As reported in previous postings, the citizen's arrest of a Six Nations radical residing (rent free thanks to the Ontario taxpayer) at the former Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) by Gary McHale was very noteworthy.
For myself, the most important result of this action is that with a 911 call from the site, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) arrived promptly, were shown a video of the incident, and the two officers proceeded to immediately arrest J "Kawaowene" G. The officers were doing their duty (something not often seen since 2006 in Caledonia), and I would say that the whole matter came off without any hitch, in a by the numbers arrest. JG did not go willingly, unfortunately, but the video with both visual and auditory evidence of the entire event shows that without any doubt the officers where gentle, never raised their voices, were polite - but JG was bent on making a bad situation worse with "bad behavior". His resisting arrest and his refusal to walk to the police car are plainly going to just cause embarrassment, and yet could be used later as a pretext for something like "excessive use of force" (of which objectively, there was NONE).
In "Turtle Island News" (TIN), July 23, 2014 (p.9), is an article entitled, Assault charge from McHale incident dropped. Here we learn that, according to the spin placed by this newspaper, the, two officers wrestled G to the ground, injuring his face, hands and elbow in the process. That description does not at all tally with the video evidence.
The article stated that on Tuesday, in Cayuga court, a Justice of the Peace dropped the charge, because there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with a trial for assault, said G.
Alas, G's troubles were not over when he learned that, he would be facing new charges of breaching his release conditions in relation to the dropped assault charge.
G said that the breach charges stem from conditions that he keep a certain distance away from McHale after he was released on June 8. Specifically the breach occurred at the "front gate" to DCE (the barricade) on July 5. So Mr. G made his situation much worse simply because he could not resist being "part of the action" - despite a firm and clear order to stay away. The new charges will be heard on August 12. However, He may be pressing assault charges against McHale and the two OPP officers who arrested him June 8. So in other words he wants to escalate this matter which was videotaped from every angle and paints a crystal clear picture. I wonder if someone will counter him with charges of making a false accusation. With his history this is not something that is a trifling matter. In my opinion, based on what I saw and heard, the two officers should get commendations for making what has to be the most professional and gentle take down I have seen from any officer in any jurisdiction.
An article in "Two Row Times" (TRT), July 23rd, 2014 (p.10) adds some further details. In Charges laid by McHale dropped, they report that, the Crown saw fit to file a breach of conditions against Kawaowene for being within 25 metres of McHale. "The OPP are still terrorizing Haudenosaunee on our own land. I have to wonder why Onkwehonwe get charged so quickly, while non-Natives do not", said Kawaowene.
It appears that Mr. G does not appreciate the nature of the laws of Canada - for example, that you are expected to obey them, or there will be consequences. By choosing to be at the barricade and choosing to ignore the conditions or his release, Mr. G has slapped the law in the face and shows evidence of contempt - something all too familiar in interactions between Six Nations and the law - especially the boorish and unconscionably disrespectful behavior in the Court - which almost all Canadians realize "instinctively" is a place of solemnity, and one that is to be respected. He swearing and hecking and threats seen in Court at the hearings and trials of those few Six Nations members who were arrested and brought to Court subsequent to April 2006, speak volumes. In fact the complaint of Caledonians is that despite the overwhelming evidence of assaults even against the OPP officers, even against the ATF agents from the USA, let alone local citizens such as Sam Gaultieri who now lives with permanent brain damage, few Six Nations members have been brought to Court. Thus when Mr. G whines about untrue events, like "Onkwehonwe" (which means the "Real People"), being singled out quickly for swift administration of justice simply does not tally with the facts. I have news for you Mr. G, I am just as much Onkwehonwe as you are - and there are a lot more of us. If you wish to be "special", earn it. Also, DCE is NOT YOUR LAND, it belongs to the people of Ontario. It was surrendered by 47 Chiefs in Council 18 December 1844. You will need to get used to real history too, not the stuff HDI makes up - otherwise I have every "right" to come after the lands on the Reserve that my ancestors at some point in time owned. Perhaps I will do that.
At least recently, there seems to be a more balanced approach by the OPP and charges against anyone breaking the law is much more likely to happen now than in 2006 - a fact that perhaps Mr. G is having difficulty getting used to. Preferential treatment and two-tiered justice entitlements are something some criminals at Six Nations have come to expect - despite their disdain for the law. Wake up, it is 2014, and we will accept nothing but one law for all - equal treatment before the law. Get used to it, it is what is termed "true justice" that is blind to colour of skin, ethnicity, sex, religion and so on. Any country that does not operate on these principles is somewhere back in the dim ages.
DeYo.
Wednesday 23 July 2014
More Attempts by the HDI / Confederacy to Use Archaeology as a Club to Beat Companies into Submission
Recent events add to the thinly veiled attempts by the HCCC and their HDI overseers to come up with a ploy that will replace their faltering attempts to use work stoppages at land development sites as a tool to obtain submission by the groups that have failed to comply with their "process" requirements.
As noted in numerous postings to this blog, over the years since 2006 the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) has used extortion techniques in the form of threats and direct work stoppages in order to encourage land developers to "conform" to the "process" (paying an application fee of about $7,000) to keep goons from standing in front of construction equipment and other practices to engage in very costly work stoppages. Recently in both Haldimand and Brant Counties the Courts has issued Injunctions (sometimes backed with substantial fines) to quash the indiscriminate use of this method of lining their pockets. So, as noted in the recent posting here, the HDI have turned to a somewhat more sophisticated approach. What follows is an update.
In "Turtle Island News" (TIN), July 23, 2014 there are two items which provide summaries and an update as to what HDI are up to using their new toy. There is a full page article entitled, Confederacy order shut down after Samsung / CCL bulldoze archaeological site (p.8); and an Editorial entitled, What next Samsung ... digging up graveyards? (p.6).
a) Article: There is a great deal of repetition from the article of last week, and limited new information, but the real question here is, what has been omitted, and what has been exaggerated? Recall that the only legitimate monitors, those with Elected Council approval and trained and certified by the Ontario Professional Archaeological Association, are not in the picture here. They are the ones who need to be supervising any questionable activities. What training does these agents for the HDI have? What knowledge do they have of Ontario archaeology? These are questions I cannot answer. Recall that the HDI is one of the most secretive groups I have ever seen in operation. There is absolutely no transparency, particularly when it comes to the questions, "Where does the money go?" This is a question that has been asked by Six Nations members time and time again and still there is only deflections and statements to the effect that they are working on it. Still, they have their own cheering section, including the local press, who has never reported on the Elected Council's role in this particular project, and what the legitimate archaeological monitors have seen or believe about their rogue counterparts.
In the latest twist, Work came to a halt Tuesday on one of the three solar sites under development by Samsung/CLL Grand River Renewable Energy Park after machinery began digging in an area where artifacts dating back some 10,000 years had been found.
As I have stated before, the likelihood of finding a 10,000 year old site is improbable to zero - especially in the area where the work is taking place (not a location where such artifacts are likely to be found). So these individuals with questionable "training" in archaeology decide that they have a culturally sensitive or valuable site on their hands and those naughty developers contravened their order to stop work. If the artifacts held in a hand, as shown in the picture, are any indication then there is nothing there that virtually every farmer in Haldimand County does not have somewhere at home based on a surface find after the fields are ploughed. Although it is difficult to diagnose anything from a picture so small, the only item of diagnostic significance is the sole arrowhead which, it appears to me, is an Early Woodland, "Meadowood" projectile point dating at most to 2900 years ago (far from 10,000), and likely to be found in virtually every field in Haldimand County.
Why would Samsung even allow these individuals allow these so - called "monitors" on their site? If there is a native - related issues involving archaeology, the proper course of action is to call in the trained monitors working under authority of the legally constituted authority on the Reserve, the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC).
Also, based on the assemblage of artifacts supposedly found together in close proximity. The words from the article in TIN are as follows, HDI monitors found handfuls of artifacts in less than 10 minutes on the site that had three foot deep ruts made by machinery going through the cordoned off area. Later the article reports that two handfuls were found in this length of time - further stretching credibility to those of us familiar with archaeological finds of this time period. It is either a cache of items (very rare, and to be found together at that precise level even more rare) or items that have deliberately been scattered there to make a point. Then the artifacts mysteriously disappear (they were supposedly left by the monitors on site). Since the HDI is looking for a way to shut down a project and assert their authority - readers can come to their own conclusions as to what really happened. Since the HDI Director, involved in the shut down of numerous land development sites from Hagersville to Brantford and beyond, has been personally involved in this action, again red flags are raised. The article adds, It is a criminal offense to remove artifacts from an archaeological site.
Supposedly the site has again been, cordoned off, by agreement with the Confederacy until further investigation ensued. Furthermore, the Director of HDI said, We have instructed our monitors to shut down that particular site, until they meet with the company brass. How do the "monitors" (used to be called goons or thugs) shut down a site these days? Is it the same way they used to do it without their hard hats and orange vests (which give a look of authority to the individual)?
The HDI head monitor accuses the professional archaeologists of, in relation to the site, they cleared it without assessing it. I doubt very much that this statement is correct, and would like to hear from the company (Stantec) concerning the matter.
Then, towards the end of the article, is a revealing statement as follows, The Grand Renewable Energy Park is owned by Samsung but Six Nations is a shareholder through an agreement with the Six Nations Band Council. I suspect that many would gloss over this statement, but it would be wise to pause and look into some of these clauses:
1) "Six Nations is a shareholder": That is true, but it was based on false information provided to Samsung and partners that the land in that area is "treaty land", which it is not. Also it was based on the false assertion that Six Nations has valid land claims in the area. I believe that since it is the Fisherville area that the former rationale was deployed - that the land was part of the Nanfan Treaty of 1701. The later is a bogus and entirely fraudulent document that is being used successfully by Six Nations to obtain "entitlements" to from everything from hunting rights to aboriginal control over land usage. When they reach the Samsung lands a little further east, the claim is that there are unceded lands in South Cayuga and Dunn Townships. This is a patently false claim that I have refuted in a number of previous postings. It seems though that various levels of government, and large corporations would rather cave then challenge Six Nations on the basis of what is true and verifiable, and what is false.
2) There is an, "agreement with the Six Nations Band Council", is a statement that is correct - although the agreement was based on false information. However this is not the real issue here. What is noteworthy is that the Hereditary Council (HCCC) have absolutely no stake in what the Elected Council negotiate, which is a major irritant, and I would submit, a large part of the reason for the issues arising here. Factionalism rears its ugly head once again. The "Band Council" has their own (trained and certified) monitors, and no where here is it noted that they have played any role in the dispute. Reading between the lines, it would seem that they have signed off on the project after working on site with the Stantec contractors - and that the HDI monitors are acting in a project where they have absolutely no legal standing, and yet are willing to do whatever it takes to assert their authority and attempt to wrest control of "monitoring" from the hands of their rival SNEC. The rivalry is more than hinted at in the following statement from the article, The HDI was excluded from the previous archaeological assessment conducted in 2012.
The HDI are going to have to play their cards well here since they have a track record of shutting down development sites based on their own self - proclaimed version of the truth. They have been met recently with Court Injunctions. Since, Bondfield Construction had threatened to call the OPP, we can see that an Injunction is the next step.
b) Editorial: Here the Editor confirms that the lands where the "HDI action" took place were considered to be, on lands within the Nanfan Treaty area. As I (and many others) have explained, with proper primary source documentation, this is a fraudulent document, and in no way, shape, or form a "treaty" of any sort. This embarrassing and unfortunate fact does not seem to have made any headway into the psyche of many at Six Nations. You can't demand rights and entitlements to lands that were not yours to give in the first place (they were owned, by right of conquest, by the Mississauga).
The Editor calls this an, "archaeological nightmare". That is a rather strong statement, but I can see absolutely nothing even remotely tangible to back up this expression. At this point the Editor provides a short summary of the shortcomings of all of the parties involved except of course the, HDI did intervene in the crisis hoping to prevent any loss of Haudenosaunee history. As to motives, that particular attribution is not one that would align with my interpretation (money and power). Furthermore, There has been huge damage, loss of whatever was in the fields and the HDI is asking why? Has there been "huge damage"? Apparently no one but the shady HDI seems to think so.
Another statement from the Editorial is as follows: Samsung's decision to go ahead without alerting or involving HDI is inexcusable and a breach of an agreement. As far as I know, from the evidence I have seen, the only contract is with the Elected Council and thus their monitors - there is no rationale, that I can conceive of, that would warrant any HDI involvement - but that has never stopped them before. The Editor states that, Samsung needs to right the wrong immediately and work in good faith with the Confederacy for the betterment of both their company and the Six Nations community. Well, the agreement is with the Six Nations community via their legally mandated representatives, the Elected Band Council (SNEC). Why the Confederacy through their enforcement arm, HDI, should be involved in any way eludes me. Finally, according to the Editor, Anything less is unacceptable. We certainly know who TIN supports, don't we?
DeYo.
As noted in numerous postings to this blog, over the years since 2006 the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) has used extortion techniques in the form of threats and direct work stoppages in order to encourage land developers to "conform" to the "process" (paying an application fee of about $7,000) to keep goons from standing in front of construction equipment and other practices to engage in very costly work stoppages. Recently in both Haldimand and Brant Counties the Courts has issued Injunctions (sometimes backed with substantial fines) to quash the indiscriminate use of this method of lining their pockets. So, as noted in the recent posting here, the HDI have turned to a somewhat more sophisticated approach. What follows is an update.
In "Turtle Island News" (TIN), July 23, 2014 there are two items which provide summaries and an update as to what HDI are up to using their new toy. There is a full page article entitled, Confederacy order shut down after Samsung / CCL bulldoze archaeological site (p.8); and an Editorial entitled, What next Samsung ... digging up graveyards? (p.6).
a) Article: There is a great deal of repetition from the article of last week, and limited new information, but the real question here is, what has been omitted, and what has been exaggerated? Recall that the only legitimate monitors, those with Elected Council approval and trained and certified by the Ontario Professional Archaeological Association, are not in the picture here. They are the ones who need to be supervising any questionable activities. What training does these agents for the HDI have? What knowledge do they have of Ontario archaeology? These are questions I cannot answer. Recall that the HDI is one of the most secretive groups I have ever seen in operation. There is absolutely no transparency, particularly when it comes to the questions, "Where does the money go?" This is a question that has been asked by Six Nations members time and time again and still there is only deflections and statements to the effect that they are working on it. Still, they have their own cheering section, including the local press, who has never reported on the Elected Council's role in this particular project, and what the legitimate archaeological monitors have seen or believe about their rogue counterparts.
In the latest twist, Work came to a halt Tuesday on one of the three solar sites under development by Samsung/CLL Grand River Renewable Energy Park after machinery began digging in an area where artifacts dating back some 10,000 years had been found.
As I have stated before, the likelihood of finding a 10,000 year old site is improbable to zero - especially in the area where the work is taking place (not a location where such artifacts are likely to be found). So these individuals with questionable "training" in archaeology decide that they have a culturally sensitive or valuable site on their hands and those naughty developers contravened their order to stop work. If the artifacts held in a hand, as shown in the picture, are any indication then there is nothing there that virtually every farmer in Haldimand County does not have somewhere at home based on a surface find after the fields are ploughed. Although it is difficult to diagnose anything from a picture so small, the only item of diagnostic significance is the sole arrowhead which, it appears to me, is an Early Woodland, "Meadowood" projectile point dating at most to 2900 years ago (far from 10,000), and likely to be found in virtually every field in Haldimand County.
Why would Samsung even allow these individuals allow these so - called "monitors" on their site? If there is a native - related issues involving archaeology, the proper course of action is to call in the trained monitors working under authority of the legally constituted authority on the Reserve, the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC).
Also, based on the assemblage of artifacts supposedly found together in close proximity. The words from the article in TIN are as follows, HDI monitors found handfuls of artifacts in less than 10 minutes on the site that had three foot deep ruts made by machinery going through the cordoned off area. Later the article reports that two handfuls were found in this length of time - further stretching credibility to those of us familiar with archaeological finds of this time period. It is either a cache of items (very rare, and to be found together at that precise level even more rare) or items that have deliberately been scattered there to make a point. Then the artifacts mysteriously disappear (they were supposedly left by the monitors on site). Since the HDI is looking for a way to shut down a project and assert their authority - readers can come to their own conclusions as to what really happened. Since the HDI Director, involved in the shut down of numerous land development sites from Hagersville to Brantford and beyond, has been personally involved in this action, again red flags are raised. The article adds, It is a criminal offense to remove artifacts from an archaeological site.
Supposedly the site has again been, cordoned off, by agreement with the Confederacy until further investigation ensued. Furthermore, the Director of HDI said, We have instructed our monitors to shut down that particular site, until they meet with the company brass. How do the "monitors" (used to be called goons or thugs) shut down a site these days? Is it the same way they used to do it without their hard hats and orange vests (which give a look of authority to the individual)?
The HDI head monitor accuses the professional archaeologists of, in relation to the site, they cleared it without assessing it. I doubt very much that this statement is correct, and would like to hear from the company (Stantec) concerning the matter.
Then, towards the end of the article, is a revealing statement as follows, The Grand Renewable Energy Park is owned by Samsung but Six Nations is a shareholder through an agreement with the Six Nations Band Council. I suspect that many would gloss over this statement, but it would be wise to pause and look into some of these clauses:
1) "Six Nations is a shareholder": That is true, but it was based on false information provided to Samsung and partners that the land in that area is "treaty land", which it is not. Also it was based on the false assertion that Six Nations has valid land claims in the area. I believe that since it is the Fisherville area that the former rationale was deployed - that the land was part of the Nanfan Treaty of 1701. The later is a bogus and entirely fraudulent document that is being used successfully by Six Nations to obtain "entitlements" to from everything from hunting rights to aboriginal control over land usage. When they reach the Samsung lands a little further east, the claim is that there are unceded lands in South Cayuga and Dunn Townships. This is a patently false claim that I have refuted in a number of previous postings. It seems though that various levels of government, and large corporations would rather cave then challenge Six Nations on the basis of what is true and verifiable, and what is false.
2) There is an, "agreement with the Six Nations Band Council", is a statement that is correct - although the agreement was based on false information. However this is not the real issue here. What is noteworthy is that the Hereditary Council (HCCC) have absolutely no stake in what the Elected Council negotiate, which is a major irritant, and I would submit, a large part of the reason for the issues arising here. Factionalism rears its ugly head once again. The "Band Council" has their own (trained and certified) monitors, and no where here is it noted that they have played any role in the dispute. Reading between the lines, it would seem that they have signed off on the project after working on site with the Stantec contractors - and that the HDI monitors are acting in a project where they have absolutely no legal standing, and yet are willing to do whatever it takes to assert their authority and attempt to wrest control of "monitoring" from the hands of their rival SNEC. The rivalry is more than hinted at in the following statement from the article, The HDI was excluded from the previous archaeological assessment conducted in 2012.
The HDI are going to have to play their cards well here since they have a track record of shutting down development sites based on their own self - proclaimed version of the truth. They have been met recently with Court Injunctions. Since, Bondfield Construction had threatened to call the OPP, we can see that an Injunction is the next step.
b) Editorial: Here the Editor confirms that the lands where the "HDI action" took place were considered to be, on lands within the Nanfan Treaty area. As I (and many others) have explained, with proper primary source documentation, this is a fraudulent document, and in no way, shape, or form a "treaty" of any sort. This embarrassing and unfortunate fact does not seem to have made any headway into the psyche of many at Six Nations. You can't demand rights and entitlements to lands that were not yours to give in the first place (they were owned, by right of conquest, by the Mississauga).
The Editor calls this an, "archaeological nightmare". That is a rather strong statement, but I can see absolutely nothing even remotely tangible to back up this expression. At this point the Editor provides a short summary of the shortcomings of all of the parties involved except of course the, HDI did intervene in the crisis hoping to prevent any loss of Haudenosaunee history. As to motives, that particular attribution is not one that would align with my interpretation (money and power). Furthermore, There has been huge damage, loss of whatever was in the fields and the HDI is asking why? Has there been "huge damage"? Apparently no one but the shady HDI seems to think so.
Another statement from the Editorial is as follows: Samsung's decision to go ahead without alerting or involving HDI is inexcusable and a breach of an agreement. As far as I know, from the evidence I have seen, the only contract is with the Elected Council and thus their monitors - there is no rationale, that I can conceive of, that would warrant any HDI involvement - but that has never stopped them before. The Editor states that, Samsung needs to right the wrong immediately and work in good faith with the Confederacy for the betterment of both their company and the Six Nations community. Well, the agreement is with the Six Nations community via their legally mandated representatives, the Elected Band Council (SNEC). Why the Confederacy through their enforcement arm, HDI, should be involved in any way eludes me. Finally, according to the Editor, Anything less is unacceptable. We certainly know who TIN supports, don't we?
DeYo.
Tuesday 22 July 2014
Local Businesses, Especially at Six Nations and New Credit, are Suffering Due to the Continuing Fallout from DCE
Recently a prominent member of the Six Nations business community, who supports the HCCC and HDI said to me, "I used to see you all the time in Zehrs [large grocery store close to the barricade], but I don't shop there anymore. It makes things much easier". I did not bother to respond because there was no use in saying anything. I suspect that the real reason that some do not shop in Caledonia any longer is that since 2006 they feel uneasy about the barricade and DCE - and would not feel entirely welcome at a store so close to the "danger zone". A solution is to pretend they don't shop in Caledonia any longer, but in fact shop there, but at non peak times.
I tend to shop at "odd hours" at Zehrs and most of the people I see shopping there at that time are Six Nations members. Six Nations are well treated in Caledonia. They only have to ensure that they present their "Status Card" prior to the first item being rung in and they get all the tax perks, programmed into the store computers, that most of us only dream about. Six Nations folks at the lower end of the Reserve in particular are not going to give up going to Tim Hortons, or to Canadian Tire, or Shoppers Drug Mart (for example). A few, particularly those who would be instantly recognized as militants, and whose faces have been shown in various YouTube videos, believe that they will not be welcome at any time of the day, so of course do shop elsewhere.
So how about Six Nations businesses? I am not talking about the contraband tobacco shacks - they will continue to do a booming business because as a rule, their non-native smokers customers care about only one thing - price. According to another blogger, the most frequently asked google query that brings viewers to his site: "is there sh*t in native cigarettes". Good question - shows what people think - the potential down side to the low prices.
The following article entitled, Land claims band Caledonia businesses together, appears in the online version of "The Sachem" seen here. It discusses the continuing land dispute at DCE in terms of the effect on businesses locally.
On the Caledonia side of things, the general manager of the Grand Erie Business Centre had the following to say:
“Businesses in Caledonia, especially from a retail perspective, are working more closely together than they ever did before and they have to,” said Wayne Knox, general manager of the Grand Erie Business Centre. “People have re-invented their business. They had to survive and the only way they could do that was to band together.”
Knox said the strong have survived, but not everyone was able to wait for the economic climate to improve.
“Many businesses moved out because they couldn’t wait for business to recover,” Knox said. “I think the trades people are still having to go, to some degree, out of the area to get business that they lost. Even (real estate) lawyers lost business because Douglas Creek Estates never did get developed.”
Many businesses found relief in the Caledonia class action lawsuit, which started in June 2006. But before the $20-million settlement was reached in July 2011, business leaders took matters into their own hands.
Knox said the business centre, along with the BIA, Chamber of Commerce, Caledonia Marketing Collective and Haldimand County, have worked to push the message that Caledonia is open for business.
“It’s our goal to make sure that Caledonia is represented in a proper light and to market Caledonia and area as an opportunity for people to come and shop,” said Ken Parr, president of the Caledonia Chamber of Commerce.
Knox said that while, overall, he believes the Caledonia business community is a stronger community now, “it’s still lacking the extra business from visitors who are still afraid to come to Caledonia.”
But the impact on Caledonia businesses is only one part of the story.
On the Six Nations side of the equation, the same source (Knox) reports, But the impact on Caledonia businesses is only one part of the story.
While business leaders said negative publicity has affected commerce in Caledonia, businesses on Six Nations and Mississaugas of the New Credit have also felt the sting.
“People used to go on the reserve without even thinking about it,” Knox said. “Now, they’re cautious about going on the reserve because they think it’s dangerous and it’s not. And Caledonia is not dangerous.” However, perception is reality!
David Vince, CEO of the Two Rivers Community Development Centre – the business centre that services Six Nations and New Credit, said that businesses “lost a significant portion of their off-reserve customer base.”
Vince said that businesses on the reserves have bounced back somewhat, but those involved in personal services, trade and retail, excluding tobacco, are still feeling the blow from 2006.
“A lot of the customer base has not come back,” he said, adding that demonstrations at Douglas Creek Estates that grab media attention are changing the shopping habits of off-reserve customers.
“We have had (businesses) who have lost up to 50 per cent of their revenue from losing a number of (off-reserve) commercial or larger clients,” said Vince, adding that some bigger businesses are coping by looking for clients in other areas like Hamilton.
But for smaller businesses on Six Nations, those options are not available, he said.
“If people are concerned about visiting Six Nations and New Credit, there’s very little (small businesses) can do to overcome that,” Vince said. “This is going to take a collective political community initiative (to solve).”
So basically businesses, especially at Six Nations and New Credit, have taken a serious hit. There is no use in sweeping the matter under the carpet or sugar coating it. If 2006 could somehow be put behind us .............. But that is not possible. How do you forgive and forget when there has been NO APPOLOGY for the violence and intimidation that was truly gruesome. In my mind, "no apology, no peace". I suspect that I am not the only one who shares this opinion. How can you forgive and forget when every day you see the burned out trailer, the empty power lines, the hideous barricade made of materials stolen from Hydro One, and the provocative Mohawk Warrior's flags which signifies one thing - militancy and violence! The Confederacy flags also remind us, if the "Welcome to Six Nations" sign did not catch our eye, that those behind the barricade believe that the property owned by the taxpayers of Ontario is theirs. Any attempt to place a Canadian flag or an Ontario flag in that location has been met with violence. The source of the problem is the HDI and their supporters, and what the HDI is doing at the barricades is making life quite miserable for business people anywhere in the Haldimand and Brant areas - more so for Six Nations than Caledonia business. Perhaps it is time that the good people of Six Nations say enough is enough and take steps to neuter the group that is taking such a big bite out of their business and hence their family income.
However the HDI is not the group to which Mr. Knox assigns blame, rather it is, “The whole issue hasn’t been created by the natives and it hasn’t been created by the people of Caledonia,” Knox said. “It’s been created by inappropriate political action.”
While a political resolution seemingly remains elusive in the short term, on the ground level, local business leaders are taking it all in stride.
The Councilor for Caledonia weighted in saying, “People need to recognize right across the country that this is not an issue that was brought forward by the residents of Caledonia,” Grice said. “I think if you dig down deeper and really look at the issue and what’s really happening, you can separate the negatives from the positives.”
DeYo.
I tend to shop at "odd hours" at Zehrs and most of the people I see shopping there at that time are Six Nations members. Six Nations are well treated in Caledonia. They only have to ensure that they present their "Status Card" prior to the first item being rung in and they get all the tax perks, programmed into the store computers, that most of us only dream about. Six Nations folks at the lower end of the Reserve in particular are not going to give up going to Tim Hortons, or to Canadian Tire, or Shoppers Drug Mart (for example). A few, particularly those who would be instantly recognized as militants, and whose faces have been shown in various YouTube videos, believe that they will not be welcome at any time of the day, so of course do shop elsewhere.
So how about Six Nations businesses? I am not talking about the contraband tobacco shacks - they will continue to do a booming business because as a rule, their non-native smokers customers care about only one thing - price. According to another blogger, the most frequently asked google query that brings viewers to his site: "is there sh*t in native cigarettes". Good question - shows what people think - the potential down side to the low prices.
The following article entitled, Land claims band Caledonia businesses together, appears in the online version of "The Sachem" seen here. It discusses the continuing land dispute at DCE in terms of the effect on businesses locally.
On the Caledonia side of things, the general manager of the Grand Erie Business Centre had the following to say:
“Businesses in Caledonia, especially from a retail perspective, are working more closely together than they ever did before and they have to,” said Wayne Knox, general manager of the Grand Erie Business Centre. “People have re-invented their business. They had to survive and the only way they could do that was to band together.”
Knox said the strong have survived, but not everyone was able to wait for the economic climate to improve.
“Many businesses moved out because they couldn’t wait for business to recover,” Knox said. “I think the trades people are still having to go, to some degree, out of the area to get business that they lost. Even (real estate) lawyers lost business because Douglas Creek Estates never did get developed.”
Many businesses found relief in the Caledonia class action lawsuit, which started in June 2006. But before the $20-million settlement was reached in July 2011, business leaders took matters into their own hands.
Knox said the business centre, along with the BIA, Chamber of Commerce, Caledonia Marketing Collective and Haldimand County, have worked to push the message that Caledonia is open for business.
“It’s our goal to make sure that Caledonia is represented in a proper light and to market Caledonia and area as an opportunity for people to come and shop,” said Ken Parr, president of the Caledonia Chamber of Commerce.
Knox said that while, overall, he believes the Caledonia business community is a stronger community now, “it’s still lacking the extra business from visitors who are still afraid to come to Caledonia.”
But the impact on Caledonia businesses is only one part of the story.
On the Six Nations side of the equation, the same source (Knox) reports, But the impact on Caledonia businesses is only one part of the story.
While business leaders said negative publicity has affected commerce in Caledonia, businesses on Six Nations and Mississaugas of the New Credit have also felt the sting.
“People used to go on the reserve without even thinking about it,” Knox said. “Now, they’re cautious about going on the reserve because they think it’s dangerous and it’s not. And Caledonia is not dangerous.” However, perception is reality!
David Vince, CEO of the Two Rivers Community Development Centre – the business centre that services Six Nations and New Credit, said that businesses “lost a significant portion of their off-reserve customer base.”
Vince said that businesses on the reserves have bounced back somewhat, but those involved in personal services, trade and retail, excluding tobacco, are still feeling the blow from 2006.
“A lot of the customer base has not come back,” he said, adding that demonstrations at Douglas Creek Estates that grab media attention are changing the shopping habits of off-reserve customers.
“We have had (businesses) who have lost up to 50 per cent of their revenue from losing a number of (off-reserve) commercial or larger clients,” said Vince, adding that some bigger businesses are coping by looking for clients in other areas like Hamilton.
But for smaller businesses on Six Nations, those options are not available, he said.
“If people are concerned about visiting Six Nations and New Credit, there’s very little (small businesses) can do to overcome that,” Vince said. “This is going to take a collective political community initiative (to solve).”
So basically businesses, especially at Six Nations and New Credit, have taken a serious hit. There is no use in sweeping the matter under the carpet or sugar coating it. If 2006 could somehow be put behind us .............. But that is not possible. How do you forgive and forget when there has been NO APPOLOGY for the violence and intimidation that was truly gruesome. In my mind, "no apology, no peace". I suspect that I am not the only one who shares this opinion. How can you forgive and forget when every day you see the burned out trailer, the empty power lines, the hideous barricade made of materials stolen from Hydro One, and the provocative Mohawk Warrior's flags which signifies one thing - militancy and violence! The Confederacy flags also remind us, if the "Welcome to Six Nations" sign did not catch our eye, that those behind the barricade believe that the property owned by the taxpayers of Ontario is theirs. Any attempt to place a Canadian flag or an Ontario flag in that location has been met with violence. The source of the problem is the HDI and their supporters, and what the HDI is doing at the barricades is making life quite miserable for business people anywhere in the Haldimand and Brant areas - more so for Six Nations than Caledonia business. Perhaps it is time that the good people of Six Nations say enough is enough and take steps to neuter the group that is taking such a big bite out of their business and hence their family income.
However the HDI is not the group to which Mr. Knox assigns blame, rather it is, “The whole issue hasn’t been created by the natives and it hasn’t been created by the people of Caledonia,” Knox said. “It’s been created by inappropriate political action.”
While a political resolution seemingly remains elusive in the short term, on the ground level, local business leaders are taking it all in stride.
The Councilor for Caledonia weighted in saying, “People need to recognize right across the country that this is not an issue that was brought forward by the residents of Caledonia,” Grice said. “I think if you dig down deeper and really look at the issue and what’s really happening, you can separate the negatives from the positives.”
DeYo.
Saturday 19 July 2014
The Six Nations Elected Council Chief's Assessment of the Meeting with the Province and County
To date I have spoken at length as to the reaction of the Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) through their "representatives" the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) - specifically it's Director. Also the Ontario Aboriginal Affairs and Infrastructure Ministers Zimmer and Duguid, as well as the Mayor of the County of Haldimand, Ken Hewitt have all weighed in with their take on how well the meeting with Six Nations Elected Chief (SNEC) Ava Hill went. However there has been to date virtual silence from the latter as to the meeting of 9 July 2014. However the most recent issue of "Two Row Times" (TRT), July 16th, 2014 (p.4) included an article entitled, Elected Chief Hill reports on summit. Apparently the information comes from an interview at radio station CKRZ. As I have indicated previously, the Elected Council does not have a trusted voice in the print media to whom they can turn directly.
Here follows some of the "highlights" of the interview as reported in TRT:
1) First Chief Ava Hill noted that the HCCC was invited to participate in the meeting but declined, mentioned the bylaw of Haldimand County and that they were going to remove the barricade, an action precipitated by 'anti-Native rights activist Gary McHale', but that, "As of now, no further action has taken place".
Comment: I am hoping that Chief Hill did not make the above statement about Gary McHale, but rather that it was the reporter for TRT that added the statement that I have put in bold print. Since there are no quotation marks around the statement in TRT which would attribute the comment to Chief Hill, it was likely the latter. I expect that Chief Hill knows that McHale is a pro civil rights activist who challenges to government to enforce the law, and not enable a double standard where "Natives" get away with things that no "non-Native" could dream of doing (e.g., illegally setting up a contraband smoke shop on Hydro One land). One law for all Canadians - that is hardly "anti-Native rights".
2) Chief Hill commented that, "I don't think anybody wants to see another violent situation erupt", she said. She also spoke of her, having, "talked about the situation with Haldimand County, and our position is very clear to them that that (the) land has to be turned back to Six Nations".
Furthermore, Mayor Hewitt's major priority at this first summit was to discuss the use of the land as opposed to ownership, and hopes the former DCE land be used for something that is "going to benefit both communities".
"We can 'blue sky' on that", said Hill, "but I made it quite clear that even if we go that route, it is still paramount that the land has to be under the control of Six Nations before we can do that".
Comment: It is disappointing that Chief Hill did not say that the Federal Government needs to produce the surrender signed by 47 Chiefs on 18 December 1844 so that everyone can assess the merits of the matter will an awareness of the documentation. Secondly the matter of turning the land over to Six Nations is likely political since the HCCC have been making this demand, and so any less, or any accommodation on the matter, would have rankled the Confederacy supporters - so she needed to appear strong on this aspect. However what she doesn't say, and what is vitally important, is that when she says "Six Nations" whether she means turning the land over to SNEC control or the control of HCCC - in other words the radical HDI who are responsible for a litany of illegal acts perpetrated in Haldimand and Brant Counties.
3) Then Chief Hill stated that, "We know that the federal government was missing with respect to the land rights issue" so that no matter what is decided between SNEC, the Province and the County, "we still need to find ways of getting that land back to Six Nations".
Comment: Here is the "sticky wicket". SNEC knows that it is the legitimate legally constituted body to represent Six Nations in any negotiations with the Federal Government, and that the Federal Government can only turn control of any Indian land over to SNEC and not HCCC - which has no recognition or status in law - it is merely a historic group who is asserting "rights" it believes it has based on a world that existed 100 plus years ago. So this is really a set up for a power struggle between SNEC and HCCC. It is possible that the former will cave to the latter, and put the Federal Government in an impossible position of not being able to do anything without an amendment to the Indian Act of 1876 - which would set a dangerous precedent and is very unlikely to happen - allowing all at Six Nations to come together against a common foe - the Federal Government.
4) Quoting from the article as to what Chief Hill then said, "Even if we get this DCE issue resolved there are still all the other unresolved issues", said Hill, indicating that there could be protests at other locations if outstanding claims are not responded to".
Comment: I am sure that the non-Native Communist - Anarchist activists on staff at TRT are positively salivating at the thought of more "protests". However, perhaps this time the staff at the Federal Government Indian Affairs and Northern Development Ministry will provide copies of all of the documents from 1834 to 1848 to once again show people at Six Nations (not just their legal team and land negotiations researchers) proof that there is no basis for a claim on any land presently in the possession of any third party within the Haldimand Tract (which they did in 1995). In my opinion it needs to be a situation of "you show me yours, and I will show you mine". So if Six Nations has evidence that would refute the legal surrenders made by the Six Nations Chiefs in Council, then they need to provide this data to the Federal Government.
With the HCCC having no respect for SNEC, or even acceptance of their legal rights in negotiations with the Federal Government, there will once again be the same impasse that has always plagued Six Nations - factionalism. Here the Federal Government's efforts will inevitably be frustrated by these endemic internal divisions which, unless a miracle is brought to earth by a messenger from Heaven, is going to ensure that nothing gets done. The upshot is that again fingers will be conveniently pointed at the Federal Government as being the reason for the failure of negotiations.
Until the Canadian public wakes up to the truth here, that there are two independent groups at Six Nations claiming the right to represent Haudenosaunee people, and that Canadian taxpayers are footing the bill not only for vast sums of monies given to Six Nations under terms such as transfer payments (none of which comes back in the form of taxes to the Canadian purse), but also for the fallout directly attributable to the factionalism at Six Nations. This means that for example developers, and most recently corporations involved in the "Green Energy" (wind turbine) business (both of which pay taxes so that for example roads can be maintained), are caught in a vice. Here they frequently have to pay off (is this called bribe?) not only the legitimate representatives of Six Nations people, but also the group that uses various forms of militancy (including extortion and violence) to assert their position that they are the true representatives of the Haudenosaunee people of the Grand River (aka Six Nations).
DeYo.
Here follows some of the "highlights" of the interview as reported in TRT:
1) First Chief Ava Hill noted that the HCCC was invited to participate in the meeting but declined, mentioned the bylaw of Haldimand County and that they were going to remove the barricade, an action precipitated by 'anti-Native rights activist Gary McHale', but that, "As of now, no further action has taken place".
Comment: I am hoping that Chief Hill did not make the above statement about Gary McHale, but rather that it was the reporter for TRT that added the statement that I have put in bold print. Since there are no quotation marks around the statement in TRT which would attribute the comment to Chief Hill, it was likely the latter. I expect that Chief Hill knows that McHale is a pro civil rights activist who challenges to government to enforce the law, and not enable a double standard where "Natives" get away with things that no "non-Native" could dream of doing (e.g., illegally setting up a contraband smoke shop on Hydro One land). One law for all Canadians - that is hardly "anti-Native rights".
2) Chief Hill commented that, "I don't think anybody wants to see another violent situation erupt", she said. She also spoke of her, having, "talked about the situation with Haldimand County, and our position is very clear to them that that (the) land has to be turned back to Six Nations".
Furthermore, Mayor Hewitt's major priority at this first summit was to discuss the use of the land as opposed to ownership, and hopes the former DCE land be used for something that is "going to benefit both communities".
"We can 'blue sky' on that", said Hill, "but I made it quite clear that even if we go that route, it is still paramount that the land has to be under the control of Six Nations before we can do that".
Comment: It is disappointing that Chief Hill did not say that the Federal Government needs to produce the surrender signed by 47 Chiefs on 18 December 1844 so that everyone can assess the merits of the matter will an awareness of the documentation. Secondly the matter of turning the land over to Six Nations is likely political since the HCCC have been making this demand, and so any less, or any accommodation on the matter, would have rankled the Confederacy supporters - so she needed to appear strong on this aspect. However what she doesn't say, and what is vitally important, is that when she says "Six Nations" whether she means turning the land over to SNEC control or the control of HCCC - in other words the radical HDI who are responsible for a litany of illegal acts perpetrated in Haldimand and Brant Counties.
3) Then Chief Hill stated that, "We know that the federal government was missing with respect to the land rights issue" so that no matter what is decided between SNEC, the Province and the County, "we still need to find ways of getting that land back to Six Nations".
Comment: Here is the "sticky wicket". SNEC knows that it is the legitimate legally constituted body to represent Six Nations in any negotiations with the Federal Government, and that the Federal Government can only turn control of any Indian land over to SNEC and not HCCC - which has no recognition or status in law - it is merely a historic group who is asserting "rights" it believes it has based on a world that existed 100 plus years ago. So this is really a set up for a power struggle between SNEC and HCCC. It is possible that the former will cave to the latter, and put the Federal Government in an impossible position of not being able to do anything without an amendment to the Indian Act of 1876 - which would set a dangerous precedent and is very unlikely to happen - allowing all at Six Nations to come together against a common foe - the Federal Government.
4) Quoting from the article as to what Chief Hill then said, "Even if we get this DCE issue resolved there are still all the other unresolved issues", said Hill, indicating that there could be protests at other locations if outstanding claims are not responded to".
Comment: I am sure that the non-Native Communist - Anarchist activists on staff at TRT are positively salivating at the thought of more "protests". However, perhaps this time the staff at the Federal Government Indian Affairs and Northern Development Ministry will provide copies of all of the documents from 1834 to 1848 to once again show people at Six Nations (not just their legal team and land negotiations researchers) proof that there is no basis for a claim on any land presently in the possession of any third party within the Haldimand Tract (which they did in 1995). In my opinion it needs to be a situation of "you show me yours, and I will show you mine". So if Six Nations has evidence that would refute the legal surrenders made by the Six Nations Chiefs in Council, then they need to provide this data to the Federal Government.
With the HCCC having no respect for SNEC, or even acceptance of their legal rights in negotiations with the Federal Government, there will once again be the same impasse that has always plagued Six Nations - factionalism. Here the Federal Government's efforts will inevitably be frustrated by these endemic internal divisions which, unless a miracle is brought to earth by a messenger from Heaven, is going to ensure that nothing gets done. The upshot is that again fingers will be conveniently pointed at the Federal Government as being the reason for the failure of negotiations.
Until the Canadian public wakes up to the truth here, that there are two independent groups at Six Nations claiming the right to represent Haudenosaunee people, and that Canadian taxpayers are footing the bill not only for vast sums of monies given to Six Nations under terms such as transfer payments (none of which comes back in the form of taxes to the Canadian purse), but also for the fallout directly attributable to the factionalism at Six Nations. This means that for example developers, and most recently corporations involved in the "Green Energy" (wind turbine) business (both of which pay taxes so that for example roads can be maintained), are caught in a vice. Here they frequently have to pay off (is this called bribe?) not only the legitimate representatives of Six Nations people, but also the group that uses various forms of militancy (including extortion and violence) to assert their position that they are the true representatives of the Haudenosaunee people of the Grand River (aka Six Nations).
DeYo.
Thursday 17 July 2014
List and Details of all 47 Chiefs Who Signed the 18 December 1844 Surrender of the DCE Plank Road Lands Including DCE
Updated 29 July 2014.
The Editor of "Turtle Island News" (TIN), in the Editorial of 16 July 2014, appears to be speaking on behalf of the HCCC and HDI, and adds a statement that must be challenged! The Editorial is entitled, "Ontario is running from its responsibility to everyone". Here the evidence used by the Federal Government to label the Plank Road land claim as "not valid" is called, the "purported 1844 surrender". Furthermore, the Editor states that,
both levels of government have had eight years to resolve the issue and if they did have proof it would have shown up in 2006 instead of a disputed document that carries no names and they claim is signed by chiefs but can't prove chiefs actually signed the document.
That is not correct. I have seen the original copy of the document, and hold a copy of all of the chief's signatures at my other residence. I will in short order be ordering a photographic copy of the surrender, with all of the Chief's signatures, and will post it to the Internet.
The Editor has in a sense challenged me (or others making the same assertion) to put up or shut up. If there is relevant evidence, it clearly needs to be placed on public display. It would be very helpful if the Aboriginal Affairs Minister would honour us with his presence, and bring with him a certified copy of the surrender, and meet with both the Elected Council, and (separately) with the Hereditary Council to place the surrender on a table for all to see.
There seems to be a belief at Six Nations that there is nothing to support the assertion by myself and others that the Crown Patent to the DCE lands was granted after a legal surrender by the Six Nations Chiefs in Council. It is very frustrating to know that the documentation exists, to have seen it, even copied it, but still people deny its existence. So, I wonder if the following transcript will be adequate to convince the Editor of TIN that all along, I have been stating facts based on evidence freely available to all who wish to review it. Fair minded Six Nations people need to know that a highly pertinent written and signed surrender is out there, and can be seen on microfilm at a repository as close as Mohawk Street in Brantford. People need to know that the surrender was never contested by anyone at Six Nations (including those whose signatures are found on the surrender) until 150 or so years after the ancestors had accepted that the surrender (not to reserve this property) to the Crown was in the best interests of Six Nations people in 1844.
Looking back it is easy to try to second guess the Chiefs, or to challenge their decision, but that does them a serious disservice. After discussions among themselves, the Chiefs decided that they only needed Tuscarora Township and parts of three other Townships to meet the needs of their people. The Plank Road lands were deemed to be less important than for example the tier of lots in Onondaga Township between Chiefswood Road and Middleport where the Tuscarora already had a compact settlement. This they wanted to keep or "reserve", but on the south side of the River in Oneida Township the Lower Cayuga and Delaware people had begun migrating away from the Plank Road to nearby lots in Oneida Township west of Oneida Road and adjoining parts of Tuscarora Township.
Errors in Interpretation Abound: A problem that often surfaces in a misinterpretation of the historical reality here in the Grand River Tract, and assumptions and errors of attribution can create havoc, or at least require a lot of time and effort to address, in obtaining clarity in a subject that is, admittedly, complex. Some of these distortions are found even with academics, as seen in the rebuttal by Professor D. Johnston of the report submitted by Joan Holmes & Associates noted below. A detailed reading of sources such as that of C.M. Johnston noted below "should" reduce these false conclusions, but there always seems to be some way to re-interpret the data to fit some mold or other. Here follow some of the most commonly cited errors relating to the understanding of the history of the Six Nations in Ontario. It is necessary to obtain a clear grasp of these before offering the specific details of the 1844 surrender, and weaken efforts to question its validity.
Some Common Misconceptions: Unless someone has carefully studied the history of the settlement of the Grand River - Haldimand Tract from 1785, it would be easy to make false assumptions based on early published work which pertained to the League / Confederacy as it was constituted circa 1850. Before the works of Morgan, Parker, Hewitt and others there was simply no reliable source to provide information such as the names of the Hereditary Chiefs of the Confederacy. To project backwards from 1850 will take one into uncharted waters, and to project forward is not consistent with the written historical record.
It was NEVER the case at Six Nations that there were 50 Hereditary Chiefs of the Five Nations (N.B. Not Six Nations) as seen in "The Roll Call of the Chiefs" found in William N. Fenton, The Great Law and the Longhouse: A Political History of the Iroquois Confederacy, Norman OK, University of Oklahoma Press, 1998 (pp.193-194) . It was ALWAYS the case that at Six Nations Chiefs included both Assistant Chiefs (to each Hereditary Chief), Pine Tree Chiefs (such as Joseph Brant) and / or War Chiefs. All were Chiefs. On most occasions Principal Men were also accepted as Chiefs within the Longhouse at Six Nations. As I have noted in previous postings, there were also occasions when deeds were signed by all of the Principal Women. It is a very confusing and somewhat inconsistent picture - but it was what it was, and no one at the time questioned the inclusion of any of these individuals.
It is also the case that at the Grand River Chiefs also included representatives from the Tuscarora, Nanticoke, Tutelo, Delaware, Cherokee and other groups. Today of these groups, only the Tuscarora and Delaware are in sufficient numbers to be included separately on the official Six Nations Band List - the others amalgamated with these. For example, although the Latham family were Nanticoke, they resided with the Delaware and were enumerated as Delaware after about 1870. A Census of 1785 (see 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, p.52) recorded:
Mohawks
Onondagas Council fire
Onondagas Bear Foot's party
Senecas
Onondagas from the West
Upper Cayugas
Upper Tootalies [Tutalo]
Oghquagas [Oneida]
Delaware Aaron's party
Oghquaga Joseph's party
Tuscaroras
Lower Cayugas
St. Regis [Onondaga]
Montours
Creeks & Cherokees
Lower Tootalies [Tutalo]
Delawares
Senecas from the West
Nanticokes
Some might question why there are so few Senecas among the Chiefs of the Grand River - considering their majority when all were residing in what is today Upstate New York. The simple answer is that the majority chose to stay in New York where they live today. An excellent resource for the titles existing and extinct at Six Nations, and which addresses the question as to who was considered a "Chief", is the book by Edward M. Chadwick, The People of the Longhouse, Toronto, Church of England Publishing, 1897 which can be found online here.
The first complete list of Six Nations Chiefs of the Grand River was recorded in 1815 by George Martin (Mohawk) for William Claus of the Indian Department. Seen here, there were then 22 Mohawk Chiefs (Principal and War). To make things more confusing, there were sometimes 4 Principal Chiefs (e.g., Bear Tribe) instead of the "traditional" 3 as seen here.
To expect standardization such as "50 Chiefs" simply does not accord with the data relating to the Six Nations of the Grand River at any point in their history. I have seen hundreds of deeds and surrenders signed either at the Indian Council House at Fort George, the Mohawk Village or, from about 1805 onwards, the Onondaga Council House. It is clear that the concept of "quorum" applied to some degree - there had to be an Onondaga present at the Onondaga Council House to open the ceremonies. However, whoever showed up that day, and who was eligible, signed whatever document was on the table. If there was perceived to be a need to have someone present who was not then present, the matter would be considered soon thereafter and the item signed again by all the Chiefs in Council on that day. The range of Chiefs, in terms of numbers who were authorized, and who signed a document ranged from 1 (one), Joseph Brant after he was given Power of Attorney in 1796, to 67 Chiefs in the 1840s. Few Six Nations questioned the legality of the documents, and if they did, the matter was redressed (e.g., the Brant Leases were converted to Crown Patents by the Chiefs in Council).
Land Inspection Returns: The lots along the Plank Road were no longer needed for the Reserve and so were given up for sale by the Crown and recorded in surrenders (descriptions of the lands the Chiefs wanted to reserve, and those they wished to dispense with). Individual Indians were permitted to retain any possessions they had, and at any time if these Six Nations members wished to sell their property and move to the new Reserve they were welcome to do so (emphatically and repeatedly stated by the Chiefs in Council as their wish, and accepted by the Indian Department and Government officials).
This process of migration to the west to be within the boundaries of what is today the Six Nations Reserve is shown in specific detail by the Land Inspection Returns of Oneida Township, lot by lot, with a survey of each property, submitted by James Kirkpatrick and Allan Park Brough on behalf of the Chief Superintendent of Indian Affairs, 11 March 1844 and updated 6 August 1846. Most Onondaga, Lower Cayuga and Delawares were about to sell or had already sold their improvements along the Plank Road to the person who was later granted a patent for the lot. The Six Nations members had largely moved (often less than a mile west) to the new Reserve by 1847 when location tickets were issued, and they could be assured of being included on the "Pay Lists" (known earlier as "Census for Presents", the earliest surviving record being that for 1856). For the Land Inspections see Library and Archives Canada (LAC), RG10, Indian Affairs Records, Vol. 729, e.g. pp.113-205. Some, however, did stay on the lands they had earlier cleared, and can be found in the Canadian Census of 1851 for Oneida Township outside the Reserve, however the Census records show that by 1861 almost all had moved to land within the present day Reserve boundaries.
The specific reference for the 1844 Surrender, and Details of the Surrender: As noted in earlier postings, this is found at Library and Archives Canada (LAC), RG10, Indian Affairs Records, Vol. 144, pp. 83269-83279. This document can be found on microfilm reel C-1149 at the LAC, the Archives of Ontario, or the Woodland Indian Cultural Center (the former Mohawk Institute) on the Reserve near Brantford. Years ago I made a copy of the document. I was particularly interested in the signatures of the chiefs who were present - since that was the subject of my research at the time. Little did I realize 30 years ago how important these pages would be so many years later.
To repeat, somehow this document is being ignored, or the HCCC are pretending it does not exist or that there is supposedly some other sort of anomaly in the deed that no one ever noticed until 1987 when a series of land claims (29) were submitted by the forerunner to the Six Nations Land and Resources Department. The claim for the return of the land was withdrawn in 1995 by the Lands and Resources Department (administered by the Six Nations Elected Council the detested rivals of the HCCC, and considered illegitimate by the latter). The Federal Government and the researchers and legal team for the Elected Council know that the remaining contested claim is about money not land. See here for the Elected Council's Land and Resources Department's list of land claims and details of what they expect from the Federal Government.
Returning to the significance of the 1844 surrender, I also have census documents from the 1840s indicating the tribal affiliation of each Chief and will also include this information once I can access my "secondary" records. I say secondary because the records to which I had access at the Haldimand County Museum and Archives, and stored in about 10 archival boxes, are no where to be found. They contained deeds and surrenders from the late 1600s to the mid 1800s. According to the former curator, they were last seen in the possession of "two women from Ohsweken" and between that time and the arrival of the new curator in 2009, and when I arrived at the Museum to access the data, the records "disappeared". I did, however, have duplicate copies of some of the records with signatures which I keep at a storage facility in the United States. So in the meanwhile, I will list here are the names, in alphabetical order, of the Chiefs who in Council at the Onondaga Council House, signed the document. This information is found in the report of Joan Holmes submitted to Justice Harrison Arrell in the Injunction sought by the Corporation of the City of Brantford in 2009 (see here) against the HDI and other Six Nations members. Be sure to see both parts of her report. Her team examined the same documents that I and other researchers, and Justices of the Ontario Supreme Court accepted as evidence, and all came to the same conclusion - there is no valid Plank Road land claim.
The description of the property on which DCE sits is repeated in subsequent meetings as with each change until 1848, when all was finalized, the land to be reserved was described so that all knew exactly what area was being kept or reserved, and what was being surrendered. On more than one occasion they said that they wished to reserve only that part of Oneida Township west of the tier of lots along the Plank Road. DCE is among the tier of lots on the west side of the Plank Road and was hence surrendered. For example the Council minutes of the 18 September 1845 meeting again stated that the Chiefs (66 were in attendance on this occasion) were reserving Tuscarora Township and also reserving the part of Oneida Township west of the tier of lots bordering the Plank Road - in other words the part today between Oneida Road and Tuscarora Township - and ratifying what was done previously.
Surrender of Plank Road Lands - Numbers of Chiefs from Each Nation: We know the numbers of chiefs from each tribe / nation based on the roll call noted on page 83278 of the aforementioned document dated 18 December 1844. The specifics are as follows and can be seen on page 44 of Garry Horsnell's transcription here:
In attendance at the Council meeting were David Thorburn, Commissioner, James Winniett Esq., L.S.A. and 47 Chiefs. These 47 included:
Upper and Lower Mohawks = 13
Cayugas = 9
Tuscaroras = 7
Onondagas = 6
Oneidas = 4
Delawares = 4
Senecas = 2
Nanticokes = 2
----------
47 Chiefs
The list of the 47 Chiefs Who Signed the Surrender: To show that the identity of these Chiefs is known, I have added in the tribal / nation affiliations of each from memory. Spelling is difficult to interpret as is true of all deeds with Indian names since even with Native interpreters doing the spelling, there was not absolute consistency to the last letter - but all can be identified (many use European names). I will later add in tribal / nation of the rest of the Chiefs below using the "Census for Presents", "Agricultural Census of 1843", and other relevant documents which I have in storage elsewhere:
1) Chief Buck (opened council) - Firekeeper, Onondaga
2) Chief Henry Brant (speaker, presenter) - Head Chief, Upper Mohawk
3) Jacob Martin (interpreter) - Lower Mohawk
4) George Anthony - Head Chief, Delaware
5) Aghsigwaresere - Mohawk
6) Aghakaris
7) John Bull - Delaware
8) Isaac Burning - Moses Walker Mohawks, Upper Mohawk
9) Nicholas Burning - Moses Walker Mohawks, Upper Mohawk
10) Seneca John - Head Chief, Nikarondasah Seneca
11) Lawrence David - Upper Mohawk
12) Peter Deer - Upper Mohawk
13) Cornelius Douglas - Tuscarora
14) Joseph Doxtator - Mohawk
15) Jacob Fish - Upper Cayuga
16) Peter Fishcarrier - Lower Cayuga
17) Peter Green - Head Chief, Auquaga (Oneida)
18) Joseph Hess - Upper Mohawk
19) Samson Hess - Upper Mohawk
20) Peter Hill
21) William John - Upper Mohawk
22) Elijah Johnson - Lower Mohawk
23) John Smoke Johnson - Lower Mohawk
24) William Johnson - Lower Mohawk
25) Kanonhgeritawi
26) Kanyakaroton
27) Kanorisayon
28) Patrick Latham - Head Chief, Old Nanticoke Family
29) Isaac Lewis - Upper Mohawk
30) Abraham Maracle - Head Chief, Bay of Quinte Mohawks
31) Joseph Montour - Head Chief, Lower Cayuga
32) John Obediah - Head Chief, Tuscarora
33) Joseph Osegiraga
34) Ojakehete - Lower Cayuga
35) Ojinonyata
36) Onakaronton
37) Onesconren
38) Noah Powless - Upper Mohawk
39) Shagokaryas
40) Skanawate
41) Peter Smith - Mohawk
42) Tayekanskhot
43) Tegharaniraryak
44) Tewahinnote
45) Teyonhohisin
46) Moses Walker - Head Chief, Moses Walker Mohawks (Upper Mohawk)
47) John Young - St. Regis Onondagas
It is many times more difficult to accurately identify Six Nations who at the time are recorded under only their Haudenosaunee name. There are dialect differences within languages, and there are great similarities between the Six Nations languages such that a phonetic translation (good or bad) is hard to link up to names in for example the Census for Presents of 1856. It is "doable" but, it would take someone who is more familiar with Haudenosaunee languages than myself to do this job with any degree of confidence. In other words there are limitations in individual identification of the Hauenosaunee names of for example Lower Cayugas in the 18 December 1844 document. All of the Lower Cayuga do have a White pre and surname at this time (e.g., Young Warner, Henry Young(chief), Jacob Silversmith). The latter names are used somewhat haphazardly - some Indian Department officials would choose to use the White names, some not. Most of the merchants in the Caledonia area (whose customers tended to be Lower Cayuga and Onondaga) listed the White names, and often as well the Haudenosaunee name, in their account books. There are good economic reasons to have as much information as possible with the individual accounts, since often the Indian Department, for one reason or another, was often left to pick up the tab of delinquent accounts - and merchants needed to prove the specific identity of their customer.
The Mohawks, most of whom only use a White name for official purposes (e.g., signing a surrender, being listed on the Census Records ("for Presents") of the 1850s and 1860s, then the Band Lists which begin in the 1870s). The Mohawks, in particular, are parsed into various "parties" or factions, but were frequently lumped together under either Lower or Upper Mohawk, and sometimes listed by their specific grouping such as "Moses Walker Mohawks", as is the case with the 1856 Census Returns (LAC, RG10, Vol. 223, pp.132530j-132530ff).
Here follows scans of photocopies of the rather poor microfilm copies from the above noted microfilm reel. Clearly photographic copies of the original documents will be needed eventually, but for the present, these documents clearly show that on 18 December 1844 the Chiefs in Council did sign the document agreeing to the surrender of the lands from the Plank Road to what is today Oneida Road and the boundary of the present day Reserve. Only the pages stamped 83275 (first two pages below) and 83276 (third and forth pages below) are included here since the goal was to show all of the signatures.
.jpg)
The above list will suffice until I can order copies of the original documents (not microfilm copies) from LAC.
The point is, however, that clearly the Editor's assertion does not hold water.
DeYo.
The Editor of "Turtle Island News" (TIN), in the Editorial of 16 July 2014, appears to be speaking on behalf of the HCCC and HDI, and adds a statement that must be challenged! The Editorial is entitled, "Ontario is running from its responsibility to everyone". Here the evidence used by the Federal Government to label the Plank Road land claim as "not valid" is called, the "purported 1844 surrender". Furthermore, the Editor states that,
both levels of government have had eight years to resolve the issue and if they did have proof it would have shown up in 2006 instead of a disputed document that carries no names and they claim is signed by chiefs but can't prove chiefs actually signed the document.
That is not correct. I have seen the original copy of the document, and hold a copy of all of the chief's signatures at my other residence. I will in short order be ordering a photographic copy of the surrender, with all of the Chief's signatures, and will post it to the Internet.
The Editor has in a sense challenged me (or others making the same assertion) to put up or shut up. If there is relevant evidence, it clearly needs to be placed on public display. It would be very helpful if the Aboriginal Affairs Minister would honour us with his presence, and bring with him a certified copy of the surrender, and meet with both the Elected Council, and (separately) with the Hereditary Council to place the surrender on a table for all to see.
There seems to be a belief at Six Nations that there is nothing to support the assertion by myself and others that the Crown Patent to the DCE lands was granted after a legal surrender by the Six Nations Chiefs in Council. It is very frustrating to know that the documentation exists, to have seen it, even copied it, but still people deny its existence. So, I wonder if the following transcript will be adequate to convince the Editor of TIN that all along, I have been stating facts based on evidence freely available to all who wish to review it. Fair minded Six Nations people need to know that a highly pertinent written and signed surrender is out there, and can be seen on microfilm at a repository as close as Mohawk Street in Brantford. People need to know that the surrender was never contested by anyone at Six Nations (including those whose signatures are found on the surrender) until 150 or so years after the ancestors had accepted that the surrender (not to reserve this property) to the Crown was in the best interests of Six Nations people in 1844.
Looking back it is easy to try to second guess the Chiefs, or to challenge their decision, but that does them a serious disservice. After discussions among themselves, the Chiefs decided that they only needed Tuscarora Township and parts of three other Townships to meet the needs of their people. The Plank Road lands were deemed to be less important than for example the tier of lots in Onondaga Township between Chiefswood Road and Middleport where the Tuscarora already had a compact settlement. This they wanted to keep or "reserve", but on the south side of the River in Oneida Township the Lower Cayuga and Delaware people had begun migrating away from the Plank Road to nearby lots in Oneida Township west of Oneida Road and adjoining parts of Tuscarora Township.
Errors in Interpretation Abound: A problem that often surfaces in a misinterpretation of the historical reality here in the Grand River Tract, and assumptions and errors of attribution can create havoc, or at least require a lot of time and effort to address, in obtaining clarity in a subject that is, admittedly, complex. Some of these distortions are found even with academics, as seen in the rebuttal by Professor D. Johnston of the report submitted by Joan Holmes & Associates noted below. A detailed reading of sources such as that of C.M. Johnston noted below "should" reduce these false conclusions, but there always seems to be some way to re-interpret the data to fit some mold or other. Here follow some of the most commonly cited errors relating to the understanding of the history of the Six Nations in Ontario. It is necessary to obtain a clear grasp of these before offering the specific details of the 1844 surrender, and weaken efforts to question its validity.
Some Common Misconceptions: Unless someone has carefully studied the history of the settlement of the Grand River - Haldimand Tract from 1785, it would be easy to make false assumptions based on early published work which pertained to the League / Confederacy as it was constituted circa 1850. Before the works of Morgan, Parker, Hewitt and others there was simply no reliable source to provide information such as the names of the Hereditary Chiefs of the Confederacy. To project backwards from 1850 will take one into uncharted waters, and to project forward is not consistent with the written historical record.
It was NEVER the case at Six Nations that there were 50 Hereditary Chiefs of the Five Nations (N.B. Not Six Nations) as seen in "The Roll Call of the Chiefs" found in William N. Fenton, The Great Law and the Longhouse: A Political History of the Iroquois Confederacy, Norman OK, University of Oklahoma Press, 1998 (pp.193-194) . It was ALWAYS the case that at Six Nations Chiefs included both Assistant Chiefs (to each Hereditary Chief), Pine Tree Chiefs (such as Joseph Brant) and / or War Chiefs. All were Chiefs. On most occasions Principal Men were also accepted as Chiefs within the Longhouse at Six Nations. As I have noted in previous postings, there were also occasions when deeds were signed by all of the Principal Women. It is a very confusing and somewhat inconsistent picture - but it was what it was, and no one at the time questioned the inclusion of any of these individuals.
It is also the case that at the Grand River Chiefs also included representatives from the Tuscarora, Nanticoke, Tutelo, Delaware, Cherokee and other groups. Today of these groups, only the Tuscarora and Delaware are in sufficient numbers to be included separately on the official Six Nations Band List - the others amalgamated with these. For example, although the Latham family were Nanticoke, they resided with the Delaware and were enumerated as Delaware after about 1870. A Census of 1785 (see 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, p.52) recorded:
Mohawks
Onondagas Council fire
Onondagas Bear Foot's party
Senecas
Onondagas from the West
Upper Cayugas
Upper Tootalies [Tutalo]
Oghquagas [Oneida]
Delaware Aaron's party
Oghquaga Joseph's party
Tuscaroras
Lower Cayugas
St. Regis [Onondaga]
Montours
Creeks & Cherokees
Lower Tootalies [Tutalo]
Delawares
Senecas from the West
Nanticokes
Some might question why there are so few Senecas among the Chiefs of the Grand River - considering their majority when all were residing in what is today Upstate New York. The simple answer is that the majority chose to stay in New York where they live today. An excellent resource for the titles existing and extinct at Six Nations, and which addresses the question as to who was considered a "Chief", is the book by Edward M. Chadwick, The People of the Longhouse, Toronto, Church of England Publishing, 1897 which can be found online here.
The first complete list of Six Nations Chiefs of the Grand River was recorded in 1815 by George Martin (Mohawk) for William Claus of the Indian Department. Seen here, there were then 22 Mohawk Chiefs (Principal and War). To make things more confusing, there were sometimes 4 Principal Chiefs (e.g., Bear Tribe) instead of the "traditional" 3 as seen here.
To expect standardization such as "50 Chiefs" simply does not accord with the data relating to the Six Nations of the Grand River at any point in their history. I have seen hundreds of deeds and surrenders signed either at the Indian Council House at Fort George, the Mohawk Village or, from about 1805 onwards, the Onondaga Council House. It is clear that the concept of "quorum" applied to some degree - there had to be an Onondaga present at the Onondaga Council House to open the ceremonies. However, whoever showed up that day, and who was eligible, signed whatever document was on the table. If there was perceived to be a need to have someone present who was not then present, the matter would be considered soon thereafter and the item signed again by all the Chiefs in Council on that day. The range of Chiefs, in terms of numbers who were authorized, and who signed a document ranged from 1 (one), Joseph Brant after he was given Power of Attorney in 1796, to 67 Chiefs in the 1840s. Few Six Nations questioned the legality of the documents, and if they did, the matter was redressed (e.g., the Brant Leases were converted to Crown Patents by the Chiefs in Council).
Land Inspection Returns: The lots along the Plank Road were no longer needed for the Reserve and so were given up for sale by the Crown and recorded in surrenders (descriptions of the lands the Chiefs wanted to reserve, and those they wished to dispense with). Individual Indians were permitted to retain any possessions they had, and at any time if these Six Nations members wished to sell their property and move to the new Reserve they were welcome to do so (emphatically and repeatedly stated by the Chiefs in Council as their wish, and accepted by the Indian Department and Government officials).
This process of migration to the west to be within the boundaries of what is today the Six Nations Reserve is shown in specific detail by the Land Inspection Returns of Oneida Township, lot by lot, with a survey of each property, submitted by James Kirkpatrick and Allan Park Brough on behalf of the Chief Superintendent of Indian Affairs, 11 March 1844 and updated 6 August 1846. Most Onondaga, Lower Cayuga and Delawares were about to sell or had already sold their improvements along the Plank Road to the person who was later granted a patent for the lot. The Six Nations members had largely moved (often less than a mile west) to the new Reserve by 1847 when location tickets were issued, and they could be assured of being included on the "Pay Lists" (known earlier as "Census for Presents", the earliest surviving record being that for 1856). For the Land Inspections see Library and Archives Canada (LAC), RG10, Indian Affairs Records, Vol. 729, e.g. pp.113-205. Some, however, did stay on the lands they had earlier cleared, and can be found in the Canadian Census of 1851 for Oneida Township outside the Reserve, however the Census records show that by 1861 almost all had moved to land within the present day Reserve boundaries.
The specific reference for the 1844 Surrender, and Details of the Surrender: As noted in earlier postings, this is found at Library and Archives Canada (LAC), RG10, Indian Affairs Records, Vol. 144, pp. 83269-83279. This document can be found on microfilm reel C-1149 at the LAC, the Archives of Ontario, or the Woodland Indian Cultural Center (the former Mohawk Institute) on the Reserve near Brantford. Years ago I made a copy of the document. I was particularly interested in the signatures of the chiefs who were present - since that was the subject of my research at the time. Little did I realize 30 years ago how important these pages would be so many years later.
To repeat, somehow this document is being ignored, or the HCCC are pretending it does not exist or that there is supposedly some other sort of anomaly in the deed that no one ever noticed until 1987 when a series of land claims (29) were submitted by the forerunner to the Six Nations Land and Resources Department. The claim for the return of the land was withdrawn in 1995 by the Lands and Resources Department (administered by the Six Nations Elected Council the detested rivals of the HCCC, and considered illegitimate by the latter). The Federal Government and the researchers and legal team for the Elected Council know that the remaining contested claim is about money not land. See here for the Elected Council's Land and Resources Department's list of land claims and details of what they expect from the Federal Government.
Returning to the significance of the 1844 surrender, I also have census documents from the 1840s indicating the tribal affiliation of each Chief and will also include this information once I can access my "secondary" records. I say secondary because the records to which I had access at the Haldimand County Museum and Archives, and stored in about 10 archival boxes, are no where to be found. They contained deeds and surrenders from the late 1600s to the mid 1800s. According to the former curator, they were last seen in the possession of "two women from Ohsweken" and between that time and the arrival of the new curator in 2009, and when I arrived at the Museum to access the data, the records "disappeared". I did, however, have duplicate copies of some of the records with signatures which I keep at a storage facility in the United States. So in the meanwhile, I will list here are the names, in alphabetical order, of the Chiefs who in Council at the Onondaga Council House, signed the document. This information is found in the report of Joan Holmes submitted to Justice Harrison Arrell in the Injunction sought by the Corporation of the City of Brantford in 2009 (see here) against the HDI and other Six Nations members. Be sure to see both parts of her report. Her team examined the same documents that I and other researchers, and Justices of the Ontario Supreme Court accepted as evidence, and all came to the same conclusion - there is no valid Plank Road land claim.
The description of the property on which DCE sits is repeated in subsequent meetings as with each change until 1848, when all was finalized, the land to be reserved was described so that all knew exactly what area was being kept or reserved, and what was being surrendered. On more than one occasion they said that they wished to reserve only that part of Oneida Township west of the tier of lots along the Plank Road. DCE is among the tier of lots on the west side of the Plank Road and was hence surrendered. For example the Council minutes of the 18 September 1845 meeting again stated that the Chiefs (66 were in attendance on this occasion) were reserving Tuscarora Township and also reserving the part of Oneida Township west of the tier of lots bordering the Plank Road - in other words the part today between Oneida Road and Tuscarora Township - and ratifying what was done previously.
Surrender of Plank Road Lands - Numbers of Chiefs from Each Nation: We know the numbers of chiefs from each tribe / nation based on the roll call noted on page 83278 of the aforementioned document dated 18 December 1844. The specifics are as follows and can be seen on page 44 of Garry Horsnell's transcription here:
In attendance at the Council meeting were David Thorburn, Commissioner, James Winniett Esq., L.S.A. and 47 Chiefs. These 47 included:
Upper and Lower Mohawks = 13
Cayugas = 9
Tuscaroras = 7
Onondagas = 6
Oneidas = 4
Delawares = 4
Senecas = 2
Nanticokes = 2
----------
47 Chiefs
The list of the 47 Chiefs Who Signed the Surrender: To show that the identity of these Chiefs is known, I have added in the tribal / nation affiliations of each from memory. Spelling is difficult to interpret as is true of all deeds with Indian names since even with Native interpreters doing the spelling, there was not absolute consistency to the last letter - but all can be identified (many use European names). I will later add in tribal / nation of the rest of the Chiefs below using the "Census for Presents", "Agricultural Census of 1843", and other relevant documents which I have in storage elsewhere:
1) Chief Buck (opened council) - Firekeeper, Onondaga
2) Chief Henry Brant (speaker, presenter) - Head Chief, Upper Mohawk
3) Jacob Martin (interpreter) - Lower Mohawk
4) George Anthony - Head Chief, Delaware
5) Aghsigwaresere - Mohawk
6) Aghakaris
7) John Bull - Delaware
8) Isaac Burning - Moses Walker Mohawks, Upper Mohawk
9) Nicholas Burning - Moses Walker Mohawks, Upper Mohawk
10) Seneca John - Head Chief, Nikarondasah Seneca
11) Lawrence David - Upper Mohawk
12) Peter Deer - Upper Mohawk
13) Cornelius Douglas - Tuscarora
14) Joseph Doxtator - Mohawk
15) Jacob Fish - Upper Cayuga
16) Peter Fishcarrier - Lower Cayuga
17) Peter Green - Head Chief, Auquaga (Oneida)
18) Joseph Hess - Upper Mohawk
19) Samson Hess - Upper Mohawk
20) Peter Hill
21) William John - Upper Mohawk
22) Elijah Johnson - Lower Mohawk
23) John Smoke Johnson - Lower Mohawk
24) William Johnson - Lower Mohawk
25) Kanonhgeritawi
26) Kanyakaroton
27) Kanorisayon
28) Patrick Latham - Head Chief, Old Nanticoke Family
29) Isaac Lewis - Upper Mohawk
30) Abraham Maracle - Head Chief, Bay of Quinte Mohawks
31) Joseph Montour - Head Chief, Lower Cayuga
32) John Obediah - Head Chief, Tuscarora
33) Joseph Osegiraga
34) Ojakehete - Lower Cayuga
35) Ojinonyata
36) Onakaronton
37) Onesconren
38) Noah Powless - Upper Mohawk
39) Shagokaryas
40) Skanawate
41) Peter Smith - Mohawk
42) Tayekanskhot
43) Tegharaniraryak
44) Tewahinnote
45) Teyonhohisin
46) Moses Walker - Head Chief, Moses Walker Mohawks (Upper Mohawk)
47) John Young - St. Regis Onondagas
It is many times more difficult to accurately identify Six Nations who at the time are recorded under only their Haudenosaunee name. There are dialect differences within languages, and there are great similarities between the Six Nations languages such that a phonetic translation (good or bad) is hard to link up to names in for example the Census for Presents of 1856. It is "doable" but, it would take someone who is more familiar with Haudenosaunee languages than myself to do this job with any degree of confidence. In other words there are limitations in individual identification of the Hauenosaunee names of for example Lower Cayugas in the 18 December 1844 document. All of the Lower Cayuga do have a White pre and surname at this time (e.g., Young Warner, Henry Young(chief), Jacob Silversmith). The latter names are used somewhat haphazardly - some Indian Department officials would choose to use the White names, some not. Most of the merchants in the Caledonia area (whose customers tended to be Lower Cayuga and Onondaga) listed the White names, and often as well the Haudenosaunee name, in their account books. There are good economic reasons to have as much information as possible with the individual accounts, since often the Indian Department, for one reason or another, was often left to pick up the tab of delinquent accounts - and merchants needed to prove the specific identity of their customer.
The Mohawks, most of whom only use a White name for official purposes (e.g., signing a surrender, being listed on the Census Records ("for Presents") of the 1850s and 1860s, then the Band Lists which begin in the 1870s). The Mohawks, in particular, are parsed into various "parties" or factions, but were frequently lumped together under either Lower or Upper Mohawk, and sometimes listed by their specific grouping such as "Moses Walker Mohawks", as is the case with the 1856 Census Returns (LAC, RG10, Vol. 223, pp.132530j-132530ff).
Here follows scans of photocopies of the rather poor microfilm copies from the above noted microfilm reel. Clearly photographic copies of the original documents will be needed eventually, but for the present, these documents clearly show that on 18 December 1844 the Chiefs in Council did sign the document agreeing to the surrender of the lands from the Plank Road to what is today Oneida Road and the boundary of the present day Reserve. Only the pages stamped 83275 (first two pages below) and 83276 (third and forth pages below) are included here since the goal was to show all of the signatures.
The above list will suffice until I can order copies of the original documents (not microfilm copies) from LAC.
The point is, however, that clearly the Editor's assertion does not hold water.
DeYo.
Work Stoppages at Land Developments No Longer Effective. Is HDI Now Using Archaelogy to Exert Power and Extort Money?
This post will focus on the latest efforts of the Hereditary Council to wrest control from the Elected Council of the lucrative "Archaeological Monitors" who are now required at development sites in a very loosely defined Six Nations Territory in Ontario. Secondly it will focus on how the HDI have come up with a new strategy to engage in familiar practices - illegal work stoppages. However, first I would like to provide my readers with a historical overview, one that can be offered from a personal standpoint.
General Background: During the 1980s (about 1984 to 1994) I was a volunteer (hence, not paid) Archaeological Conservation Officer with the "Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Culture", working out of the London office. At that point there was no real legislation requiring developers to obtain an archaeological study of their property before development. It was a bit of a free for all or "Wild West" in this field when I began, where "pot hunters" and "grave robbers" abounded - and there was little we could do to stop them. There were many in the local area who had complete pots and grave goods in their collection, and generally the bones were just cast aside or the skull taken as a "souvenir". If caught in the act and reported to the police the individuals could be charged under the "Cemeteries Act" - but that was rare and seldom enforced. I tried to enlist the assistance of Six Nations people, since these were the remains of First Nations people from their territory. Alas, I was met with blank stares when the subject was raised. The only person who was on our team who was "status" First Nations was a young fellow from the Oneida of the Thames Reserve. When controlled and legal excavations were done, such as that at the Mohawk Village in Brantford (which I helped excavate), I don't recall any interest from Six Nations people except those who worked at the old Mohawk Institute, what was called "Museum of the Woodland Indian" and later the "Woodland Indian Cultural Educational Center". The professional archaeologists and I would use topographic maps, old survey maps and other means to locate the early settlements along the Grand River - but we did it without any interest or "interference" (either of which we would have welcomed at the time) from those who lived on Reserve. Perhaps some readers may recall notable exceptions to this observation, and if so I would welcome hearing from them.
Now in 2014 things have changed and there is intense interest, and why would that be? In a few words, "money" and "power - political gain". More precisely, Ontario legislation has changed, and there is money to be made by simply showing up at an archaeological site; and a land claim can be brought into sharper focus in the public eye if there is for example a burial site situated on the land. Even the suggestion of one has been known to put local officials into a panic. This was the case at Toronto's High Park which then "justified" an "occupation" - even though it seems that the mounds were nothing more than the "moguls" created by mountain bikers to enhance their trail riding experience.
Today all archaeology in the Province is governed by the Ontario Heritage Act, and administered through the "Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport". See here for the specifics. There are many new laws and rules in place which are designed to protect the heritage of Ontario, including the heritage that lies under ground. In addition the Cemeteries Act has been beefed up such that the finding of human bone, even on the surface, and even if from a burial 1000 years ago, can result in that area being designated as a Cemetery and then protected by Ontario law, and the site administered by the local County.
As it now stands, an "Archaeological Assessment" is required before any development can proceed (see here). These assessments are conducted by "Consultant Archaeologists" (professional archaeologists) who are governed by guidelines and standards of practice (as is the case in any profession including my own) as seen here. One of the provisions, which has caused considerable difficulties for developers, professional archaeologists, and First Natives band councils is the requirement for "engaging aboriginal communities in archaeology" as seen here. While this is a well intentioned requirement it creates numerous headaches such as for example who to contact in the event of a pre-contact archaeological discovery. As an example, the First Nations people residing on the Grand River (e.g., Attiwandaronk or Neutral people) left no known descendants since they were utterly destroyed by the Five Nations in the mid 1600s in genocidal wars known as the "Beaver Wars" or "mourning wars". Today the Six Nations of the Grand River and the Mississaugas of New Credit reside within the Grand River watershed. Although not lineal descendants, one or both would need to be "consulted" or "engaged". It becomes a little clearer with historic period remains when they can be linked to a village or settlement shown on surveyor's maps from 1790 onwards.
The policies and procedures to promote "engagement" are to offer "aboriginal communities" the opportunity to become involved in archaeology, including both fieldwork and as "monitors". The Glossary to the above document defines Aboriginal monitors as, Aboriginal person(s) hired by the proponent, consultant archaeologist or the Aboriginal community to represent Aboriginal interests during the fieldwork component of an archaeological assessment.
As to involvement of Six Nations in archaeological work in Southwestern Ontario, the Ministry states in the above document that,
Basically it is a courtesy to involve "Aboriginal monitors" in the process - but in the reality of day to day archaeology those in the business know what developers know. If you don't play ball with certain aboriginal groups, you will pay - actually you will pay anyway.
So from zero interest in 1994 we fast forward 20 years to a situation where professional archaeologists know that they have no choice but to involve aboriginal groups even if there is only a whiff of a chance that there is any archaeological site present. As I well know, there is really no place in Southwestern Ontario that you will not find some evidence of aboriginal activity. Most farmers have collections of arrowheads that they or their children have picked up over the years after the land has been ploughed. So is a "site" the location where a stray chert flake is found? In theory yes, but that simply does not make any sense since all legislation was designed to protect the heritage of Ontario and a random chert flake is probably of no more importance than a small fragment of a dinner plate disposed of 200 years ago by a Loyalist settler - unless it is a signal that there is a site of some significance to be located nearby.
So the professional archaeologists have attempted to involve aboriginal people in the process - but why is it different from the days when I was working as a volunteer in this area and could elicit virtually no interest in archaeological sites at for example Six Nations? Something has changed, and it started with a generous move on the part of professional archaeologists to give formal training to archaeological monitors (who would ultimately be paid for the work they did).
The Association of Professional Archaeologists began offering courses and certificates to those from Six Nations, recommended by the Elected Council, who wished to participate. The first class of student volunteers graduated in 2008 (see here). Unfortunately, the factional divisions with the Hereditary Council, the "Confederacy" where beginning to be felt in 2009 (see here). There seems to have been greater productive cooperation between all parties in work involving Anishinaabe peoples as seen here.
When the expectation of getting paid for this work came into the picture is unclear to me. What I do know is that when the Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council and the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) became aware of the programme, and that the students who were graduating were those recommended by the Six Nations Elected Council they decided that this was unacceptable, and began inserting their own (untrained) monitors into the picture. Thus on any development site, even in Hamilton (outside the Haldimand Tract) on development sites one might expect to see archaeological monitors from Six Nations, but it would be a mixture of those trained by the Association of Professional Archaeologists and recommended by the Elected Council, and those sent by the HDI. Having talked to developers and city planners there was clearly confusion about the matter, and there were disagreements when it came to the bottom line - the money paid for this "work". So for strictly political reasons, the HDI sent individuals (the same people who were stopping development in Haldimand County?) to every site where there was a possibility of getting paid remuneration. In their recent newsletter, discussed in the previous posting, the HDI claims that they have 18 full time monitors - which is a claim I would like to see backed up with some facts, but they are not forthcoming.
So picture this. There is a site which professional archaeologists have been called in to investigate and they locate an aboriginal component to the site. They then call in aboriginal archaeological monitors, but now must deal with two independent groups at Six Nations, the trained Elected Council monitors, and the individuals deemed to be monitors by HDI. Of course that is inefficient and makes no sense - unless one understands the politics at Six Nations.
Article in "Turtle Island News": entitled, Samsung/Six Nations solar park may have destroyed artifacts, July 16, 2014, p.4. First it is important to note that the deal struck between Six Nations and Six Nations was actually with the legally constituted authority, the body recognized in law as having the right to negotiate with government or developers. In other words Samsung made a deal with the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) through former Elected Chief William Montour and a sweet one it was - for $65 million dollars over 20 years - despite the objective fact that Six Nations has no legitimate claim whatsoever over the land on which the wind turbines and solar panels were to be built (as I have discussed in detail in previous postings). One would expect that the Elected Council monitors would be involved in any Samsung project, but, undoubtedly enraged that they were not getting a slice of the pie from Samsung, the HDI sent its own "monitors" to do some poking around. Now we come to the details of the current story. According to this article,
Samsung/Six Nations' Grand Renewable Energy Park contractors may have destroyed a number of 10,000-year-old Haudenosaunee artifacts during construction last week.
Comment: Already we see serious misinformation.
First, there were few to no people here 10,000 years ago - it was the end of the Ice Age and the land was less than hospitable due to the relatively recent retreat of the glacier that stood up to two miles in height. Any site from this era would be the "find of a lifetime", there are so few such sites identified from this era in Ontario. Any true site would be unlikely larger than an average lot on the Mountain in Hamilton - and the artifact "pickings" lean indeed. Also, the area around Fisherville does not have the characteristics expected of a site dating to this time period. Namely, this would be a constricted area in a River where caribou would congregate as a crossing point. Also, the area was not near a large body of water such as Lake Erie, which at the proposed time was much smaller and thus further away from Fisherville. Anyone interested in learning about Ontario's First Nations archaeological heritage would be well advised to read the book edited by Marit K. Munson and Susan M. Jamieson, Before Ontario: The Archaeology of a Province, Montreal & Kingston, McGill - Queen's University Press, 2013.
Secondly, there were no Haudenosaunee people alive at the time. The Haudenosaunee emerged sometime after 900 AD, subsequent to migrating from what is today central Pennsylvania to Upstate New York (Finger Lakes Region and the Mohawk Valley). The Confederacy, according to all academic sources, including those written by Six Nations authors, date the founding to between 1100 and 1500 AD (see a summary by the most respected archaeologist / historian of our time, Dean R. Snow, The Iroquois, Cambridge MA, Blackwell Publishers, 1996). The author may be mistaking Haudenosaunee with Onkwehonwe people ("The Real People") which is a term often employed for the First Nations. What also heightens my suspicion that the article is going to be portraying an HDI spin, is the picture showing an assemblage of artifacts that either date to Archaic or Woodland times, or are not artifacts at all, just naturally chipped stone. Unless a person has relevant training in archaeology, they would be in no position to deem anything except an obvious arrowhead to be an artifact. Scrapers and the like are notoriously difficult to identify by amateurs. The story only gets stranger.
Continuing with what is said in the article, Contractors initially refused to halt work on the 750-acre solar farm near Fisherville in Haldimand County despite calls from the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) to bring construction to a standstill until a further investigation of the property is held.
Comment: First, Fisherville is outside the Haldimand Tract. Furthermore, why did the legitimate monitors from the Elected Council not send up red flags over the matter. Perhaps it is because a full investigation has already been completed and a report submitted by the professional archaeologists who in 2012 did the site survey - Stantec Consulting Ltd. Such is the power of this unrecognized group to bring development to a halt. In the past HDI has sent in goons to stand in front of construction equipment and create work stoppages. That has resulted in their being slapped with Court Injunctions and fines in both Haldimand and Brant Counties. Clearly another approach, more subtle perhaps, was needed. Using an archaeological pretext would be perfect since there is legislation requiring construction to stop if archaeological finds are made. So now send in "archaeological monitors" to sites that do not conform to the HDI protocol (pay them money) and it sanitizes things.
Apparently after some insistence by these "monitors" (if that is what they were), the construction company was badgered into moving work to another part of the site and the "affected area" cordoned off with yellow tape. Meanwhile, the company, brought in independent archaeologists from the firm Stantec to work alongside Six Nations monitors. When the site was "cleared for construction" something rather odd occurred as follows:
When HDI monitors checked the site after reports of artifacts being found, they discovered several more artifacts last Wednesday and placed them in a marked spot for safekeeping, only to find the artifacts went missing overnight Wednesday.
Grand Renewable Energy Park employees say they know nothing about the missing artifacts. It is a criminal offence to remove artifacts from the site.
In less than five minutes on the site Thursday afternoon, monitor [named] found two handfuls of artifacts. "That's enough to constitute a stage-three assessment". "There's probably about 30 more (artifacts) out there".
The monitor agreed that, it wasn't common for archaeologists to miss finding that many artifacts. "It shouldn't be but apparently, in Haldimand, it is".
Apparently the HDI monitors are having similar difficulties with NextEra (another project with which the Elected Council is involved), and "Sites are being Bulldozed over". Apparently Samsung does not want HDI monitors there, because they don't want anybody finding sites. The Director of the HDI stated that, the incident was a "deliberate" attempt to stop the HDI from discovering any further finds.
Comment: The above statement is irresponsible. The evidence that HDI has come up with is very sketchy. There is an old technique called "salting the mine" meaning placing items somewhere to convince others that there is a significant site at that location. Recall that all of these projects have had a full and thorough archaeological investigation, presumably under the watchful eye of Elected Council monitors. Of course the latter are the bitter rivals of the HDI monitors so whatever they may have done will be derogated in the service of pretending that the HDI monitors (are they even trained?) are finding some sort of conspiracy to cover up evidence. Just how many people are going to believe this is anyone's guess. Since the Elected Council does not have a sympathetic media forum in which they could air their side of the story, we will only hear the HDI spin.
It will be useful to include the full quote of the Director of HDI as it is very revealing of the mind set here. The Director said, "To me it was a deliberate interference of an investigation". "It was an attempt to hide the oversight of previous archaeological assessment. There was a big resistance. They threatened to call in the OPP. I told (contractors) if they did anything like that we would take measures to stop the whole project". Also, the issue of the stolen artifacts needs to be addressed.
Comment: This is deja vu. Threats to bring a project to a halt (by sending in thugs to stop the work) is exactly the same as has occurred with land developers who "did not go through the process". In other words, anyone who does not play ball with the HDI, even though they have zero legal standing, can expect work disruptions and threats of violence. The so called evidence that they are using in this case is absolutely bogus. It is simply a convenient means to use in getting back on track after the series of Court Injunctions stopped them from using the "goons + work stoppage" method of extracting money and recognition when dealing with "difficult" groups (especially those aligned with the Elected Council). Will the HDI be allowed to get away with this thinly veiled attempt to use a pretend find and pretend stolen artifacts to ramp up and once again engage in extortion to cultivate their end goals? I seriously hope that the corporations, who I have no regard for by virtue of the environmental damage they are doing to the landscape of Ontario, seek the protection of the Court and that there is a full investigation of the legalities here.
DeYo.
General Background: During the 1980s (about 1984 to 1994) I was a volunteer (hence, not paid) Archaeological Conservation Officer with the "Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Culture", working out of the London office. At that point there was no real legislation requiring developers to obtain an archaeological study of their property before development. It was a bit of a free for all or "Wild West" in this field when I began, where "pot hunters" and "grave robbers" abounded - and there was little we could do to stop them. There were many in the local area who had complete pots and grave goods in their collection, and generally the bones were just cast aside or the skull taken as a "souvenir". If caught in the act and reported to the police the individuals could be charged under the "Cemeteries Act" - but that was rare and seldom enforced. I tried to enlist the assistance of Six Nations people, since these were the remains of First Nations people from their territory. Alas, I was met with blank stares when the subject was raised. The only person who was on our team who was "status" First Nations was a young fellow from the Oneida of the Thames Reserve. When controlled and legal excavations were done, such as that at the Mohawk Village in Brantford (which I helped excavate), I don't recall any interest from Six Nations people except those who worked at the old Mohawk Institute, what was called "Museum of the Woodland Indian" and later the "Woodland Indian Cultural Educational Center". The professional archaeologists and I would use topographic maps, old survey maps and other means to locate the early settlements along the Grand River - but we did it without any interest or "interference" (either of which we would have welcomed at the time) from those who lived on Reserve. Perhaps some readers may recall notable exceptions to this observation, and if so I would welcome hearing from them.
Now in 2014 things have changed and there is intense interest, and why would that be? In a few words, "money" and "power - political gain". More precisely, Ontario legislation has changed, and there is money to be made by simply showing up at an archaeological site; and a land claim can be brought into sharper focus in the public eye if there is for example a burial site situated on the land. Even the suggestion of one has been known to put local officials into a panic. This was the case at Toronto's High Park which then "justified" an "occupation" - even though it seems that the mounds were nothing more than the "moguls" created by mountain bikers to enhance their trail riding experience.
Today all archaeology in the Province is governed by the Ontario Heritage Act, and administered through the "Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport". See here for the specifics. There are many new laws and rules in place which are designed to protect the heritage of Ontario, including the heritage that lies under ground. In addition the Cemeteries Act has been beefed up such that the finding of human bone, even on the surface, and even if from a burial 1000 years ago, can result in that area being designated as a Cemetery and then protected by Ontario law, and the site administered by the local County.
As it now stands, an "Archaeological Assessment" is required before any development can proceed (see here). These assessments are conducted by "Consultant Archaeologists" (professional archaeologists) who are governed by guidelines and standards of practice (as is the case in any profession including my own) as seen here. One of the provisions, which has caused considerable difficulties for developers, professional archaeologists, and First Natives band councils is the requirement for "engaging aboriginal communities in archaeology" as seen here. While this is a well intentioned requirement it creates numerous headaches such as for example who to contact in the event of a pre-contact archaeological discovery. As an example, the First Nations people residing on the Grand River (e.g., Attiwandaronk or Neutral people) left no known descendants since they were utterly destroyed by the Five Nations in the mid 1600s in genocidal wars known as the "Beaver Wars" or "mourning wars". Today the Six Nations of the Grand River and the Mississaugas of New Credit reside within the Grand River watershed. Although not lineal descendants, one or both would need to be "consulted" or "engaged". It becomes a little clearer with historic period remains when they can be linked to a village or settlement shown on surveyor's maps from 1790 onwards.
The policies and procedures to promote "engagement" are to offer "aboriginal communities" the opportunity to become involved in archaeology, including both fieldwork and as "monitors". The Glossary to the above document defines Aboriginal monitors as, Aboriginal person(s) hired by the proponent, consultant archaeologist or the Aboriginal community to represent Aboriginal interests during the fieldwork component of an archaeological assessment.
As to involvement of Six Nations in archaeological work in Southwestern Ontario, the Ministry states in the above document that,
The standards and guidelines do not require you to negotiate agreements between the Aboriginal community and your client.
|
Basically it is a courtesy to involve "Aboriginal monitors" in the process - but in the reality of day to day archaeology those in the business know what developers know. If you don't play ball with certain aboriginal groups, you will pay - actually you will pay anyway.
So from zero interest in 1994 we fast forward 20 years to a situation where professional archaeologists know that they have no choice but to involve aboriginal groups even if there is only a whiff of a chance that there is any archaeological site present. As I well know, there is really no place in Southwestern Ontario that you will not find some evidence of aboriginal activity. Most farmers have collections of arrowheads that they or their children have picked up over the years after the land has been ploughed. So is a "site" the location where a stray chert flake is found? In theory yes, but that simply does not make any sense since all legislation was designed to protect the heritage of Ontario and a random chert flake is probably of no more importance than a small fragment of a dinner plate disposed of 200 years ago by a Loyalist settler - unless it is a signal that there is a site of some significance to be located nearby.
So the professional archaeologists have attempted to involve aboriginal people in the process - but why is it different from the days when I was working as a volunteer in this area and could elicit virtually no interest in archaeological sites at for example Six Nations? Something has changed, and it started with a generous move on the part of professional archaeologists to give formal training to archaeological monitors (who would ultimately be paid for the work they did).
The Association of Professional Archaeologists began offering courses and certificates to those from Six Nations, recommended by the Elected Council, who wished to participate. The first class of student volunteers graduated in 2008 (see here). Unfortunately, the factional divisions with the Hereditary Council, the "Confederacy" where beginning to be felt in 2009 (see here). There seems to have been greater productive cooperation between all parties in work involving Anishinaabe peoples as seen here.
When the expectation of getting paid for this work came into the picture is unclear to me. What I do know is that when the Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council and the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) became aware of the programme, and that the students who were graduating were those recommended by the Six Nations Elected Council they decided that this was unacceptable, and began inserting their own (untrained) monitors into the picture. Thus on any development site, even in Hamilton (outside the Haldimand Tract) on development sites one might expect to see archaeological monitors from Six Nations, but it would be a mixture of those trained by the Association of Professional Archaeologists and recommended by the Elected Council, and those sent by the HDI. Having talked to developers and city planners there was clearly confusion about the matter, and there were disagreements when it came to the bottom line - the money paid for this "work". So for strictly political reasons, the HDI sent individuals (the same people who were stopping development in Haldimand County?) to every site where there was a possibility of getting paid remuneration. In their recent newsletter, discussed in the previous posting, the HDI claims that they have 18 full time monitors - which is a claim I would like to see backed up with some facts, but they are not forthcoming.
So picture this. There is a site which professional archaeologists have been called in to investigate and they locate an aboriginal component to the site. They then call in aboriginal archaeological monitors, but now must deal with two independent groups at Six Nations, the trained Elected Council monitors, and the individuals deemed to be monitors by HDI. Of course that is inefficient and makes no sense - unless one understands the politics at Six Nations.
Article in "Turtle Island News": entitled, Samsung/Six Nations solar park may have destroyed artifacts, July 16, 2014, p.4. First it is important to note that the deal struck between Six Nations and Six Nations was actually with the legally constituted authority, the body recognized in law as having the right to negotiate with government or developers. In other words Samsung made a deal with the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) through former Elected Chief William Montour and a sweet one it was - for $65 million dollars over 20 years - despite the objective fact that Six Nations has no legitimate claim whatsoever over the land on which the wind turbines and solar panels were to be built (as I have discussed in detail in previous postings). One would expect that the Elected Council monitors would be involved in any Samsung project, but, undoubtedly enraged that they were not getting a slice of the pie from Samsung, the HDI sent its own "monitors" to do some poking around. Now we come to the details of the current story. According to this article,
Samsung/Six Nations' Grand Renewable Energy Park contractors may have destroyed a number of 10,000-year-old Haudenosaunee artifacts during construction last week.
Comment: Already we see serious misinformation.
First, there were few to no people here 10,000 years ago - it was the end of the Ice Age and the land was less than hospitable due to the relatively recent retreat of the glacier that stood up to two miles in height. Any site from this era would be the "find of a lifetime", there are so few such sites identified from this era in Ontario. Any true site would be unlikely larger than an average lot on the Mountain in Hamilton - and the artifact "pickings" lean indeed. Also, the area around Fisherville does not have the characteristics expected of a site dating to this time period. Namely, this would be a constricted area in a River where caribou would congregate as a crossing point. Also, the area was not near a large body of water such as Lake Erie, which at the proposed time was much smaller and thus further away from Fisherville. Anyone interested in learning about Ontario's First Nations archaeological heritage would be well advised to read the book edited by Marit K. Munson and Susan M. Jamieson, Before Ontario: The Archaeology of a Province, Montreal & Kingston, McGill - Queen's University Press, 2013.
Secondly, there were no Haudenosaunee people alive at the time. The Haudenosaunee emerged sometime after 900 AD, subsequent to migrating from what is today central Pennsylvania to Upstate New York (Finger Lakes Region and the Mohawk Valley). The Confederacy, according to all academic sources, including those written by Six Nations authors, date the founding to between 1100 and 1500 AD (see a summary by the most respected archaeologist / historian of our time, Dean R. Snow, The Iroquois, Cambridge MA, Blackwell Publishers, 1996). The author may be mistaking Haudenosaunee with Onkwehonwe people ("The Real People") which is a term often employed for the First Nations. What also heightens my suspicion that the article is going to be portraying an HDI spin, is the picture showing an assemblage of artifacts that either date to Archaic or Woodland times, or are not artifacts at all, just naturally chipped stone. Unless a person has relevant training in archaeology, they would be in no position to deem anything except an obvious arrowhead to be an artifact. Scrapers and the like are notoriously difficult to identify by amateurs. The story only gets stranger.
Continuing with what is said in the article, Contractors initially refused to halt work on the 750-acre solar farm near Fisherville in Haldimand County despite calls from the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) to bring construction to a standstill until a further investigation of the property is held.
Comment: First, Fisherville is outside the Haldimand Tract. Furthermore, why did the legitimate monitors from the Elected Council not send up red flags over the matter. Perhaps it is because a full investigation has already been completed and a report submitted by the professional archaeologists who in 2012 did the site survey - Stantec Consulting Ltd. Such is the power of this unrecognized group to bring development to a halt. In the past HDI has sent in goons to stand in front of construction equipment and create work stoppages. That has resulted in their being slapped with Court Injunctions and fines in both Haldimand and Brant Counties. Clearly another approach, more subtle perhaps, was needed. Using an archaeological pretext would be perfect since there is legislation requiring construction to stop if archaeological finds are made. So now send in "archaeological monitors" to sites that do not conform to the HDI protocol (pay them money) and it sanitizes things.
Apparently after some insistence by these "monitors" (if that is what they were), the construction company was badgered into moving work to another part of the site and the "affected area" cordoned off with yellow tape. Meanwhile, the company, brought in independent archaeologists from the firm Stantec to work alongside Six Nations monitors. When the site was "cleared for construction" something rather odd occurred as follows:
When HDI monitors checked the site after reports of artifacts being found, they discovered several more artifacts last Wednesday and placed them in a marked spot for safekeeping, only to find the artifacts went missing overnight Wednesday.
Grand Renewable Energy Park employees say they know nothing about the missing artifacts. It is a criminal offence to remove artifacts from the site.
In less than five minutes on the site Thursday afternoon, monitor [named] found two handfuls of artifacts. "That's enough to constitute a stage-three assessment". "There's probably about 30 more (artifacts) out there".
The monitor agreed that, it wasn't common for archaeologists to miss finding that many artifacts. "It shouldn't be but apparently, in Haldimand, it is".
Apparently the HDI monitors are having similar difficulties with NextEra (another project with which the Elected Council is involved), and "Sites are being Bulldozed over". Apparently Samsung does not want HDI monitors there, because they don't want anybody finding sites. The Director of the HDI stated that, the incident was a "deliberate" attempt to stop the HDI from discovering any further finds.
Comment: The above statement is irresponsible. The evidence that HDI has come up with is very sketchy. There is an old technique called "salting the mine" meaning placing items somewhere to convince others that there is a significant site at that location. Recall that all of these projects have had a full and thorough archaeological investigation, presumably under the watchful eye of Elected Council monitors. Of course the latter are the bitter rivals of the HDI monitors so whatever they may have done will be derogated in the service of pretending that the HDI monitors (are they even trained?) are finding some sort of conspiracy to cover up evidence. Just how many people are going to believe this is anyone's guess. Since the Elected Council does not have a sympathetic media forum in which they could air their side of the story, we will only hear the HDI spin.
It will be useful to include the full quote of the Director of HDI as it is very revealing of the mind set here. The Director said, "To me it was a deliberate interference of an investigation". "It was an attempt to hide the oversight of previous archaeological assessment. There was a big resistance. They threatened to call in the OPP. I told (contractors) if they did anything like that we would take measures to stop the whole project". Also, the issue of the stolen artifacts needs to be addressed.
Comment: This is deja vu. Threats to bring a project to a halt (by sending in thugs to stop the work) is exactly the same as has occurred with land developers who "did not go through the process". In other words, anyone who does not play ball with the HDI, even though they have zero legal standing, can expect work disruptions and threats of violence. The so called evidence that they are using in this case is absolutely bogus. It is simply a convenient means to use in getting back on track after the series of Court Injunctions stopped them from using the "goons + work stoppage" method of extracting money and recognition when dealing with "difficult" groups (especially those aligned with the Elected Council). Will the HDI be allowed to get away with this thinly veiled attempt to use a pretend find and pretend stolen artifacts to ramp up and once again engage in extortion to cultivate their end goals? I seriously hope that the corporations, who I have no regard for by virtue of the environmental damage they are doing to the landscape of Ontario, seek the protection of the Court and that there is a full investigation of the legalities here.
DeYo.
Wednesday 16 July 2014
The Fence Around DCE Will be Constructed by the HDI Now; and the HDI Communications Protocol with Ontario has Expired
Update 27 July 2014: Today I did a circuit of the DCE site and there was no evidence seen of the installation of a chain link fence or fence of any description.
Update 29 July 2014: The HDI have begun erecting a fence on the north side of the property. See here.
1) Erection of Fence and Land Claim: Today, 16 July 2014, "Turtle Island News" (TIN), the, it is said, publicity and propaganda arm of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC), included an article entitled, Neighbours' encroachment, garbage, group's protests force security (p.2).
Here the article claims that, Installation of a long-awaited safety fence at Kanonhstaton started last week to enclose the "former Douglas Creek Estates housing development site in Caledonia". This would be the DCE. The reason given for this action is a plan, to mitigate a recent increase in disruption at the site from non-native political activists and encroachment by neighbouring homeowners who are extending their yards onto the site or have thrown old furniture and garbage onto the land. The work will be carried out by the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) under authority of the HCCC, according to the Director and spokesperson of the HDI. This individual specifically blamed the confrontations over the past month on, non-native activists who bought a small piece of property on the site beside Gord's Garage - which the Director terms, "a trap for incitement. They're going to keep trying to come on (to the property)"; whereas the group who illegally occupied DCE in 2006, have maintained a protective presence on the land ever since. The Director boldly says that the land is no longer public, it's a private driveway. It's our land, ......... we've taken it back".
"Two Row Times" (TRT), July 16th, 2014 has an article on page 3 entitled. Fence going up to protect Kanonhstaton. Here we obtain much the same information as the report in TIN, but with a few additions of importance. The Director of the HDI confirmed that it will be a chain link fence that is erected around DCE, and that, sometime within 7 to 10 days, the construction of the fencing and a front gate facing Argyle Street, would begin. The Director also claims that the Plank Road (Argyle Street; old Highway 6) saying, That road is ours. Also the Director, spoke of the authority of the HCCC in contrast to that of the Elected Band Council.
In the TRT article the Director of the HDI reportedly said, that since the people stood as a Nation to reclaim the land, Band Council or the Ontario (Government) should have no say if we want to put up a fence or a gate, or building a meeting area.
Furthermore, "The people are not ready to take down that trailer right now because it represents violence that was coming upon us". In fact the violence was coming entirely from Six Nations with arson (bridge burning), blockading Argyle Street with gravel, burning tires, and a stolen and vandalized Hydro One tower, etc. How is this reality perverted into Six Nations being the victims of violence justifying leaving the hideous burned out big rig trailer in place. It is a symbol of Six Nations violence against the innocent victims of Caledonia and surrounds!! By leaving it present, it merely rubs salt into the wound any time we pass through the southern entrance (or exit) to Caledonia.
Comment: So basically the thugs and terrorists who stole the land in 2006, and who have trashed everything on the property except the wood ticks which are crawling all over the property, are claiming without authority (the land belongs to Ontario) that they have the right to build a fence around the stolen land. If Ontario permits this travesty, I predict that there will be much more civil disobedience than has been seen to date as citizens realize the message here. Why wouldn't locals, knowing it was an illegal fence on Ontario Government owned, land simply use local resources to remove it in whole or in part?
If allowed to actually construct a fence on land they merely claim, without any evidence, as their own it would set a precedent such that anyone can claim a patch of Ontario and call it their own and erect a fence to keep everyone else out. The HDI supporters are not special in this regard, they merely think they are. 230 years ago my ancestors owned a large Tract on the Grand River confirmed to them by the Six Nations in Council as they were "people of our own nation". I don't have this land in my possession at present - it was sold out of the family long ago. If I follow the HDI plan, then I will be able to go to the land, have some of my younger cousins camp out there, and start erecting a fence to keep out "non-natives" or whomever you want to call them and say, The land is ours. We owned it 230 years ago, and we've taken it back. Is this ok? There is no difference whatsoever with what the HDI have done and what I might propose to do if they set a precedent.
Also, according to the HDI, the elected representatives of the people are not the legitimate governing body. This despite the fact that around the world, countries are attempting to come out of the Middle Ages and authoritarian rule by demagogues and seek a way to introduce democracy into their languishing countries. When chiefs or heads of state are not accountable to the people, they are free to take full advantage of nepotism and favouring those who have "connections", and ensuring that there is no effective voice for those who disagree. So the HDI would have Six Nations slip backward, not to some utopian time (which in fact never existed), but into the era where anarchy ruled on the Reserve and most who had a way out left or just laid low and kept a low profile. I can guess who will rule with an iron fist if the HDI has their way. Kim Jong Un and "banana republic" rule is but a short hop away in time - unless the people become aware of what is about to happen.
2) The Expiration of the Protocol with Ontario: After a brief review of the "reclamation", the TIN article mentions that the meeting between the Ontario Aboriginal Affairs Minister, the Mayor of Haldimand County, and the Elected Chief of the Six Nations was, at odds with a communications protocol it [Ontario] signed with former Aboriginal Affairs Minister Kathleen Wynne, now the premier of Ontario.
"It was a very bold move on her part, ........... "Nobody else had done that. It wasn't on conditions that the band had to be sitting there. It was a recognition of the Confederacy first and foremost. That's the process we've been working with. That expired (a few weeks ago). We've been waiting to renew that process".
The reporter continues, Last week's meeting, ............ took place only weeks after that communications protocol expired and there have been no attempts by Ontario to renew the protocol despite being contacted by the HDI.
The TIN article has the Director of the HDI attempt to rationalize why they were not at the negotiating table with the Province, County and Elected Council even though they were formally invited. The explanation given was that, the HCCC would be happy to meet with their Ministers through the process they struck when Kathleen Wynne, who was Minister of Aboriginal affairs at the time, and came to the Longhouse and set up a communications process with the Confederacy.
"She was ballsy in setting up a table to talk without condition that the Band Council or Haldimand had to be there, when no other government had done that". However the agreement, had expired in June 12, and that the HCCC has been waiting to renew that process.
Comment: It is probable the Ontario allowed the "protocol" to expire because that was the original intent, and it became clear in the intervening time just what the HDI, who represents the HCCC is. Words such as "thugs", "extortionists" have come into play - and it has been apparent to all that in the intervening period the HDI has engaged in actions that are illegal, questionable at best, and they have no legal authority whatsoever to negotiate with anyone - that is the purview of the Six Nations Elected Council who did meet with the representatives of Ontario, and Haldimand County. As a courtesy the HCCC was invited to send a Chief to attend, but they declined. They are well aware that the Federal Government will never give them the land because it was ceded in 1844 and they have the documents to prove it. So HDI hope that by leaning on the weak Ontario Government that they might get what they want - seemingly not realizing that as representatives of the Crown it would have to be the Federal Government who gave the ok to add the land to the Reserve. This is a problematic procedure even when a claim has some validity since it takes the land out of a County's land base and can no longer be taxed. Since it would be unfair to a County and its taxpaying citizens to "pick up the tab" it would likely be the Federal Government (the taxpayers of Canada) who would foot the bill. It would not create any "happy campers" among those who pay taxes in this Country.
This subject is expanded upon by the same reporter in an article appearing on the same page of TIN, and entitled, Ontario's rushed meeting produced decision to meet again. There is a lot of repetition here so I will fix on the part where there is some new information. In essence, the article is about the "expired protocol" noted above. The HDI Director said, That protocol ........ allowed for both Ontario and the HCCC to meet and discuss issues arising at, not just Kanonhstaton (the former Douglas Creek Estates subdivision) but on the Burtch Tract lands outside Brantford.
"We have been calling Ontario to discuss renewing the agreement but we are getting no where".
In the meanwhile trouble may be brewing in Caledonia as non-native activists continue to swarm the site .................
Next comes the warning, in light of these occurrences they [HCCC] are "deeply concerned for grave consequences" at Kanonhstaton over the ensuring summer months as the Ontario legislature takes a summer break.
Then the spin about the protocol (recently expired) is again mentioned, and as well as instructions for Ontario to remember that the Tsilhqot'in Supreme Court decision will apply to Six Nations (in other words the Elected Council does not represent nor is it the voice of the people). I discussed this matter in a recent posting and it is only wishful thinking that anyone is going to draw a parallel between the Tsilhqot'in and Six Nations situations. The HCCC spokesperson said that they want Ontario to return to the expired protocol provisions. However Ontario is very clear about the matter at this point. To be specific, Ontario is still holding the land in trust and has not turned it over to the Confederacy
Comment: Next in this article comes a statement that is absurd but which is always said, likely in the hope that people will have forgotten what the Federal Government has said in the matter - that Six Nations has no valid land claim to the property. Here are the words from the article, Neither the federal or provincial governments have proven any surrender of the lands has taken place. If one says this lie often enough perhaps some will believe them. Basically the HDI is saying that they can do whatever they want to do at DCE, and no one else has a stake or say in the matter - it is their decision alone to make. Considering their track record even after 2006 (work stoppages, violent encounters) it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, and reversing victim status.
This is a self-serving group which represents its own interests, and who will get rich on the backs of those who give in to their wild assertions, and will be empowered to do just about whatever they please because no one is calling them to task. No one is challenging them - except maybe one blogger. I seriously hope that there are many both on and off Reserve who are seeing the HDI for what they truly are - and recognize the dangers in dealing with them on any level. If the HCCC wants to speak with some group they should not have assigned the HDI such a powerful role with, apparently, no checks and balance. Who is overseeing them? In theory the HCCC Chiefs and Clan Mothers, in practice ....................
Misuse of Funds?: **** It is not only the Elected Council researchers who have concerns about possible misuse of funds. People, even supporters, are (and have been) questioning HDI about what they are doing with the money they are receiving. The "transparency issue" raised its head once again at the meeting at the barricade above where the HDI Director spoke about the fence going up at DCE, and the expiration of the protocol with the Province. Then an female elder who was, one of the original group who took over the site Feb. 28th, 2006 questioned [Director] about the transparency of the HDI.
"As Haudenosaunee people, can we know what all these negotiations are about"? the elder asked of the Director who said that, "the door is always open". The elder then said, "I'm glad to hear that because there's a lot of people that want to know about the money and where it has gone". The Director then said they were currently "undergoing our audit" then explained about the, "three different columns" including:
1) Administration dollars
2) Lease money
3) Land acquisition money
In relation to number 2 above, the Director said, "that is restricted", apparently only, "The people through their clans and their families, if you are participating with your clan family and know the process of the Confederacy, that's who gets to decide that". Considering that most folks at Six Nations have no idea as to what clan they belong, it means that a select group of individuals will have the knowledge of where the monies are going from "lease money" but not the "everyday" citizens of Six Nations. This will probably come back to bite the Director in the ......... but only time will tell. The rest of this part of the answer to the Elder's question is gibberish to me, I don't understand at all what the Director is getting at. Expressions such as, "you stood as Nations even when the Chiefs told you to go home" is left hanging - perhaps not everything got recorded .................... It is all somewhat bizarre.
DeYo.
Update 29 July 2014: The HDI have begun erecting a fence on the north side of the property. See here.
1) Erection of Fence and Land Claim: Today, 16 July 2014, "Turtle Island News" (TIN), the, it is said, publicity and propaganda arm of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC), included an article entitled, Neighbours' encroachment, garbage, group's protests force security (p.2).
Here the article claims that, Installation of a long-awaited safety fence at Kanonhstaton started last week to enclose the "former Douglas Creek Estates housing development site in Caledonia". This would be the DCE. The reason given for this action is a plan, to mitigate a recent increase in disruption at the site from non-native political activists and encroachment by neighbouring homeowners who are extending their yards onto the site or have thrown old furniture and garbage onto the land. The work will be carried out by the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) under authority of the HCCC, according to the Director and spokesperson of the HDI. This individual specifically blamed the confrontations over the past month on, non-native activists who bought a small piece of property on the site beside Gord's Garage - which the Director terms, "a trap for incitement. They're going to keep trying to come on (to the property)"; whereas the group who illegally occupied DCE in 2006, have maintained a protective presence on the land ever since. The Director boldly says that the land is no longer public, it's a private driveway. It's our land, ......... we've taken it back".
"Two Row Times" (TRT), July 16th, 2014 has an article on page 3 entitled. Fence going up to protect Kanonhstaton. Here we obtain much the same information as the report in TIN, but with a few additions of importance. The Director of the HDI confirmed that it will be a chain link fence that is erected around DCE, and that, sometime within 7 to 10 days, the construction of the fencing and a front gate facing Argyle Street, would begin. The Director also claims that the Plank Road (Argyle Street; old Highway 6) saying, That road is ours. Also the Director, spoke of the authority of the HCCC in contrast to that of the Elected Band Council.
In the TRT article the Director of the HDI reportedly said, that since the people stood as a Nation to reclaim the land, Band Council or the Ontario (Government) should have no say if we want to put up a fence or a gate, or building a meeting area.
Furthermore, "The people are not ready to take down that trailer right now because it represents violence that was coming upon us". In fact the violence was coming entirely from Six Nations with arson (bridge burning), blockading Argyle Street with gravel, burning tires, and a stolen and vandalized Hydro One tower, etc. How is this reality perverted into Six Nations being the victims of violence justifying leaving the hideous burned out big rig trailer in place. It is a symbol of Six Nations violence against the innocent victims of Caledonia and surrounds!! By leaving it present, it merely rubs salt into the wound any time we pass through the southern entrance (or exit) to Caledonia.
Comment: So basically the thugs and terrorists who stole the land in 2006, and who have trashed everything on the property except the wood ticks which are crawling all over the property, are claiming without authority (the land belongs to Ontario) that they have the right to build a fence around the stolen land. If Ontario permits this travesty, I predict that there will be much more civil disobedience than has been seen to date as citizens realize the message here. Why wouldn't locals, knowing it was an illegal fence on Ontario Government owned, land simply use local resources to remove it in whole or in part?
If allowed to actually construct a fence on land they merely claim, without any evidence, as their own it would set a precedent such that anyone can claim a patch of Ontario and call it their own and erect a fence to keep everyone else out. The HDI supporters are not special in this regard, they merely think they are. 230 years ago my ancestors owned a large Tract on the Grand River confirmed to them by the Six Nations in Council as they were "people of our own nation". I don't have this land in my possession at present - it was sold out of the family long ago. If I follow the HDI plan, then I will be able to go to the land, have some of my younger cousins camp out there, and start erecting a fence to keep out "non-natives" or whomever you want to call them and say, The land is ours. We owned it 230 years ago, and we've taken it back. Is this ok? There is no difference whatsoever with what the HDI have done and what I might propose to do if they set a precedent.
Also, according to the HDI, the elected representatives of the people are not the legitimate governing body. This despite the fact that around the world, countries are attempting to come out of the Middle Ages and authoritarian rule by demagogues and seek a way to introduce democracy into their languishing countries. When chiefs or heads of state are not accountable to the people, they are free to take full advantage of nepotism and favouring those who have "connections", and ensuring that there is no effective voice for those who disagree. So the HDI would have Six Nations slip backward, not to some utopian time (which in fact never existed), but into the era where anarchy ruled on the Reserve and most who had a way out left or just laid low and kept a low profile. I can guess who will rule with an iron fist if the HDI has their way. Kim Jong Un and "banana republic" rule is but a short hop away in time - unless the people become aware of what is about to happen.
2) The Expiration of the Protocol with Ontario: After a brief review of the "reclamation", the TIN article mentions that the meeting between the Ontario Aboriginal Affairs Minister, the Mayor of Haldimand County, and the Elected Chief of the Six Nations was, at odds with a communications protocol it [Ontario] signed with former Aboriginal Affairs Minister Kathleen Wynne, now the premier of Ontario.
"It was a very bold move on her part, ........... "Nobody else had done that. It wasn't on conditions that the band had to be sitting there. It was a recognition of the Confederacy first and foremost. That's the process we've been working with. That expired (a few weeks ago). We've been waiting to renew that process".
The reporter continues, Last week's meeting, ............ took place only weeks after that communications protocol expired and there have been no attempts by Ontario to renew the protocol despite being contacted by the HDI.
The TIN article has the Director of the HDI attempt to rationalize why they were not at the negotiating table with the Province, County and Elected Council even though they were formally invited. The explanation given was that, the HCCC would be happy to meet with their Ministers through the process they struck when Kathleen Wynne, who was Minister of Aboriginal affairs at the time, and came to the Longhouse and set up a communications process with the Confederacy.
"She was ballsy in setting up a table to talk without condition that the Band Council or Haldimand had to be there, when no other government had done that". However the agreement, had expired in June 12, and that the HCCC has been waiting to renew that process.
Comment: It is probable the Ontario allowed the "protocol" to expire because that was the original intent, and it became clear in the intervening time just what the HDI, who represents the HCCC is. Words such as "thugs", "extortionists" have come into play - and it has been apparent to all that in the intervening period the HDI has engaged in actions that are illegal, questionable at best, and they have no legal authority whatsoever to negotiate with anyone - that is the purview of the Six Nations Elected Council who did meet with the representatives of Ontario, and Haldimand County. As a courtesy the HCCC was invited to send a Chief to attend, but they declined. They are well aware that the Federal Government will never give them the land because it was ceded in 1844 and they have the documents to prove it. So HDI hope that by leaning on the weak Ontario Government that they might get what they want - seemingly not realizing that as representatives of the Crown it would have to be the Federal Government who gave the ok to add the land to the Reserve. This is a problematic procedure even when a claim has some validity since it takes the land out of a County's land base and can no longer be taxed. Since it would be unfair to a County and its taxpaying citizens to "pick up the tab" it would likely be the Federal Government (the taxpayers of Canada) who would foot the bill. It would not create any "happy campers" among those who pay taxes in this Country.
This subject is expanded upon by the same reporter in an article appearing on the same page of TIN, and entitled, Ontario's rushed meeting produced decision to meet again. There is a lot of repetition here so I will fix on the part where there is some new information. In essence, the article is about the "expired protocol" noted above. The HDI Director said, That protocol ........ allowed for both Ontario and the HCCC to meet and discuss issues arising at, not just Kanonhstaton (the former Douglas Creek Estates subdivision) but on the Burtch Tract lands outside Brantford.
"We have been calling Ontario to discuss renewing the agreement but we are getting no where".
In the meanwhile trouble may be brewing in Caledonia as non-native activists continue to swarm the site .................
Next comes the warning, in light of these occurrences they [HCCC] are "deeply concerned for grave consequences" at Kanonhstaton over the ensuring summer months as the Ontario legislature takes a summer break.
Then the spin about the protocol (recently expired) is again mentioned, and as well as instructions for Ontario to remember that the Tsilhqot'in Supreme Court decision will apply to Six Nations (in other words the Elected Council does not represent nor is it the voice of the people). I discussed this matter in a recent posting and it is only wishful thinking that anyone is going to draw a parallel between the Tsilhqot'in and Six Nations situations. The HCCC spokesperson said that they want Ontario to return to the expired protocol provisions. However Ontario is very clear about the matter at this point. To be specific, Ontario is still holding the land in trust and has not turned it over to the Confederacy
Comment: Next in this article comes a statement that is absurd but which is always said, likely in the hope that people will have forgotten what the Federal Government has said in the matter - that Six Nations has no valid land claim to the property. Here are the words from the article, Neither the federal or provincial governments have proven any surrender of the lands has taken place. If one says this lie often enough perhaps some will believe them. Basically the HDI is saying that they can do whatever they want to do at DCE, and no one else has a stake or say in the matter - it is their decision alone to make. Considering their track record even after 2006 (work stoppages, violent encounters) it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, and reversing victim status.
This is a self-serving group which represents its own interests, and who will get rich on the backs of those who give in to their wild assertions, and will be empowered to do just about whatever they please because no one is calling them to task. No one is challenging them - except maybe one blogger. I seriously hope that there are many both on and off Reserve who are seeing the HDI for what they truly are - and recognize the dangers in dealing with them on any level. If the HCCC wants to speak with some group they should not have assigned the HDI such a powerful role with, apparently, no checks and balance. Who is overseeing them? In theory the HCCC Chiefs and Clan Mothers, in practice ....................
Misuse of Funds?: **** It is not only the Elected Council researchers who have concerns about possible misuse of funds. People, even supporters, are (and have been) questioning HDI about what they are doing with the money they are receiving. The "transparency issue" raised its head once again at the meeting at the barricade above where the HDI Director spoke about the fence going up at DCE, and the expiration of the protocol with the Province. Then an female elder who was, one of the original group who took over the site Feb. 28th, 2006 questioned [Director] about the transparency of the HDI.
"As Haudenosaunee people, can we know what all these negotiations are about"? the elder asked of the Director who said that, "the door is always open". The elder then said, "I'm glad to hear that because there's a lot of people that want to know about the money and where it has gone". The Director then said they were currently "undergoing our audit" then explained about the, "three different columns" including:
1) Administration dollars
2) Lease money
3) Land acquisition money
In relation to number 2 above, the Director said, "that is restricted", apparently only, "The people through their clans and their families, if you are participating with your clan family and know the process of the Confederacy, that's who gets to decide that". Considering that most folks at Six Nations have no idea as to what clan they belong, it means that a select group of individuals will have the knowledge of where the monies are going from "lease money" but not the "everyday" citizens of Six Nations. This will probably come back to bite the Director in the ......... but only time will tell. The rest of this part of the answer to the Elder's question is gibberish to me, I don't understand at all what the Director is getting at. Expressions such as, "you stood as Nations even when the Chiefs told you to go home" is left hanging - perhaps not everything got recorded .................... It is all somewhat bizarre.
DeYo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)