we find an update thanks to the excellent unbiased reporting in this source.  Here we find that the HDI is being bypassed more and more these days, almost as if it is becoming irrelevant.  In the boundary adjustment matter involving the City of Brantford and Brant County, the HDI were not consulted, and the various Government agencies such as Aboriginal Affairs and Infrastructure Ontario have refused to return calls from the HDI.  The power that they wielded but a short time ago appears to be something consigned to history.  None the less, Hazel Hill, HDI Director, continues to maintain that any development within the Haldimand Tract requires consultation of the Hereditary Chiefs.  The HDI maintains that it is not the Elected Council who have legitimate authority to deal with the Crown (despite their mandate via the Federal Government of Canada), but the Hereditary Council, whose interests and views are represented via the agency of the HDI.  Lately the latter find that calls are going unreturned, and no one is listening, so of course out come the threats, about “incidents”, “more reclamations”, protests – I don’t know how our people will respond to (this), says Hill with what some might interpret as a veiled threat.  What is different now, however, is that these threats do not seem to unduly disturb anyone.  Perhaps it is because most are now aware that if the HDI or others attempt to stop development, then a developer only has to seek a Court injunction which, of late, will be applied.  If the protesters refuse to comply and the developer loses money, the protesters will be named in a legal action and will expect to pay very stiff fines.  It does not seem to be as easy these days to get a developer to fork out 7 to 8,000 dollars to go through “proper channels” (the HDI) and ensure that protests will directed elsewhere.

Could we be seeing "desperation" in the following episode?  Another article in Turtle Island News pertains to the subject matter here.  On the same page as above we find, Hydro One hitting community with massive hydro bills.  As part of the ongoing “battle” with Hydro One, Aaron Detlor, in his role as a director of HDI, stopped crews from trimming the trees along 6^th Line which were interfering with the transmission lines.  This prompted former Councillor Ross Johnson to call Detlor a “jerk” and former Chief Montour to add, a “jerk”, who does not even live in the community.  Apparently Detlor and the HDI were upset that Hydro One has not been "cooperative" in discussing Hydro One's work in lands that the HDI have decided are Haudenosaunee Territory.  Incredibly, this land is in the Bruce Peninsula, and includes the Bruce to Milton line.  This claim can only be described as a monumental stretch of what is believed to be under the purview of Six Nations (likely via an erroneous interpretation of the Nanfan Treaty) but is not supported by the facts; and the apparent petulance of the HDI representative speaks volumes.
 

On the same page of the same source is an article entitled, Community money may have to pay protesters legal bills.  It appears that the HDI (or its officers) currently owes the City of Brantford $375,000.  Actually there are a number of protesters involved here, but most are elderly, and based on what is reported in Turtle Island News, only the executive of the HDI, Hazel Hill and lawyer Aaron Detlor, are apparently in any position to make good on the payment of the fine.  The City of Brantford lawyer was quite blunt in saying that they are likely to be going after the “deepest pockets” to recover the fines.  In Detlor’s expressed view the City may be coming after the Communities money, so the community has to decide what to do.  Considering he is the one with the “deepest pockets”, the City may come after him directly, and it appears that he would like to see this as a Community matter and deflect any personal responsibility away and toward the collective body of the Six Nations.  There are monies from the various wind farm deals that could be tapped into to pay these costs, but Detlor knows that the only way this will work is if  “the community” recommends bailing out the HDI and its executive here.  Hey, good luck with that. 

Update:  The problem is compounded by the fact that Detlor, as legal advisor to both the HCCC and the HDI has recently been criticised by his employers, the HCCC, in releasing a letter as to the Chief's position on the removal of the Brant Children's Aid Society, without having obtained their full approval of this action.  See Turtle Island News, December 11, 2013, p. 7, Confederacy supports CAS removal, but transition plans unclear.  So it may be that the HDI is overstepping its mandate, or perhaps it is just one individual wearing two hats who assumes that they can speak for the collective body.

 

DeYo.