Considering that the non-Native General Manager and Editor of "Two Row Times", TK, is a committed Anarchist and Communist (as I and others have noted over the years), what follows is not a surprise. The "parade" (aka "protest march") which shut down Caledonia on a Saturday in the Spring of 2012 was organized by TK, and there were Palestinian flags among those carried by the marchers on that day (I was there). Therefore it should not be surprising that considering the present events in the Middle East, that any such radical would use whatever platform is available to them to show support for the Palestinians - even though objectively Israel is only attempting to stop the rockets flying toward Israel. As is clear from the evidence, the terrorists use schools and mosques, and innocent human shields, in the Gaza Strip, where Hamas terrorists are obsessed with killing every Jew (their stated goal). But to have a Reserve newspaper publish a horribly biased article supporting the Palestinian terrorists is simply unacceptable - and will hopefully impact their advertising revenue. Recent pro-Palestinian rallies in Toronto include groups of which TK is a member (see here), including just those under the letter "C", Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), and the Communist Party of Canada - both of whose flags were represented in the 2012 "parade" in Caledonia.
The article on page 3 of the 30 July 2014 issue of "Two Row Times" is entitled, Palestine and the Onkwehonwe. It was written by C(A)N, a filmmaker and lecturer from Kanehsatake Mohawk Territory. It is profoundly disturbing. In trying to justify why Six Nations people should be interested in what is happening in the Middle East, the author states that, what is happening in Palestine is the same as what has happened to our people on Turtle Island. What has to be looked at is the politics of colonialism and settlerism. The latter word is new to me, and the former is so so tired from overuse and being a catch all phrase.
Almost predictable is the next sentence in the article by CN, As Indigenous people we have endured centuries of genocide, ethnic cleansing, land theft and cultural devastation. As Haudenosaunee people we need not look too hard for these examples; we only need to look at the ethnic cleansing of our people in the 18th and 19th centuries from our homelands in what is now New York State.
Lets explore the reality, to counter this fantasy above. The truth is that of the many acts of genocide to which our species must bear responsibility, one of the most atrocious is the complete genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Huron/Wyando, Petun, Attiwandaronk/Neural and all of the other peoples who resided in Central and Southwestern Ontario - all Iroquoian speaking peoples closely related to the then Five Nations - perpetrated by the Five Nations between 1640 and 1650 - erasing these people from the planet. In addition, the method to complete this heinous task was horrid. They used torture and cannibalism (as reported by the Catholic priests and lay people who witnessed but survived these acts; and as well what is seen in the archaeological record). So would the author wish to compare this documented act of genocide and ethnic cleansing to the pretend versions supposed to have happened in the 1700s and 1800s? He is speaking of General Sullivan's incursions through Six Nations territory which killed not a single soul, only destroyed the villages and foodstuffs which meant that the Senecas and the others most affected moved to Fort Niagara and Buffalo Creek to be under the wing of the Crown. How can the author have the effrontery to call the war time devastation (on both sides) during the American Revolution, genocide? It makes no sense. I have given an example of true genocide - but it was perpetrated by then Five Nations people. I guess it is easy to cherry pick and conveniently forget about real history.
Then the author states, without references or examples, that, There are many, too many, points in history of Indigenous people in the Americas which mirror the genocide of the Palestinians. Other than the fact than no examples are given, there is the matter of calling what is going on in the Middle East "genocide" against the Palestinians. If Israel protecting its citizens from brutal Hammas attacks is "genocide" - then this is one of the grossest misuse of the term yet seen.
Then comes even more bizarre off the wall accusations by the author. He says, Settler apartheid as used by Israelies has its roots in both the Canadian apartheid system - the Indian Act - and the South African Apartheid system. There is little to distinguish either from one another. This assertion makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The Indian Act is an apartheid system? Well if that is true, why do virtually all "First Nations" groups resist any attempt to change it? When Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau proposed his "White Paper" in 1969 which would have seen the abolishment of the hated Indian Act and the freeing of Indian people to make their own way in this world - eventually without the dole from Ottawa - there was universal condemnation from "Indigenous" people who did not want to lose the perks.
Wait, there is more. The author states that, the Canadian state has never been afraid to employ violence against Indigenous dissent as can be seen in what happened ....... in Six Nations in 2006. I was here, what exactly was the violence used by the "Canadian state"? All that occurred was "Indigenous" violence against helpless Caledonians, you know, such as arson (tire burnings; torching the Stirling Street Bridge), assault, destroying infrastructure, placing a gravel barricade across the main entrance from the south into Caledonia, to name but a few examples. Now where is this violence from the "Canadian state". I can answer that - it never happened, but is being imagined as what could have happened but never did. Strange.
Finally, to cap off the solidarity between Palestinians and "Indigenous" people in Canada, the author says, The oppression and genocide of Palestine is our oppression and genocide. Nonsense, and completely unsupported by anything resembling real evidence.
Comment: I am well aware that the "brass" at "Two Row Wampum" are pro-Palestinian and stereotype Jews in the same manner as the Nazis did in the 1930s. Once again Israel is forced to defend itself from not only direct attacks, but also from false allegations from across the world. As I see it, this newspaper was irresponsible in publishing this article, no matter what their political views might be. The article is replete with factual errors and blatant anti-Semitic views.
I am wondering whether this decision on the part of the owners and staff at the newspaper has breached publishing guidelines, and has crossed an ethical line (no alternative viewpoint was presented). If this is the case, would boycotting those companies who advertise in the newspaper be an appropriate course of action? They are creating the circumstances by which the key people at the newspaper are permitted to spew their poison against Jews. I will take a stance here and make a list of advertisers - and will not frequent any of them either on or off Reserve. This is perhaps the best way in which we can protest the rabid left wing views of the non-Natives at the newspaper - hit them where it hurts, in the wallet.
DeYo.
Thursday 31 July 2014
The Elected Council and Corporate Officials are Fuming Over False Allegations by HDI
In order to obtain a background to the present circumstances I will discuss, if you have not already read my recent posting on this subject, seen here, as it will assist in putting things in context.
1) "Turtle Island News" (TIN) makes no bones about its wholehearted support for the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) and its enforcement wing the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), they do print Letters to the Editor which run counter to their own firmly held opinions. One such case is found in the 30 July 2014 issue on page 6, where a letter, Grand Renewable Solar project is found.
Here the Chief of the Six Nations Elected Council, and representatives of Samsung Renewable Energy, Inc. and Grand Renewable Solar jointly sign a letter expressing their dismay at the information in previous issues of TIN, information which has been strongly questioned by myself using my own personal experience as a Volunteer (we were not paid then) Archaeological Conservation Officer with the then Ministry of Citizenship and Culture Ontario, and with observations which seem clearly evident to me. So, despite my complete lack of support for the wind and solar initiatives that are gobbling up prime farmland in my home County, I look to the evidence, and will stand by the truth irrespective of my personal views on the matter.
With the awareness of the shenanigans involving the HDI assigned monitors, who may or may not have any formal training (unlike their Elected Council counterparts who have been trained and certified by the Ontario Professional Archaeologists Association), we begin. The HDI monitors finding artifact allegedly missed by the earlier archaeological assessments done by those who have spent 4 to 8 years in university studying the subject, is convenient since it brings into question what is going on in a joint venture between the detested Elected Council and one or more corporations. I can assure all that if the Elected Council had not been involved, there would be no issues or finds that defy any laws of probability and which are clearly not what they are claimed to be (10,000 year old).
Here follows excerpts from the above Letter which attempts to "address potential misconceptions" that any of their groups would have destroyed artifacts. They also attempt to emphasize the, exhaustive archaeological work undertaken on the project site, noting that they had taken great pains to identify any artifacts within the boundaries of the project, having, employed four leading, independent archaeological consulting firms to do this work. The process was monitored on a daily basis by representatives of the Six Nations, the Haudenosaunee Development Institute and the Mississaugas of the New Credit. This work took several years, and the results have received the approval of all relevant government bodies.
The fact is that it is redundant to have two groups of Six Nations "monitors" on site, with those of the Elected Council having the background to assess what is being observed. One Six Nations and one Mississauga group would be more than sufficient. Their presence at all is largely political, and not because the professional archaeologists need any "assistance" of this sort in doing their work competently. This is my opinion, not necessarily that of the professional archaeologists.
The signers are clearly very frustrated that they went the distance to include the HDI monitors, and accommodated to all of their requirements, and all was fine until the construction phase began, when the HDI monitors showed up on site and began to make somewhat mysterious findings that, in my opinion, are bogus. Of course those who wrote the letter would not be permitted to add their views on why HDI would decide to make an appearance after signing off on the work. I can. It was because there was political hay to be made, and potentially more money to be extracted from the corporations.
The Elected Council and the corporate entities took very great exception to some of the statements in the TIN article of 16 July 2014, in particular that there was, "a 'deliberate' attempt to stop HDI" and "a deliberate interference of an investigation" and, are simply false.
The Elected Council and the corporations are stating facts, and I can provide an opinion that the artifacts I saw in the picture were nothing but items seen in every field in Southwestern Ontario, along with some stray plough broken rock - but nothing dating to earlier than relative recent times, and numbers found in "minutes" are never ever found in early sites even with careful controlled archaeological excavations. Nothing adds up other than it is but another ploy by HDI to disrupt things.
To rub salt into the wound, immediately above the said letter is a cartoon, showing an adult "Native" male saying, with obvious emotion, "Native artifacts! ... Gone!? All for the love of money? To one side is a "Native" boy who says, "Is my papa's gravesite SAFE?" The only word I can think of to say here is, RIDICULOUS! If anyone is interested in facts as opposed to spin, they will know this is but another ploy by the HDI and their media wing to make all others seem evil, money grubbing types, who are robbing Six Nations of their heritage. The people who made the artifacts are long gone, and who their lineal descendants might have been is largely unknown, or are Nations that were part of the genocide perpetrated by the then Five Nations against all of the peoples residing in Southwestern and Central Ontario in the years between 1640 and 1650. Why Six Nations, who are immigrants to Grand River, should have a say is something with a political twist. I have news for all - these sites are part of the heritage of all in Ontario, they are part of our heritage. Those who really care about our heritage do not necessarily have a "Status Card", but they care about heritage for reasons other than politics and money.
On two occasions bones were found (no doubt much to the glee of HDI), but all these turned out to be cow bones - a common find on such sites.
2) "Two Row Times" has an article of 30 July 2014, p.2, entitled, Samsung denies human bones at site, artifacts disappear. Same old, same old. They attempt to make a big deal about finding of bone, which were later determined to be cow bone. None the less, the article accuses various officials of not being upfront about the bones, and attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill. The article includes the dubious statement that, some experts speculate that the artifacts [noted in previous postings] may date as far back as 10,000 years ..... and may be the remenants of an ancient Onkwehon:we village. I would indeed love to meet this so called "experts" since the suggestion of a 10,000 year old "village" is absurd. There were no villages then, only temporary settlements - the people were hunter - gatherers who moved with the caribou herds. You can say anything in print, even if it is ridiculous. Even more dubious is the source, HDI monitors who do not wish to be named, for fear of losing their jobs. That statement is really questionable since only the HDI would be involved in hiring and firing - and they would be unlikely to terminate the employment of anyone finding artifacts (stones and bones) that HDI could use to make political hay. There is no use in quoting further from the article since it is largely composed of accusations by both parties going back and forth.
Perhaps to counteract the potentially damaging effects of the above letter to the HDI "cause", another article about the archaeology at the same site is included in TIN, p.13. It is entitled, Grand Renewable Energy Part work. It is largely a regurgitation of what has been noted in previous reports, and again the HDI, though their Director, are whining about their being shut out of the process (not supported by the evidence). The article reports that, An engagement process with Stantec [professional archaeology firm already dealing with Elected Council monitors] didn't begin until 2012. "We were told they were advised by Ontario to only deal with the elected band council. It is unfortunate that Ontario has taken this position in a number of areas and affected the Haudenosaunee's ability to ensure our [non existant] treaty rights and the honour of the Crown are being respected. The Director lays the blame for any delays both here, and at "Kanonhstaton" (DCE) squarely at the feet of Ontario, and states that, Had our monitors been engaged in the beginning we most likely would have found these sites as we were able to do now during the construction process. One wonders if the Director really believes this fairy tale - I doubt it.
Clearly Ontario is not buying this warped view of reality, but of course there will be political pressure to "conform". It remains to be seen how far Ontario is willing to go to support two independent groups from Six Nations who each claim that they have the right to negotiate with Ontario. The latter, as well as the Federal Government, knows full well that only the Elected Council has "status" at the table - but that the very vocal and very demanding and very violent HDI can go to great lengths to make the legal process problematic and ensure than nothing productive comes of anything touched by HDI.
DeYo.
1) "Turtle Island News" (TIN) makes no bones about its wholehearted support for the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) and its enforcement wing the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), they do print Letters to the Editor which run counter to their own firmly held opinions. One such case is found in the 30 July 2014 issue on page 6, where a letter, Grand Renewable Solar project is found.
Here the Chief of the Six Nations Elected Council, and representatives of Samsung Renewable Energy, Inc. and Grand Renewable Solar jointly sign a letter expressing their dismay at the information in previous issues of TIN, information which has been strongly questioned by myself using my own personal experience as a Volunteer (we were not paid then) Archaeological Conservation Officer with the then Ministry of Citizenship and Culture Ontario, and with observations which seem clearly evident to me. So, despite my complete lack of support for the wind and solar initiatives that are gobbling up prime farmland in my home County, I look to the evidence, and will stand by the truth irrespective of my personal views on the matter.
With the awareness of the shenanigans involving the HDI assigned monitors, who may or may not have any formal training (unlike their Elected Council counterparts who have been trained and certified by the Ontario Professional Archaeologists Association), we begin. The HDI monitors finding artifact allegedly missed by the earlier archaeological assessments done by those who have spent 4 to 8 years in university studying the subject, is convenient since it brings into question what is going on in a joint venture between the detested Elected Council and one or more corporations. I can assure all that if the Elected Council had not been involved, there would be no issues or finds that defy any laws of probability and which are clearly not what they are claimed to be (10,000 year old).
Here follows excerpts from the above Letter which attempts to "address potential misconceptions" that any of their groups would have destroyed artifacts. They also attempt to emphasize the, exhaustive archaeological work undertaken on the project site, noting that they had taken great pains to identify any artifacts within the boundaries of the project, having, employed four leading, independent archaeological consulting firms to do this work. The process was monitored on a daily basis by representatives of the Six Nations, the Haudenosaunee Development Institute and the Mississaugas of the New Credit. This work took several years, and the results have received the approval of all relevant government bodies.
The fact is that it is redundant to have two groups of Six Nations "monitors" on site, with those of the Elected Council having the background to assess what is being observed. One Six Nations and one Mississauga group would be more than sufficient. Their presence at all is largely political, and not because the professional archaeologists need any "assistance" of this sort in doing their work competently. This is my opinion, not necessarily that of the professional archaeologists.
The signers are clearly very frustrated that they went the distance to include the HDI monitors, and accommodated to all of their requirements, and all was fine until the construction phase began, when the HDI monitors showed up on site and began to make somewhat mysterious findings that, in my opinion, are bogus. Of course those who wrote the letter would not be permitted to add their views on why HDI would decide to make an appearance after signing off on the work. I can. It was because there was political hay to be made, and potentially more money to be extracted from the corporations.
The Elected Council and the corporate entities took very great exception to some of the statements in the TIN article of 16 July 2014, in particular that there was, "a 'deliberate' attempt to stop HDI" and "a deliberate interference of an investigation" and, are simply false.
The Elected Council and the corporations are stating facts, and I can provide an opinion that the artifacts I saw in the picture were nothing but items seen in every field in Southwestern Ontario, along with some stray plough broken rock - but nothing dating to earlier than relative recent times, and numbers found in "minutes" are never ever found in early sites even with careful controlled archaeological excavations. Nothing adds up other than it is but another ploy by HDI to disrupt things.
To rub salt into the wound, immediately above the said letter is a cartoon, showing an adult "Native" male saying, with obvious emotion, "Native artifacts! ... Gone!? All for the love of money? To one side is a "Native" boy who says, "Is my papa's gravesite SAFE?" The only word I can think of to say here is, RIDICULOUS! If anyone is interested in facts as opposed to spin, they will know this is but another ploy by the HDI and their media wing to make all others seem evil, money grubbing types, who are robbing Six Nations of their heritage. The people who made the artifacts are long gone, and who their lineal descendants might have been is largely unknown, or are Nations that were part of the genocide perpetrated by the then Five Nations against all of the peoples residing in Southwestern and Central Ontario in the years between 1640 and 1650. Why Six Nations, who are immigrants to Grand River, should have a say is something with a political twist. I have news for all - these sites are part of the heritage of all in Ontario, they are part of our heritage. Those who really care about our heritage do not necessarily have a "Status Card", but they care about heritage for reasons other than politics and money.
On two occasions bones were found (no doubt much to the glee of HDI), but all these turned out to be cow bones - a common find on such sites.
2) "Two Row Times" has an article of 30 July 2014, p.2, entitled, Samsung denies human bones at site, artifacts disappear. Same old, same old. They attempt to make a big deal about finding of bone, which were later determined to be cow bone. None the less, the article accuses various officials of not being upfront about the bones, and attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill. The article includes the dubious statement that, some experts speculate that the artifacts [noted in previous postings] may date as far back as 10,000 years ..... and may be the remenants of an ancient Onkwehon:we village. I would indeed love to meet this so called "experts" since the suggestion of a 10,000 year old "village" is absurd. There were no villages then, only temporary settlements - the people were hunter - gatherers who moved with the caribou herds. You can say anything in print, even if it is ridiculous. Even more dubious is the source, HDI monitors who do not wish to be named, for fear of losing their jobs. That statement is really questionable since only the HDI would be involved in hiring and firing - and they would be unlikely to terminate the employment of anyone finding artifacts (stones and bones) that HDI could use to make political hay. There is no use in quoting further from the article since it is largely composed of accusations by both parties going back and forth.
Perhaps to counteract the potentially damaging effects of the above letter to the HDI "cause", another article about the archaeology at the same site is included in TIN, p.13. It is entitled, Grand Renewable Energy Part work. It is largely a regurgitation of what has been noted in previous reports, and again the HDI, though their Director, are whining about their being shut out of the process (not supported by the evidence). The article reports that, An engagement process with Stantec [professional archaeology firm already dealing with Elected Council monitors] didn't begin until 2012. "We were told they were advised by Ontario to only deal with the elected band council. It is unfortunate that Ontario has taken this position in a number of areas and affected the Haudenosaunee's ability to ensure our [non existant] treaty rights and the honour of the Crown are being respected. The Director lays the blame for any delays both here, and at "Kanonhstaton" (DCE) squarely at the feet of Ontario, and states that, Had our monitors been engaged in the beginning we most likely would have found these sites as we were able to do now during the construction process. One wonders if the Director really believes this fairy tale - I doubt it.
Clearly Ontario is not buying this warped view of reality, but of course there will be political pressure to "conform". It remains to be seen how far Ontario is willing to go to support two independent groups from Six Nations who each claim that they have the right to negotiate with Ontario. The latter, as well as the Federal Government, knows full well that only the Elected Council has "status" at the table - but that the very vocal and very demanding and very violent HDI can go to great lengths to make the legal process problematic and ensure than nothing productive comes of anything touched by HDI.
DeYo.
What it Will Take to Settle the DCE / Kanonhstaton Matter - Considering that HDI Runs the Show There
There is ONLY ONE peaceful solution possible in the present situation viz a viz the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) / Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) versus everyone else. I will offer my perspective in a somewhat lighthearted, but hopefully poignant, way at the end of this post. However, to highlight the absolute intransigence / inflexibility of the HDI, I will first provide a summary of the Editorial in their media mouthpiece, "Turtle Island News" 30 July 2014, p.6, entitled, Wynne is MIA leaving neighbours to find solutions.
Here the Editor castigates the real perceived cause of the problems - the Province of Ontario - calling Premier Kathleen Wynne, "Missing in action". The Editor states that, Ontario has refused to renew a communications protocol, put in place by Kathleen Wynne when she was Aboriginal Affairs Minister. Therefore, why would Ontario suddenly be surprised when a fence ....... suddenly goes up.
Before I continue quoting from the Editorial, I think it is important to note that the situation is far more complex than stated. Actually the Federal Government was involved in the negotiations as well as the Elected Council. In 2010 the latter two withdrew since the HCCC representatives demanded to be the sole negotiators - they got their wish, but there was no one to negotiate with.
Going back to 2006, in order to defuse the volatile situation the Province of Ontario sent in negotiating teams and those they were faced with were the only group left standing, the HCCC / HDI. So they did agree to a temporary protocol for negotiations (there is no evidence that it was meant to be permanent) just to "get through the day" when dealing with terrorists. So DCE was purchased by Ontario from the legitimate owners, and to this day is registered in Cayuga as belonging to the Province. There were problems such as the barrier across Argyle Street and other insurrections that had been perpetrated against the people of Caledonia and Ontario (e.g., bringing down the Hydro One towers; destroying a Hydro One substation which knocked out power to Caledonia and parts of Six Nations). So in desperation, the possibility of granting parcels of land to Six Nations was brought to the table - one parcel being the former Burtch Correctional Center and surrounding land (about 250 acres). As I understand it, Ontario realized that due to a variety of factors (e.g., overlapping jurisdiction with the Federal Government) it was simply out of the question to give HDI what it wanted. No doubt, having the Federal Government state in no uncertain terms that the DCE property had been properly surrendered 18 December 1844 by 47 Chiefs in Council, factored into Ontario's realization that they were being duped.
Somehow the Editor appears to ignore all of the above. To move into a more bizarre domain, the Editor states, Could Ontario really be so naive to think that people really believe their claim that they invited the HCCC to a meeting in Toronto a few weeks ago to discuss the fence when they didn't even bother to tell the HCCC where the meeting was. Seriously, How many people get invited to a party and are not told where it is being held? The Elected Council, County of Haldimand and Province of Ontario would be able to confirm or refute this statement. At the time the HCCC, in writing, refused to attend - because the Elected Council would also be present. Thus the Editor's comments warrant some further explorations - they seem quite wrong.
The Editor continues on the same theme of blaming Ontario, saying, Only Ontario would pull such a unilateral stunt to keep the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs from being seen for what they are, the only government at the Grand River that is invested with the authority to deal with. The Editor then accuses the Federal Government and the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) with conspiring, to exploit Six Nations lands. This is a huge stretch. SNEC is the only legal authority mandated to negotiate with the Federal Government through the Indian Act of 1876 and later revisions. Since 1924, HCCC has NEVER accepted the legal relationship between SNEC and the Federal Government. Thus the spin above since the Editor is clearly indicating that only the HCCC has legitimacy at Six Nations - untrue, but this is what we are dealing with.
More odd accusations in relation to Ontario are made which are too off the wall to even report here. Always someone is needed to accept blame for any misfortune - taking personal or group responsibility would be a rarity in this part of the world. Here and now it is Ontario on the receiving end - they are the only ones who can "return" DCE, and they are not playing ball, they are making it clear that this is not an option - thus Ontario becomes the target - thus for the moment taking some heat off Gary McHale, the Haldimand County Council and the Federal Government who are the usual entities in the cross hairs (metaphorically speaking).
The Solution?: As can be seen in many of the previous blog postings, the HDI has no interest in negotiation. They want direct talks with Ontario and, mark my words, will NEVER settle for anything but full and unrestricted control over the DCE property. Therefore if bringing in the army will not fly, the only solution is to utterly capitulate to terrorists (generally not a good idea). So Ontario must step forward and say something along the lines of this imaginary scenario,
The Province of Ontario to the Haudenosaunee Development Institute
"We are pleased to be in a position to turn the ownership of the former Douglas Creek Estates (sorry, Kanonhstaton, we need to be very culturally sensitive since we despair of any bad press involving Natives) over to the Haudenosaunee Development Institute, although the fact that it cost Ontario taxpayers $16 million to buy out the legal owners (Henco) is of some mild concern. Oh, well yes, the multi millions of dollars spent to cover OPP overtime in "Cashedonia", and the monies spent to compensate owners of nearby properties, and the businesses which suffered due to the 2006 violent take over (sorry, "reclamation"). There is also the millions lost as a result of your efforts to keep Hydro One workers from stringing the high tension wires from Niagara Falls on the towers just south of Kanonhstaton. Then there are the illegal contraband cigarette shacks you guys erected on Hydro One land. We have found it difficult to explain these circumstances to the public, but most Canadians have been taught that Natives have been victimized by the "racist" policies of the Federal Government, so "White guilt" should take care of that potential problem.
However, all things considered, it is with much satisfaction that we offer this property to you despite the pain and suffering caused to the citizens of Caledonia and surrounds, because we are certain that you are sorry for these actions, and would say so if the opportunity presented itself.
We hope that you will use this land in a manner that will benefit members of all communities, but if you wish to build a casino or an array of contraband cigarette shacks on the property, then it is your right to do so since the OPP will not enforce the laws of Ontario except under certain unclear circumstances.
We trust that this gift will make a nice addition to the newly created Haudenosaunee Land Registry. The fact that the land was legally surrendered by your ancestors 170 years ago was not taken into consideration - we anticipate some difficulty with academics and others with copies of the surrender - but we won't dwell on it. Certain that you wish to acquire other properties in the Haldimand Tract to bulk out this Registry, it is our sincere hope that you will not cause excessive damage while divesting legal owners of their rights.
Unfortunately there will be those "activists" within the non-Native community who will take exception to our decision. We wish at all costs to avoid another "Caledonia 2006" situation. To this end we will ensure that the media obtains the most helpful spin on things. Surely the majority of taxpayers of Ontario and Canada can see that we have made the right decision here, accepting that it has nothing to do with political correctness or such cynical interpretations. Some believe that governments should never negotiate with terrorists. However citizens will eventually come to understand that there is reason to fear that by not caving in to your firm demands it would surely create more work stoppages, road blockades, and threats of violent civil disobedience, so eventually full support our actions is expected as all want to avoid such unpleasantness. There will no doubt be some backlash from those most impacted by the DCE situation, or those who question the decision on moral or legal grounds. Ultimately, as you are no doubt aware, we will just have to wait it out and the furor will die down with time, leaving the Federal Government at blame in the public perception."
While this has been said tongue in cheek, is it all that far off the mark? The ball is in Ontario's court.
DeYo.
Here the Editor castigates the real perceived cause of the problems - the Province of Ontario - calling Premier Kathleen Wynne, "Missing in action". The Editor states that, Ontario has refused to renew a communications protocol, put in place by Kathleen Wynne when she was Aboriginal Affairs Minister. Therefore, why would Ontario suddenly be surprised when a fence ....... suddenly goes up.
Before I continue quoting from the Editorial, I think it is important to note that the situation is far more complex than stated. Actually the Federal Government was involved in the negotiations as well as the Elected Council. In 2010 the latter two withdrew since the HCCC representatives demanded to be the sole negotiators - they got their wish, but there was no one to negotiate with.
Going back to 2006, in order to defuse the volatile situation the Province of Ontario sent in negotiating teams and those they were faced with were the only group left standing, the HCCC / HDI. So they did agree to a temporary protocol for negotiations (there is no evidence that it was meant to be permanent) just to "get through the day" when dealing with terrorists. So DCE was purchased by Ontario from the legitimate owners, and to this day is registered in Cayuga as belonging to the Province. There were problems such as the barrier across Argyle Street and other insurrections that had been perpetrated against the people of Caledonia and Ontario (e.g., bringing down the Hydro One towers; destroying a Hydro One substation which knocked out power to Caledonia and parts of Six Nations). So in desperation, the possibility of granting parcels of land to Six Nations was brought to the table - one parcel being the former Burtch Correctional Center and surrounding land (about 250 acres). As I understand it, Ontario realized that due to a variety of factors (e.g., overlapping jurisdiction with the Federal Government) it was simply out of the question to give HDI what it wanted. No doubt, having the Federal Government state in no uncertain terms that the DCE property had been properly surrendered 18 December 1844 by 47 Chiefs in Council, factored into Ontario's realization that they were being duped.
Somehow the Editor appears to ignore all of the above. To move into a more bizarre domain, the Editor states, Could Ontario really be so naive to think that people really believe their claim that they invited the HCCC to a meeting in Toronto a few weeks ago to discuss the fence when they didn't even bother to tell the HCCC where the meeting was. Seriously, How many people get invited to a party and are not told where it is being held? The Elected Council, County of Haldimand and Province of Ontario would be able to confirm or refute this statement. At the time the HCCC, in writing, refused to attend - because the Elected Council would also be present. Thus the Editor's comments warrant some further explorations - they seem quite wrong.
The Editor continues on the same theme of blaming Ontario, saying, Only Ontario would pull such a unilateral stunt to keep the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs from being seen for what they are, the only government at the Grand River that is invested with the authority to deal with. The Editor then accuses the Federal Government and the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) with conspiring, to exploit Six Nations lands. This is a huge stretch. SNEC is the only legal authority mandated to negotiate with the Federal Government through the Indian Act of 1876 and later revisions. Since 1924, HCCC has NEVER accepted the legal relationship between SNEC and the Federal Government. Thus the spin above since the Editor is clearly indicating that only the HCCC has legitimacy at Six Nations - untrue, but this is what we are dealing with.
More odd accusations in relation to Ontario are made which are too off the wall to even report here. Always someone is needed to accept blame for any misfortune - taking personal or group responsibility would be a rarity in this part of the world. Here and now it is Ontario on the receiving end - they are the only ones who can "return" DCE, and they are not playing ball, they are making it clear that this is not an option - thus Ontario becomes the target - thus for the moment taking some heat off Gary McHale, the Haldimand County Council and the Federal Government who are the usual entities in the cross hairs (metaphorically speaking).
The Solution?: As can be seen in many of the previous blog postings, the HDI has no interest in negotiation. They want direct talks with Ontario and, mark my words, will NEVER settle for anything but full and unrestricted control over the DCE property. Therefore if bringing in the army will not fly, the only solution is to utterly capitulate to terrorists (generally not a good idea). So Ontario must step forward and say something along the lines of this imaginary scenario,
The Province of Ontario to the Haudenosaunee Development Institute
"We are pleased to be in a position to turn the ownership of the former Douglas Creek Estates (sorry, Kanonhstaton, we need to be very culturally sensitive since we despair of any bad press involving Natives) over to the Haudenosaunee Development Institute, although the fact that it cost Ontario taxpayers $16 million to buy out the legal owners (Henco) is of some mild concern. Oh, well yes, the multi millions of dollars spent to cover OPP overtime in "Cashedonia", and the monies spent to compensate owners of nearby properties, and the businesses which suffered due to the 2006 violent take over (sorry, "reclamation"). There is also the millions lost as a result of your efforts to keep Hydro One workers from stringing the high tension wires from Niagara Falls on the towers just south of Kanonhstaton. Then there are the illegal contraband cigarette shacks you guys erected on Hydro One land. We have found it difficult to explain these circumstances to the public, but most Canadians have been taught that Natives have been victimized by the "racist" policies of the Federal Government, so "White guilt" should take care of that potential problem.
However, all things considered, it is with much satisfaction that we offer this property to you despite the pain and suffering caused to the citizens of Caledonia and surrounds, because we are certain that you are sorry for these actions, and would say so if the opportunity presented itself.
We hope that you will use this land in a manner that will benefit members of all communities, but if you wish to build a casino or an array of contraband cigarette shacks on the property, then it is your right to do so since the OPP will not enforce the laws of Ontario except under certain unclear circumstances.
We trust that this gift will make a nice addition to the newly created Haudenosaunee Land Registry. The fact that the land was legally surrendered by your ancestors 170 years ago was not taken into consideration - we anticipate some difficulty with academics and others with copies of the surrender - but we won't dwell on it. Certain that you wish to acquire other properties in the Haldimand Tract to bulk out this Registry, it is our sincere hope that you will not cause excessive damage while divesting legal owners of their rights.
Unfortunately there will be those "activists" within the non-Native community who will take exception to our decision. We wish at all costs to avoid another "Caledonia 2006" situation. To this end we will ensure that the media obtains the most helpful spin on things. Surely the majority of taxpayers of Ontario and Canada can see that we have made the right decision here, accepting that it has nothing to do with political correctness or such cynical interpretations. Some believe that governments should never negotiate with terrorists. However citizens will eventually come to understand that there is reason to fear that by not caving in to your firm demands it would surely create more work stoppages, road blockades, and threats of violent civil disobedience, so eventually full support our actions is expected as all want to avoid such unpleasantness. There will no doubt be some backlash from those most impacted by the DCE situation, or those who question the decision on moral or legal grounds. Ultimately, as you are no doubt aware, we will just have to wait it out and the furor will die down with time, leaving the Federal Government at blame in the public perception."
While this has been said tongue in cheek, is it all that far off the mark? The ball is in Ontario's court.
DeYo.
Tuesday 29 July 2014
The HDI Has Begun Illegally Constructing a Fence on the North Side of DCE - On Land Owned by Ontario Taxpayers
There is really no use in me giving details of the present development. Very straightforward flaunting of the law - nothing new or unexpected for the HDI. It can be seen in articles in "The Sachem" here, and "The Branford Expositor" here, and "CHCH TV" here.
As to the two Reserve newspapers, "Two Row Times" is free, and is also available online here. They have an article on page 3 identical for all practical purposes to the once noted below. It is entitled, Fencing with the neighbours at Kanonhstaton. They also emphasize that most of the neighbours along Thistlemore are supportive of the fencing or have expressed no opinion - few being in overt opposition, only those pesky McHale supporters who needn't be taken into consideration [my take on what they are saying]. We need to understand the dynamic here. These are the people who in 2006 were constantly barraged with loud noise, ATV's spinning their tires, rocks being tossed in their backyards, spotlights being shone on their homes, threats and taunts directed their way, and often simply for the fact that they happened to live there. Thus each person would develop a protective strategy to survive under the most adverse of circumstances where a bad situation could only get worse. So a variety of survival responses can be expected from these unfortunate people. One resident claims to be Metis of Sioux heritage and gives a "life is fine" account in relation to the feelings of his neighbours in the immediate vicinity. Denial is a wonderful thing, at times - it is a protective strategy. If everything was so wonderful, I trust that this man did not take a penny of the $20 million class action settlement to compensate residents impacted by the 2006 conflict - otherwise this would verge on hypocrisy.
Perhaps the most important report is found in "Turtle Island News" of 30 July 2014, p.3, Security fenced being built on Kanonhstaton with neighbours help. This newspaper charges for the print version, and also to view the full online version. Since I obtain weekly copies which may not be available to most, I will include a focus on the content of this newspaper (which consistently supports the Confederacy Council and HDI, and to a large extent ignores the Elected Council).
As expected the Director of the HDI rails on about how Ontario has refused to meet with them under the terms of the new HDI "Communications Protocol"; and that the people send by Ontario to negotiate are, not honourable people. What the Director is saying is not true, but it is either perception or deception - either way, those of us who understand how HDI works recognize the spin needed to paint themselves as victims who have tried so hard to be fair with Ontario only to be rebuffed. That is so patently transparent - at least to some of us, but alas not all. Those who do not understand Six Nations politics might well be bamboozled by statements such as these - they seem so sincere! I expect that the Director is disappointed, and somewhat shocked, that the representative of Aboriginal Affairs Ontario, Phyllis Bennett, said the province does not agree with the installation. "We do not support unilateral actions with respect to DCE," she said, "We are supportive of an all-party process". Of course HDI has absolutely no intention of meeting with anyone except Ontario since they have some delusion about the Province turning DCE over to them to be placed in the HDI created land registry. The Director, however, counters that, "the only unilateral decisions that have taken place during any of the negotiations were by that of the Crown who have continued to work behind the scenes to undermine the Haudenosaunee throughout the entire process, and have clearly made no real effort or attempt at reaching a peaceful resolution to the matter". In other words despite the fact that the Crown has said repeatedly, THERE IS NO VALID LAND CLAIM TO THE DCE PROPERTY - IT WAS SURRENDERED IN 1844, the HDI are still accusing them of abrogating their responsibility. How many more times do they have to repeat what the evidence clearly shows?
The Director then directs her venom towards the Councillor for Caledonia who she accuses of allowing ATVs and snowmobiles on the site, thereby destroying trees and archaeological sites. The only ATVs I have ever seen at DCE were those owned by Six Nations members and they did not show any respect for what was under their tires. None the less, the Director has no compunction about accusing Caledonia residents of being the perpetrators of incidents that are in fact attributable to Six Nations members - and who is challenging her as to what evidence ............. oh yes, evidence is irrelevant. Being of a "good mind" is of paramount significance - of course "being of a good mind" only means agreeing with HDI, otherwise you are not of a good mind.
As to the construction of the fence, apparently it came down to HDI having been "instructed" by the HCCC to construct the fence due to recent "disruptions" caused by Caledonia residents. The Director was very pleased with "our people", and that they were, keeping a good mind, ...... considering, all the racism and the difficult situations we have had to deal with.
The plan is to construct the fence with a 10 foot buffer between "Kanonhstaton" and the properties along Thistlemore, ultimately extending the fence for a full 1000 feet (at least this is phase one of the project) which should take "a few weeks". Apparently during the construction the, Haudenosaunee people joined by a number of Caledonia residents, whose homes border the property. This is a very interesting development since other residents were anything but happy over the situation, and one in particular stated that the construction violated the agreement she had with the two representatives of Ontario who, in 2006, said that she could extend her garden into the former DCE (owned then and to this day by the Province of Ontario). The HDI (and the content of the article) then engage in a typical "blame the victim" strategy, suggesting that this "neighbor" profited from the $20 million class action lawsuit that compensated Caledonia residents for the effect that the "reclamation" (aka "theft") had on their lives. They also noted that this resident had been "a visible presence" at the rallies help by Gary McHale, and was the only one to protest the installation of the fence - I seriously doubt that. So they attempt to paint her as a villain, having a negative effect on all those running around with "good minds" and tearing up the property, cutting down trees and erecting poles on land they don't own.
To add to the chaos of the day, one Thistlemore resident has decided to befriend those who are making his life, and those of his neighbours, miserable. He even said, I understand where you guys are coming from. I always have. Well he is bound to make even more friends among his Thistlemoor neighbours with statements such as these. To add fuel to the fire, or rub salt into the wound, JC stated, in relation to ML, We had a couple of beers and shot the breeze. What is particularly astounding is that this resident of Thistlemore has gone against the grain of the rest of the residents, and participated in the construction, bragging how he was on great terms with ML, perhaps the most violent of the criminals brought in from the USA during the violent take over. Yes, and today said, Throughout the occupation, I've treated you guys and neighbours and I have been treated the same way back. Mr. JC. was "joking" with the Six Nations on site and showing support and empathy, and talking about inviting these criminals over for a barbeque. There are traitors, there are always traitors - but the actions of JC are shocking. I wonder if perchance he has, due to the trauma of 2006 and afterwards, developed Stockholm syndrome as a coping mechanism to deal with the total lack of control that the residents had over their lives - and to be at the "mercy" of such callous criminals and all around thugs.
Comment: The HDI need a reality check. The land belongs to the Ontario Government, and erecting a fence on the property is illegal and only likely to anger Ontario who is trying to follow the rules - although not the arbitrary rules generated by the HDI. Clearly the legal council for Ontario is well aware that the HDI have no standing. It is the Elected Council that are empowered to negotiate with the Federal Government and the Ontario Government. Adding the Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) and their spokesperson group the HDI is superfluous, but they were given the option of joining with the negotiations with the Province, County and Elected Council but outright refused to do so - and would only meet with Ontario, and only under the terms of the HDI "protocol". A comment to the article about the fence in "The Sachem" seems on the mark:
"HDI said they would do it, and they are indeed doing it. Unless Ontario has given them permission (they haven't) then this is an illegal act - correction ANOTHER ILLEGAL ACT BY THE HDI who have absolutely no respect for the laws of the County, the Province and Canada. These are terrorists who since 2006 have maintained that they can do whatever they want - the law does not apply to them. Hence the miles of Hydro One metal towers with no cable strung because the terrorists have threatened to attack any workers who try. We all know how much protection these workers can expect from the OPP (unless the latter have new one law for all policies).
The HDI are people who flaunt the law and need to be treated exactly as would you or I had we done the same thing. In this case the fence needs to be pulled down, and the sooner the better. The Superior Court of Ontario, Cayuga needs to issue another Injunction and this time it needs to be enforced competently by the OPP and with heavy fines that will make those issued by Justice Harrison Arrell in Brantford seem like pocket change by comparison. The two individuals most responsible for this action are the Director and Legal Council for the HDI - as was the case in Brantford.
Before, during or after the action to remove the fence, the County needs to remove the barricade blocking Surrey Street - on its own terms, not those dictated by the HDI."
I agree wholeheartedly.
As with any festering boil, it must come to a head before it can be healed. Now is the time to lance the boil, waiting won't have any sort of productive impact. If it means bringing in the army - they would arrive to cheers of joy! If this is considered too drastic, then since the OPP take their "marching orders" from the Province of Ontario, who are also the owners of the DCE land, it will be interesting to see how both parties deal with this situation. Of course we are all eagerly awaiting the response of our Haldimand County Council to see if their words have any value or are just hot air and smoke. The barricade must come down, and it must be taken down by the County - no further negotiations are needed since HDI control what goes on at DCE, and they will not accept anything other than DCE on a platter. No more talk. Just action.
DeYo.
As to the two Reserve newspapers, "Two Row Times" is free, and is also available online here. They have an article on page 3 identical for all practical purposes to the once noted below. It is entitled, Fencing with the neighbours at Kanonhstaton. They also emphasize that most of the neighbours along Thistlemore are supportive of the fencing or have expressed no opinion - few being in overt opposition, only those pesky McHale supporters who needn't be taken into consideration [my take on what they are saying]. We need to understand the dynamic here. These are the people who in 2006 were constantly barraged with loud noise, ATV's spinning their tires, rocks being tossed in their backyards, spotlights being shone on their homes, threats and taunts directed their way, and often simply for the fact that they happened to live there. Thus each person would develop a protective strategy to survive under the most adverse of circumstances where a bad situation could only get worse. So a variety of survival responses can be expected from these unfortunate people. One resident claims to be Metis of Sioux heritage and gives a "life is fine" account in relation to the feelings of his neighbours in the immediate vicinity. Denial is a wonderful thing, at times - it is a protective strategy. If everything was so wonderful, I trust that this man did not take a penny of the $20 million class action settlement to compensate residents impacted by the 2006 conflict - otherwise this would verge on hypocrisy.
Perhaps the most important report is found in "Turtle Island News" of 30 July 2014, p.3, Security fenced being built on Kanonhstaton with neighbours help. This newspaper charges for the print version, and also to view the full online version. Since I obtain weekly copies which may not be available to most, I will include a focus on the content of this newspaper (which consistently supports the Confederacy Council and HDI, and to a large extent ignores the Elected Council).
As expected the Director of the HDI rails on about how Ontario has refused to meet with them under the terms of the new HDI "Communications Protocol"; and that the people send by Ontario to negotiate are, not honourable people. What the Director is saying is not true, but it is either perception or deception - either way, those of us who understand how HDI works recognize the spin needed to paint themselves as victims who have tried so hard to be fair with Ontario only to be rebuffed. That is so patently transparent - at least to some of us, but alas not all. Those who do not understand Six Nations politics might well be bamboozled by statements such as these - they seem so sincere! I expect that the Director is disappointed, and somewhat shocked, that the representative of Aboriginal Affairs Ontario, Phyllis Bennett, said the province does not agree with the installation. "We do not support unilateral actions with respect to DCE," she said, "We are supportive of an all-party process". Of course HDI has absolutely no intention of meeting with anyone except Ontario since they have some delusion about the Province turning DCE over to them to be placed in the HDI created land registry. The Director, however, counters that, "the only unilateral decisions that have taken place during any of the negotiations were by that of the Crown who have continued to work behind the scenes to undermine the Haudenosaunee throughout the entire process, and have clearly made no real effort or attempt at reaching a peaceful resolution to the matter". In other words despite the fact that the Crown has said repeatedly, THERE IS NO VALID LAND CLAIM TO THE DCE PROPERTY - IT WAS SURRENDERED IN 1844, the HDI are still accusing them of abrogating their responsibility. How many more times do they have to repeat what the evidence clearly shows?
The Director then directs her venom towards the Councillor for Caledonia who she accuses of allowing ATVs and snowmobiles on the site, thereby destroying trees and archaeological sites. The only ATVs I have ever seen at DCE were those owned by Six Nations members and they did not show any respect for what was under their tires. None the less, the Director has no compunction about accusing Caledonia residents of being the perpetrators of incidents that are in fact attributable to Six Nations members - and who is challenging her as to what evidence ............. oh yes, evidence is irrelevant. Being of a "good mind" is of paramount significance - of course "being of a good mind" only means agreeing with HDI, otherwise you are not of a good mind.
As to the construction of the fence, apparently it came down to HDI having been "instructed" by the HCCC to construct the fence due to recent "disruptions" caused by Caledonia residents. The Director was very pleased with "our people", and that they were, keeping a good mind, ...... considering, all the racism and the difficult situations we have had to deal with.
The plan is to construct the fence with a 10 foot buffer between "Kanonhstaton" and the properties along Thistlemore, ultimately extending the fence for a full 1000 feet (at least this is phase one of the project) which should take "a few weeks". Apparently during the construction the, Haudenosaunee people joined by a number of Caledonia residents, whose homes border the property. This is a very interesting development since other residents were anything but happy over the situation, and one in particular stated that the construction violated the agreement she had with the two representatives of Ontario who, in 2006, said that she could extend her garden into the former DCE (owned then and to this day by the Province of Ontario). The HDI (and the content of the article) then engage in a typical "blame the victim" strategy, suggesting that this "neighbor" profited from the $20 million class action lawsuit that compensated Caledonia residents for the effect that the "reclamation" (aka "theft") had on their lives. They also noted that this resident had been "a visible presence" at the rallies help by Gary McHale, and was the only one to protest the installation of the fence - I seriously doubt that. So they attempt to paint her as a villain, having a negative effect on all those running around with "good minds" and tearing up the property, cutting down trees and erecting poles on land they don't own.
To add to the chaos of the day, one Thistlemore resident has decided to befriend those who are making his life, and those of his neighbours, miserable. He even said, I understand where you guys are coming from. I always have. Well he is bound to make even more friends among his Thistlemoor neighbours with statements such as these. To add fuel to the fire, or rub salt into the wound, JC stated, in relation to ML, We had a couple of beers and shot the breeze. What is particularly astounding is that this resident of Thistlemore has gone against the grain of the rest of the residents, and participated in the construction, bragging how he was on great terms with ML, perhaps the most violent of the criminals brought in from the USA during the violent take over. Yes, and today said, Throughout the occupation, I've treated you guys and neighbours and I have been treated the same way back. Mr. JC. was "joking" with the Six Nations on site and showing support and empathy, and talking about inviting these criminals over for a barbeque. There are traitors, there are always traitors - but the actions of JC are shocking. I wonder if perchance he has, due to the trauma of 2006 and afterwards, developed Stockholm syndrome as a coping mechanism to deal with the total lack of control that the residents had over their lives - and to be at the "mercy" of such callous criminals and all around thugs.
Comment: The HDI need a reality check. The land belongs to the Ontario Government, and erecting a fence on the property is illegal and only likely to anger Ontario who is trying to follow the rules - although not the arbitrary rules generated by the HDI. Clearly the legal council for Ontario is well aware that the HDI have no standing. It is the Elected Council that are empowered to negotiate with the Federal Government and the Ontario Government. Adding the Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) and their spokesperson group the HDI is superfluous, but they were given the option of joining with the negotiations with the Province, County and Elected Council but outright refused to do so - and would only meet with Ontario, and only under the terms of the HDI "protocol". A comment to the article about the fence in "The Sachem" seems on the mark:
"HDI said they would do it, and they are indeed doing it. Unless Ontario has given them permission (they haven't) then this is an illegal act - correction ANOTHER ILLEGAL ACT BY THE HDI who have absolutely no respect for the laws of the County, the Province and Canada. These are terrorists who since 2006 have maintained that they can do whatever they want - the law does not apply to them. Hence the miles of Hydro One metal towers with no cable strung because the terrorists have threatened to attack any workers who try. We all know how much protection these workers can expect from the OPP (unless the latter have new one law for all policies).
The HDI are people who flaunt the law and need to be treated exactly as would you or I had we done the same thing. In this case the fence needs to be pulled down, and the sooner the better. The Superior Court of Ontario, Cayuga needs to issue another Injunction and this time it needs to be enforced competently by the OPP and with heavy fines that will make those issued by Justice Harrison Arrell in Brantford seem like pocket change by comparison. The two individuals most responsible for this action are the Director and Legal Council for the HDI - as was the case in Brantford.
Before, during or after the action to remove the fence, the County needs to remove the barricade blocking Surrey Street - on its own terms, not those dictated by the HDI."
I agree wholeheartedly.
As with any festering boil, it must come to a head before it can be healed. Now is the time to lance the boil, waiting won't have any sort of productive impact. If it means bringing in the army - they would arrive to cheers of joy! If this is considered too drastic, then since the OPP take their "marching orders" from the Province of Ontario, who are also the owners of the DCE land, it will be interesting to see how both parties deal with this situation. Of course we are all eagerly awaiting the response of our Haldimand County Council to see if their words have any value or are just hot air and smoke. The barricade must come down, and it must be taken down by the County - no further negotiations are needed since HDI control what goes on at DCE, and they will not accept anything other than DCE on a platter. No more talk. Just action.
DeYo.
Sunday 27 July 2014
Haudenosaunee Non-Status Advocacy Institute - Governments and Corporations Can Expect More Cooperation
Thanks to a very kind correspondent, and with permission granted, I will announce here that, after many years of deliberation on the matter, that a new advocacy group has been established to address the needs of the Non-Status / Metis people of the Haudenosaunee Nation.
Here follows the preliminary details as provided to me:
Preamble:
Whereas during the early days of settlement along the Grand River, our ancestors were recognized as members of the Six Nations
Whereas in the intervening years since the days of first settlement certain the representatives of the Crown, and the Six Nations population, failed to fully accept our ancestors as registered members of the Six Nations Band, and failed to include their names on the Band List or arbitrarily removed them
Whereas such actions of exclusion are discriminatory and contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Whereas we have a valid claim to lands both on Reserve and off Reserve within the Haldimand Tract, including but not limited to lands given by our Chief Joseph Brant Thayendanagea as 999 year leases with the explicit stipulation that said lands were to forever remain in the ownership of our families
Whereas our people have maintained a clear knowledge of the Onkwehonwe culture and history
Whereas we do not believe that it is necessary to have a consolidated land base such as a Government funded Reserve to maintain the integrity and cohesiveness of our people
Whereas neither the Crown (now Federal Government of Canada), Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC), nor the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) have taken any steps to redress the exclusionary policies
It has therefore been deemed necessary that in order to address the inequity between our people, and the members of the Six Nations Band, we must form an association, society or group to advocate for the rights and entitlements denied to us at present.
The advocacy group is to be known as the Haudenosaunee Non-Status Advocacy Institute (HNSAI or simply the Institute).
Eligibility: Three basic components are required.
a) First a prospective member will need to provide acceptable genealogical proof for each generation back to the Six Nations ancestor in order to be registered with the Institute, and included on the HNSAI list. Examples would include the requirements for membership with the United Empire Loyalist's Association of Canada, or the War of 1812 Society via the Ontario Genealogical Society (e.g., see here).
b) The second component, as is true with the above two lineage societies, is demonstrating that the proven ancestor was a member of, in this case, the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations) of the Grand River.
c) Prospective members must also be willing to acknowledge their allegiance to the Crown.
Immediate goals:
1) Register our members based on their genealogically proven heritage traced to one or more Six Nation ancestors who resided among the Haudenosaunee people of the Grand River and who were accepted, as shown in documentary sources, as being at one time recognized as members of the Six Nations of the Grand River. It is irrelevant whether members or prospective members trace their Haudenosaunee lineage through paternal or maternal ancestors. Associate Members are those who are in the process of proving their lineage, the spouses of registered members, and those who support the goals of the Institute. Those who are registered on the Six Nations Band List are ineligible for membership in the Institute since our goal is to expand membership beyond those defined as "Indians" according to the Indian Act (1876).
2) Seek redress for the monies owed to us since the time of our ancestor's exclusion from the Band Lists or related documents. This will take the form of cash settlements from either the Federal Government, SNEC and / or HCCC/HDI.
3) Seek to obtain the lands denied us, situated both on the present day Six Nations Reserves #40 and #40b (e.g., via irregularities in the transfer of location tickets), and lands outside the boundaries of the present Reserve which were improperly taken from our members ancestors (e.g., not following the stated requirements of the Chiefs in Council). Upon obtaining title to said lands, our legal representative will ensure that our eligible members obtain a deed in fee simple for their property. It is recognized that in some instances, it may be necessary to enclose the land by a fence or other such device to secure the land in the months leading up to its transfer back to its rightful owner.
4) Work cooperatively with the municipalities of the Haldimand Tract, the Provincial Government and the Federal Government. It is our view that the interactions between SNEC and HDI with these entities has been abrasive, unreasonable and unproductive.
5) Work cooperatively with moderate groups at Six Nations such as the Mohawks of the Grand River if perchance it is in our mutual interest to do so.
6) Offer a more sensible, rational and evidence based approach to dealing with any issues that arise between the representatives of the Haudenosaunee and others. An important principal is to be guided by the facts, and in order to seek the truth. While this may include myths, wampum belts and oral history, the focus will be on the hard evidence such as contemporary documents signed by Chiefs in Council, that can be tested in Court, and which will stand the test of "a preponderance of evidence".
7) Use the Courts. Since both SNEC and HDI are pressing forward with various claims which may overlap, or conflict with, those of HNDAI, it will be necessary to use to Courts to sort out many of these tangled situations.
8) Offer services more attractive to those presently being offered by SNEC and HDI.
a) Offer municipalities, land developers and corporations certificates of approval indicating that their projects have met the standards of HNSAI and that legal title has been proven.
b) Offer those in need of archaeological monitoring services the assistance of those fully trained by Ontario Ministry personnel who have responsibility for administering archaeological work in Ontario. In addition, provide consultation with professional archaeologists with the goal of not standing in their way, they have spent years in university studying their craft, but rather interpretations or suggestions and oversight of projects. Since both SNEC and HDI have been engaged in roles such as "archaeological monitors", HNSAI members will be encouraged to become trained and certified in this pursuit and / or work under the supervision of someone with these credentials who is a member of HNSAI, and assert our rights to operate in this capacity. The intention here will be to focus on the preservation of the archaeological heritage of Ontario (Haudenosaunee, African and European) and we will work in a productive way to meet that goal. Our members will never engage in work stoppages, but will ensure that any significant matters are done through the proper channels and legitimate reporting procedures. We intend to provide an option that is more "friendly" to responsible developers, and not use archaeology for political and monetary gain. Any fees would be to cover legitimate expenses. These fees will be recorded such that an audit can be performed at any time.
9) Ensure that racist / discriminatory policies of any of the above named groups or their supporters do not stand in the way of our achieving a legitimate and just solution to our grievances. We acknowledge that as Canadian Citizens we are in all ways and manner subject to the laws of the Province of Ontario and the Crown (Federal Government of Canada), and the rule of law in general.
Procedural Details:
1) A registry of both proven and pending members shall be maintained by the HNSAI administrative staff. Due to a belief in the right to privacy of all members or prospective members, the Registry will not be open for inspection by the general public.
2) Upon acceptance as a full member, said member will be issued a "Status Card" which will include for example a recent picture of the member, a registration number, and the Haudenosaunee Nation to which to proven ancestor belonged. If the member has determined the Clan of the ancestor to which he or she has traced their lineage, this information will also be included.
2) The collection of documentation used to prove membership shall be placed in file cabinets or archival boxes and kept in a secure location.
3) The Institute will maintain detailed records pertaining to all Institute activities. These documents shall be made available, upon written request, to full members, and to all legitimate government agencies such as Revenue Canada.
4) The Institute will establish a website to host details of its activities, and will include membership information, including a membership application form.
5) The Institute shall have an Administrative Staff including but not limited to:
a) Director
b) Legal Advisor and Disputes Adjudicator
c) Research and Membership Coordinator
d) Publicity - Media Liaison Coordinator
e) Archivist
f) Secretary
g) Website Administrator
6) The Board of Directors of the Institute will be composed of the Administrative Staff, and 4 (four) members of the public. The Institute will attempt to secure 2 (two) members from the general community of the Grand River, and 2 (two) members who are registered on the Band List of the Six Nations, and who presently reside on the Reserve.
Some Examples of Eligible Lineages: Starting from the mouth of the Grand River at Port Maitland and moving upstream toward the Mohawk Village in Brantford, we find the following men who married Six Nations women in the early days of settlement. There are undoubtedly others, but the following will provide an indication of those who are clearly eligible via the lineages of:
1) John Croker of Dunn Township, Haldimand County - married a Delaware woman, daughter to John (Teunis) Thompson (a half Delaware man).
2) Captain John Dochstader of Canboro Township, Haldimand County - married an Onondaga woman whose brother was Kaneahintwagte an Onondaga Chief, and upon her death he married a Cayuga woman.
3) Sgt. John Dochstader of South Cayuga Township, Haldimand County - married a Delaware woman of the Thompson family. The numerous Fredenburgh family descend from this line and obtained title to the Dochstader Tract (now Fredenburgh Tract) in South Cayuga Township.
4) Pvt. John Huff of North Cayuga Township, Haldimand County - married a Delaware woman.
5) Lt. John Young of Seneca Township, Haldimand County - married the sister of the Mohawk Chief who succeeded Captain David Hill Karonghyontye.
6) Warner Nelles of Seneca Township, Haldimand County - married Lt. John Young's daughter. Their son became a hereditary chief of the Mohawk at age 17.
7) William Dochstader of Mt. Healy, Oneida Township, Haldimand County - married a Delaware woman, daughter of Captain Thom (Teunis Thompson) and Sarah Anderson a White woman captured by the Six Nations and adopted by an Onondaga Chief.
8) Capt. John Norton (adopted Mohawk Chief and supposedly half Cherokee) who was born in Scotland, of Seneca Township, Haldimand County - had a first marriage to an as yet unidentified Six Nations woman, and married secondly a daughter of Pvt. John Huff.
This takes us upriver as far as present day Caledonia, and only includes the earliest days of settlement along the Grand River. There are literally hundreds of marriages between Six Nations members, and largely Six Nations women who maried White men, although some Six Nations women married Black men (e.g., Peter Barton, John Morey, Vincent Settles, Prince VanPatter). The descendants of many these non - Native men stayed on the present day Reserve. Hence today we have surnames such as MacNaughton and Garlow whose progenitors were European. In addition, some Six Nations men married European women and moved off the Reserve. The Institute's focus is on the descendants of Six Nations who were for one reason or another forced to leave the Reserve, or who of their own free will chose instead to remain on lands that while at one time were part of the Six Nations Territory on the Grand River Tract, became lands which were surrendered by the Six Nations Chiefs and patented by the Crown, and are not part of the present day Reserve.
**** Comment: I was told that properties both on Reserve and off Reserve have already been selected for "action". This could get very interesting, especially the properties that are presently located on the Six Nations Reserve, but at some point may be severed and either occupied or sold by legitimate claimants. There is a lot more to Six Nations history than one typically finds in academic publications. This is grassroots stuff, and in a way reminds me of the approach used by the Haudenosaunee Development Institute that emerged out of the 2006 "reclamation" (violent take over) of the former Douglas Creek Estates. If I had to guess, which I will, I expect that the HDI model was used as a template to create the working model for the HNSAI. Who would have predicted this interesting twist?
I have been told that the above information is very preliminary. However, I would deem it to be a good start. More information will be forthcoming in subsequent postings.
DeYo.
Here follows the preliminary details as provided to me:
Preamble:
Whereas during the early days of settlement along the Grand River, our ancestors were recognized as members of the Six Nations
Whereas in the intervening years since the days of first settlement certain the representatives of the Crown, and the Six Nations population, failed to fully accept our ancestors as registered members of the Six Nations Band, and failed to include their names on the Band List or arbitrarily removed them
Whereas such actions of exclusion are discriminatory and contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Whereas we have a valid claim to lands both on Reserve and off Reserve within the Haldimand Tract, including but not limited to lands given by our Chief Joseph Brant Thayendanagea as 999 year leases with the explicit stipulation that said lands were to forever remain in the ownership of our families
Whereas our people have maintained a clear knowledge of the Onkwehonwe culture and history
Whereas we do not believe that it is necessary to have a consolidated land base such as a Government funded Reserve to maintain the integrity and cohesiveness of our people
Whereas neither the Crown (now Federal Government of Canada), Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC), nor the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) have taken any steps to redress the exclusionary policies
It has therefore been deemed necessary that in order to address the inequity between our people, and the members of the Six Nations Band, we must form an association, society or group to advocate for the rights and entitlements denied to us at present.
The advocacy group is to be known as the Haudenosaunee Non-Status Advocacy Institute (HNSAI or simply the Institute).
Eligibility: Three basic components are required.
a) First a prospective member will need to provide acceptable genealogical proof for each generation back to the Six Nations ancestor in order to be registered with the Institute, and included on the HNSAI list. Examples would include the requirements for membership with the United Empire Loyalist's Association of Canada, or the War of 1812 Society via the Ontario Genealogical Society (e.g., see here).
b) The second component, as is true with the above two lineage societies, is demonstrating that the proven ancestor was a member of, in this case, the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations) of the Grand River.
c) Prospective members must also be willing to acknowledge their allegiance to the Crown.
Immediate goals:
1) Register our members based on their genealogically proven heritage traced to one or more Six Nation ancestors who resided among the Haudenosaunee people of the Grand River and who were accepted, as shown in documentary sources, as being at one time recognized as members of the Six Nations of the Grand River. It is irrelevant whether members or prospective members trace their Haudenosaunee lineage through paternal or maternal ancestors. Associate Members are those who are in the process of proving their lineage, the spouses of registered members, and those who support the goals of the Institute. Those who are registered on the Six Nations Band List are ineligible for membership in the Institute since our goal is to expand membership beyond those defined as "Indians" according to the Indian Act (1876).
2) Seek redress for the monies owed to us since the time of our ancestor's exclusion from the Band Lists or related documents. This will take the form of cash settlements from either the Federal Government, SNEC and / or HCCC/HDI.
3) Seek to obtain the lands denied us, situated both on the present day Six Nations Reserves #40 and #40b (e.g., via irregularities in the transfer of location tickets), and lands outside the boundaries of the present Reserve which were improperly taken from our members ancestors (e.g., not following the stated requirements of the Chiefs in Council). Upon obtaining title to said lands, our legal representative will ensure that our eligible members obtain a deed in fee simple for their property. It is recognized that in some instances, it may be necessary to enclose the land by a fence or other such device to secure the land in the months leading up to its transfer back to its rightful owner.
4) Work cooperatively with the municipalities of the Haldimand Tract, the Provincial Government and the Federal Government. It is our view that the interactions between SNEC and HDI with these entities has been abrasive, unreasonable and unproductive.
5) Work cooperatively with moderate groups at Six Nations such as the Mohawks of the Grand River if perchance it is in our mutual interest to do so.
6) Offer a more sensible, rational and evidence based approach to dealing with any issues that arise between the representatives of the Haudenosaunee and others. An important principal is to be guided by the facts, and in order to seek the truth. While this may include myths, wampum belts and oral history, the focus will be on the hard evidence such as contemporary documents signed by Chiefs in Council, that can be tested in Court, and which will stand the test of "a preponderance of evidence".
7) Use the Courts. Since both SNEC and HDI are pressing forward with various claims which may overlap, or conflict with, those of HNDAI, it will be necessary to use to Courts to sort out many of these tangled situations.
8) Offer services more attractive to those presently being offered by SNEC and HDI.
a) Offer municipalities, land developers and corporations certificates of approval indicating that their projects have met the standards of HNSAI and that legal title has been proven.
b) Offer those in need of archaeological monitoring services the assistance of those fully trained by Ontario Ministry personnel who have responsibility for administering archaeological work in Ontario. In addition, provide consultation with professional archaeologists with the goal of not standing in their way, they have spent years in university studying their craft, but rather interpretations or suggestions and oversight of projects. Since both SNEC and HDI have been engaged in roles such as "archaeological monitors", HNSAI members will be encouraged to become trained and certified in this pursuit and / or work under the supervision of someone with these credentials who is a member of HNSAI, and assert our rights to operate in this capacity. The intention here will be to focus on the preservation of the archaeological heritage of Ontario (Haudenosaunee, African and European) and we will work in a productive way to meet that goal. Our members will never engage in work stoppages, but will ensure that any significant matters are done through the proper channels and legitimate reporting procedures. We intend to provide an option that is more "friendly" to responsible developers, and not use archaeology for political and monetary gain. Any fees would be to cover legitimate expenses. These fees will be recorded such that an audit can be performed at any time.
9) Ensure that racist / discriminatory policies of any of the above named groups or their supporters do not stand in the way of our achieving a legitimate and just solution to our grievances. We acknowledge that as Canadian Citizens we are in all ways and manner subject to the laws of the Province of Ontario and the Crown (Federal Government of Canada), and the rule of law in general.
Procedural Details:
1) A registry of both proven and pending members shall be maintained by the HNSAI administrative staff. Due to a belief in the right to privacy of all members or prospective members, the Registry will not be open for inspection by the general public.
2) Upon acceptance as a full member, said member will be issued a "Status Card" which will include for example a recent picture of the member, a registration number, and the Haudenosaunee Nation to which to proven ancestor belonged. If the member has determined the Clan of the ancestor to which he or she has traced their lineage, this information will also be included.
2) The collection of documentation used to prove membership shall be placed in file cabinets or archival boxes and kept in a secure location.
3) The Institute will maintain detailed records pertaining to all Institute activities. These documents shall be made available, upon written request, to full members, and to all legitimate government agencies such as Revenue Canada.
4) The Institute will establish a website to host details of its activities, and will include membership information, including a membership application form.
5) The Institute shall have an Administrative Staff including but not limited to:
a) Director
b) Legal Advisor and Disputes Adjudicator
c) Research and Membership Coordinator
d) Publicity - Media Liaison Coordinator
e) Archivist
f) Secretary
g) Website Administrator
6) The Board of Directors of the Institute will be composed of the Administrative Staff, and 4 (four) members of the public. The Institute will attempt to secure 2 (two) members from the general community of the Grand River, and 2 (two) members who are registered on the Band List of the Six Nations, and who presently reside on the Reserve.
Some Examples of Eligible Lineages: Starting from the mouth of the Grand River at Port Maitland and moving upstream toward the Mohawk Village in Brantford, we find the following men who married Six Nations women in the early days of settlement. There are undoubtedly others, but the following will provide an indication of those who are clearly eligible via the lineages of:
1) John Croker of Dunn Township, Haldimand County - married a Delaware woman, daughter to John (Teunis) Thompson (a half Delaware man).
2) Captain John Dochstader of Canboro Township, Haldimand County - married an Onondaga woman whose brother was Kaneahintwagte an Onondaga Chief, and upon her death he married a Cayuga woman.
3) Sgt. John Dochstader of South Cayuga Township, Haldimand County - married a Delaware woman of the Thompson family. The numerous Fredenburgh family descend from this line and obtained title to the Dochstader Tract (now Fredenburgh Tract) in South Cayuga Township.
4) Pvt. John Huff of North Cayuga Township, Haldimand County - married a Delaware woman.
5) Lt. John Young of Seneca Township, Haldimand County - married the sister of the Mohawk Chief who succeeded Captain David Hill Karonghyontye.
6) Warner Nelles of Seneca Township, Haldimand County - married Lt. John Young's daughter. Their son became a hereditary chief of the Mohawk at age 17.
7) William Dochstader of Mt. Healy, Oneida Township, Haldimand County - married a Delaware woman, daughter of Captain Thom (Teunis Thompson) and Sarah Anderson a White woman captured by the Six Nations and adopted by an Onondaga Chief.
8) Capt. John Norton (adopted Mohawk Chief and supposedly half Cherokee) who was born in Scotland, of Seneca Township, Haldimand County - had a first marriage to an as yet unidentified Six Nations woman, and married secondly a daughter of Pvt. John Huff.
This takes us upriver as far as present day Caledonia, and only includes the earliest days of settlement along the Grand River. There are literally hundreds of marriages between Six Nations members, and largely Six Nations women who maried White men, although some Six Nations women married Black men (e.g., Peter Barton, John Morey, Vincent Settles, Prince VanPatter). The descendants of many these non - Native men stayed on the present day Reserve. Hence today we have surnames such as MacNaughton and Garlow whose progenitors were European. In addition, some Six Nations men married European women and moved off the Reserve. The Institute's focus is on the descendants of Six Nations who were for one reason or another forced to leave the Reserve, or who of their own free will chose instead to remain on lands that while at one time were part of the Six Nations Territory on the Grand River Tract, became lands which were surrendered by the Six Nations Chiefs and patented by the Crown, and are not part of the present day Reserve.
**** Comment: I was told that properties both on Reserve and off Reserve have already been selected for "action". This could get very interesting, especially the properties that are presently located on the Six Nations Reserve, but at some point may be severed and either occupied or sold by legitimate claimants. There is a lot more to Six Nations history than one typically finds in academic publications. This is grassroots stuff, and in a way reminds me of the approach used by the Haudenosaunee Development Institute that emerged out of the 2006 "reclamation" (violent take over) of the former Douglas Creek Estates. If I had to guess, which I will, I expect that the HDI model was used as a template to create the working model for the HNSAI. Who would have predicted this interesting twist?
I have been told that the above information is very preliminary. However, I would deem it to be a good start. More information will be forthcoming in subsequent postings.
DeYo.
Thursday 24 July 2014
Government Funded Domestic Violence Shelter Requires Six Nations Christians to Participate in "Traditional" Practices or They are Forced Out
In what must be one of the most coercive, inhumane as well as discriminatory policies by any organization, "Ganohkwasra Family Assault Support Services" will toss clients out if they do not comply with "traditional programming".
An article entitled, Ganohkwasra facing funding shortages, high staff turnover, in "Turtle Island News" (p.3) describes profoundly disturbing practices at a Six Nations center which is supposed to assist families in crisis. Families who have experienced domestic violence have only a limited number of places to turn to for counselling and support. Someone blew the whistle on this group to their Elected Band Councillor. The article reports that, Coun. Roger Jonathan said he was "really mad" when a former client of Ganohkwasra told him the staff said she had to participate in traditional programming or otherwise, be discharged from the shelter.
He said the woman, a Christian, wanted no part of that.
"I believe the majority of our people are not following traditional ways," said Jonathan. "This is supposed to be a facility of healing. When people are in a crisis, you don't want to push anything on them."
The Director of Ganohkwasra, said clients are required to partake in programming, which contains elements of traditional teachings, in order to stay at the shelter but she said they are not forced to participate in ceremonies.
"(We're) not telling anybody to go to longhouse," said the Director. "It's about how we can have a good mind. I know our clientele. I know a lot of times people come in to our shelter and don't want to participate in programming. They're not helping themselves get better. One of our requirements for them to be in the shelter is that they participate in programming and they're told that right at the start, and that they follow the curfew, and that keeps everyone safe. They might not be raised traditionally, but they're searching for their identity, for something. They're lost, in crisis. It's not just a place to stay. There's a lot of good teachings there." These statements appear to be highly judgmental.
So as I read this, you have people who are in a genuine crisis due to domestic violence, and at that weak point in their lives they are given indoctrination sessions, with teachings that are unwelcomed but rammed down their throats - like it or not - because of what can only be described as a sanctimonious self - righteous philosophy, "Momma knows best" and these clients are wayward sheep who need to be led back to the traditional fold. If they do not conform, no matter what their psychological state or the circumstances of their abuse, they are turfed out if they do not participate in longhouse teachings - which would be offensive to many Christians. This seems positively cruel and unjust, and risks doing further damage to already fragile individuals.
If this was a privately funded group, perhaps in some way (that I cannot fathom), an anti - Christian policy could be justified. Considering that the majority of people at Six Nations are Christian or nominal Christians, the agency is then saying to them, in a sense, "convert or get out" - at least during the time of their stay. Clearly the needs of Christian Six Nations, the majority on the Reserve, and others who do not follow the "traditional" ways are being devalued - unless they conform to the longhouse teachings. Mohawks whose descendants came to the Grand River have been Christian, Protestant, since the mid to late 1600s when the Dutch Reformed ministers of the New Netherlands Colony began their ministry to this group. This includes my own ancestors. By the early 1700s virtually all Mohawk from both the Upper and Lower Villages and the Schoharie settlements were Christian, meaning that their children were baptized and the adults attended communion. See Barbara J. Sivertsen, Turtles, Wolves, and Bears: A Mohawk Family History, Bowie MD, Heritage Books, Inc., 1996.
However this group, presently lobbying for more money, receives about $2 million year in funding but are seeking an extra $444,000 from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). So taxpayer dollars are going to fund an indoctrination center that discriminates against certain groups on the basis of religion. As far as I know that is illegal (although this needs to be verified) and they are ineligible for funding.
One can also see this as but yet another example of the attempt of traditionalists (HCCC / HDI) to seek uniformity at Six Nations with all reverting back to the "one path" towards finding their true identity, and a "good mind" (a commonly used catch phrase at Six Nations these days). That is extraordinarily insulting, and one can only hope it will backfire. It sounds more like a cult than a healing center.
Excluding people in crisis from a government funded agency because they do not engage in traditional practices (including Longhouse rituals), and will not do so during the course of counselling, is unacceptable.
DeYo.
An article entitled, Ganohkwasra facing funding shortages, high staff turnover, in "Turtle Island News" (p.3) describes profoundly disturbing practices at a Six Nations center which is supposed to assist families in crisis. Families who have experienced domestic violence have only a limited number of places to turn to for counselling and support. Someone blew the whistle on this group to their Elected Band Councillor. The article reports that, Coun. Roger Jonathan said he was "really mad" when a former client of Ganohkwasra told him the staff said she had to participate in traditional programming or otherwise, be discharged from the shelter.
He said the woman, a Christian, wanted no part of that.
"I believe the majority of our people are not following traditional ways," said Jonathan. "This is supposed to be a facility of healing. When people are in a crisis, you don't want to push anything on them."
The Director of Ganohkwasra, said clients are required to partake in programming, which contains elements of traditional teachings, in order to stay at the shelter but she said they are not forced to participate in ceremonies.
"(We're) not telling anybody to go to longhouse," said the Director. "It's about how we can have a good mind. I know our clientele. I know a lot of times people come in to our shelter and don't want to participate in programming. They're not helping themselves get better. One of our requirements for them to be in the shelter is that they participate in programming and they're told that right at the start, and that they follow the curfew, and that keeps everyone safe. They might not be raised traditionally, but they're searching for their identity, for something. They're lost, in crisis. It's not just a place to stay. There's a lot of good teachings there." These statements appear to be highly judgmental.
So as I read this, you have people who are in a genuine crisis due to domestic violence, and at that weak point in their lives they are given indoctrination sessions, with teachings that are unwelcomed but rammed down their throats - like it or not - because of what can only be described as a sanctimonious self - righteous philosophy, "Momma knows best" and these clients are wayward sheep who need to be led back to the traditional fold. If they do not conform, no matter what their psychological state or the circumstances of their abuse, they are turfed out if they do not participate in longhouse teachings - which would be offensive to many Christians. This seems positively cruel and unjust, and risks doing further damage to already fragile individuals.
If this was a privately funded group, perhaps in some way (that I cannot fathom), an anti - Christian policy could be justified. Considering that the majority of people at Six Nations are Christian or nominal Christians, the agency is then saying to them, in a sense, "convert or get out" - at least during the time of their stay. Clearly the needs of Christian Six Nations, the majority on the Reserve, and others who do not follow the "traditional" ways are being devalued - unless they conform to the longhouse teachings. Mohawks whose descendants came to the Grand River have been Christian, Protestant, since the mid to late 1600s when the Dutch Reformed ministers of the New Netherlands Colony began their ministry to this group. This includes my own ancestors. By the early 1700s virtually all Mohawk from both the Upper and Lower Villages and the Schoharie settlements were Christian, meaning that their children were baptized and the adults attended communion. See Barbara J. Sivertsen, Turtles, Wolves, and Bears: A Mohawk Family History, Bowie MD, Heritage Books, Inc., 1996.
However this group, presently lobbying for more money, receives about $2 million year in funding but are seeking an extra $444,000 from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). So taxpayer dollars are going to fund an indoctrination center that discriminates against certain groups on the basis of religion. As far as I know that is illegal (although this needs to be verified) and they are ineligible for funding.
One can also see this as but yet another example of the attempt of traditionalists (HCCC / HDI) to seek uniformity at Six Nations with all reverting back to the "one path" towards finding their true identity, and a "good mind" (a commonly used catch phrase at Six Nations these days). That is extraordinarily insulting, and one can only hope it will backfire. It sounds more like a cult than a healing center.
Excluding people in crisis from a government funded agency because they do not engage in traditional practices (including Longhouse rituals), and will not do so during the course of counselling, is unacceptable.
DeYo.
The Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) Continues to Make Enemies Both On and Off Reserve
I have made it abundantly clear, with numerous examples, that the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) is little more than a Mafia - like group using extortion, racketeering and any other strategy imaginable in order to meet their aims (extracting money from victims; and seeking power through weakening the group legally mandated to represent the people of Six Nations, namely the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC)). They have taken over as spokespersons for the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC), basically coopting this group to gain legitimacy - when it is all about money and power.
The HDI has only two spokespersons ending up in the limelight, the Director and their legal representative. I do not recall ever hearing from anyone else associated with this group. The Director was one of the primary activists during the 2006 crisis on the Native side of the barricade. She was a spokesperson then, and is actually featured (in a somewhat heroic role) in a book that only a leftist academic could love - Laura DeVries, Conflict in Caledonia: Aboriginal Land Rights and the Rule of Law, Vancouver, UBC Press, 2011. In the "Notes" section to the book, the author offers, Many appreciative thanks go to Hazel E. Hill for her permission to quote from her communications about the dispute in Caledonia - which is a slap in the face of all who value the rule of law. Actually the HDI legal representative, who is a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and thus a legitimate lawyer duly registered to practice law in Ontario, stays somewhat in the background also. It is the Director who appears to be the absolute dictator, and is typically the only person to be interviewed and to make public announcements - it has been this way since 2006 when the group formed when they realized that there was potentially a lot of money to be made by capitalizing on the crisis in Caledonia.
Since they claim to represent Six Nations (another unsubstantiated belief), and have used "no holds barred" methods of getting their way, they have made a number of enemies including, but not limited to the following. I have discussed each and their interactions with HDI in previous postings. I will, however, provide a bit of context in relation to their primary rival, then focus on the newest group on the growing list of enemies:
1) Six Nations Elected Council. It has been difficult for SNEC, the only legitimate (recognized by the Federal Government who is the source of transfer payments and welfare payments), to be coerced into "consulting" with a group that refuses to even recognize their legitimacy. The HCCC to this day has not accepted that it was seriously dysfunctional in 1924, and was removed from power upon the request in writing of many Six Nations residents. They continue to provide a parallel form of government. They will stand in the way of any endeavor by SNEC although they are given some standing or voice, as much as a courtesy and to keep the peace. Yet despite any peace overtures over the series of Elected Chiefs to the present day, the HCCC refuse to even be in the same room as the Elected Council, and express their disdain of the latter on all possible occasions.
Every time the Elected Council tries to initiate any actions that would be productive and help Six Nations deal with land claims or pot holes on Reserve roads - if SNEC is for it, HCCC is against it. If SNEC negotiates a deal with a land developer or a corporation building wind turbines, HCCC will do everything they possibly can to stand in the way of the deal, or if it goes through, then will try to torpedo it later. Examples here include the McKenzie Meadows Project across the road from Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) where for every unit built a rather large sum of money would be set aside for the building of another Haudenosaunee language immersion school. It was not a project initiated by HCCC so it floundered, despite all the efforts of SNEC to seeking Community involvement. Now the Elected Council as established deals with for example Samsung which will give Six Nations more than $65 million over a 20 year period (based on a false claim of unceded land in Dunn and South Cayuga Township which Samsung accepted), but HCCC through their spokesperson group the HDI have looked to every possible means to shut down projects that "don't have their approval". In effect, the HDI are the HCCC.
2) Land Developers in Haldimand and Brant Counties.
3) Corporations Involved in "Green Energy" Projects.
4) Professional Archaeologists.
5) Haldimand County Council and citizens (particularly those from Caledonia).
6) Corporation of the City of Brantford and citizens.
7) Brant County Council and citizens.
8) Province of Ontario and taxpayers.
9) Federal Government of Canada and taxpayers.
Number 10 on this list is -
Mohawks of the Grand River: I have mentioned the Mohawks of the Grand River (MGR) previously, as one of the factions at Six Nations which appeared to be somewhat on the periphery from the others (i.e., not interconnected such as HCCC, HDI and Men's Fire). They have a somewhat eccentric background where in the early days they were known as "Kanata Mohawks" and "Mohawk Workers". At one point it seemed that the only two individuals involved in this group were Bill Squire and a white supporter, a controversial individual who provided "legal assistance" but who seems to have faded into the background in the past year or so. Later, people who were affiliated with other groups would show up to add support to their "cause" - individuals who seem to add but another level of complexity to the multiple interlaced knots that we find at Six Nations. One thing has remained constant over the years. The Mohawks of the Grand River had a particular interest in the former Burtch Correctional Centre, and were pushing for its return to Six Nations, but under control of the Mohawks, who they believe are the first among the Six Nations, and the true inheritors of the Haldimand Tract. I have posted about this group on a number of occasions in this blog.
A Letter to the Editor appeared in "Two Row Times", July 23rd, 2014 (p.7) entitled, Mohawks respond to HDI. First their spokesperson, Ratsirenhawi (Bill Squire) provides a rationale for the letter to the Editor. It is worth quoting in full. Squire stated, We wish to make public the following letter we wrote in response to Hazel Hill and the HDI concerning their attempt to try and stop Guswhenta Holding's Birkett Lane project as covered in the July 9th edition of your paper.
Basically the HDI were angry at the MGR because the latter refused to follow the "application process" for developments in the area HDI considered their turf (their tentacles extend throughout Southwestern Ontario based on their interpretation of the fraudulent "Nanfan Treaty"), and pay the "required" fees to HDI.
Squire then directs the content of the rest of the letter to the Director of the HDI, in response to the ill-informed letter you wrote dated June 9, 2014 and distributed to investors and Financial Institutes. It is intended to properly educate those same sources as well as yourself on the true nature of the labours of the group known as the Mohawks of the Grand River who are dedicated to the recognition of the 1784 Haldimand Proclamation. On that note, we wish to educate you on two primary points with which you seem to be struggling to understand.
The wording suggests that there is no love loss between the MGR and the HDI (or that the leaders of these groups).
Squire then makes the point that, in the Haldimand Proclamation is found the special responsibility of the Mohawks, as the only formally named Nation on the Proclamation, is the source of our legitimacy and authority to take action to uphold this Proclamation. These actions have included increasing public awareness of our legal rights under the Haldimand Proclamation and the peaceful acquisition of surrendered lands as a result of thee educational efforts.
The spokesperson of the MGR then "reminds" the Director of the HDI of the "Mohawk Workers" (forerunner of the MGR) special role, as "protectors", "preservers" of and advocates for the Haldimand Proclamation. He then names the key people in the Mohawk Workers over the years. Next Squire states, To clarify, the relationship between the people referred to in this letter as the Mohawk Workers and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) and the associated body known as the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), and that the MGR efforts should in no way be construed, to represent the voice of the HCCC.
Now we get into a very interesting perspective that, undoubtedly reflects the thinking of many off and on Reserve. Squire states, Regarding HDI, it should be pointed out that we do not fully understand the relationship between the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council and HDI; not do we understand your personal authority to represent the official voice of the HCCC. Further, who of the Mohawk Nation supported this decision?
The above statement hits the nail on the head. Squire goes on to say that the MGR has, never been intended to represent HDI, nor had they received, any formal information from HDI regarding land transactions involving land held under the Haldimand Proclamation; or been made privy to any financial benefits potentially known to the HDI through any such land deals and/or transactions - although the MGR are eager to learn more of this matter.
The Director had questioned how individual members of the MGR may have been remunerated for their efforts and Squire retorted that, there has been no personal gain or benefit, rather each had invested heavily of their own finances. What apparently irks Squire most is expressed as follows:
It is regrettable that you used a public forum to make such unfounded allegations against the Board of Trustees. We hope that any future communications will convey a peaceful and fact based message, and then Squire offers the Director of the HDI the opportunity to speak to their group, so that concerns may be respectfully addressed in the spirit of peace and friendship.
It is very odd that the Director of HDI should be making allegations that are remarkably similar to those leveled at her by people from various quarters at Six Nations. A common questions is, "Where does the money go?" To this day no one outside the HDI knows the answer to this question. There are numerous differences between the HDI and the MGR though. There are allegations and verified findings that the HDI has been involved in, which include, but are not limited to:
1) Violence, and non peaceful means of attaining goals - in stark contrast to the MGR who have never, as far as I know, been in any way involved with actions such as we see at Douglas Creek Estates. MGR have never threatened "grave consequences" to the public if they do not get what they want.
2) Lack of transparency, which is an accusation constantly leveled at HDI. Where does the money go? Who is paying for their legal representatives very expensive suits? How much is being paid to each of the principals in HDI? How much is funneled into Community projects? Who knows .....
3) Schemes outside the Haldimand Tract to "convince" naieve developers and others that they were a legitimate authority who represented Six Nations and by virtue of the fraudulent Nanfan Treaty that they had rights and entitlements to lands throughout Southwestern Ontario.
4) Activity within the Haldimand Tract claiming that they were empowered to demand shake down money from land developers of purported "contested lands", such as J. Voortman in Hagersville, and the developers in Brantford which resulted in HDI being named in a Court Injunction and ultimately being initially fined over $800,000 but later reduced (because it is not possible for Canadian Courts to recover assets hidden on Reserve) to $125,000 in a settlement.
DeYo.
The HDI has only two spokespersons ending up in the limelight, the Director and their legal representative. I do not recall ever hearing from anyone else associated with this group. The Director was one of the primary activists during the 2006 crisis on the Native side of the barricade. She was a spokesperson then, and is actually featured (in a somewhat heroic role) in a book that only a leftist academic could love - Laura DeVries, Conflict in Caledonia: Aboriginal Land Rights and the Rule of Law, Vancouver, UBC Press, 2011. In the "Notes" section to the book, the author offers, Many appreciative thanks go to Hazel E. Hill for her permission to quote from her communications about the dispute in Caledonia - which is a slap in the face of all who value the rule of law. Actually the HDI legal representative, who is a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and thus a legitimate lawyer duly registered to practice law in Ontario, stays somewhat in the background also. It is the Director who appears to be the absolute dictator, and is typically the only person to be interviewed and to make public announcements - it has been this way since 2006 when the group formed when they realized that there was potentially a lot of money to be made by capitalizing on the crisis in Caledonia.
Since they claim to represent Six Nations (another unsubstantiated belief), and have used "no holds barred" methods of getting their way, they have made a number of enemies including, but not limited to the following. I have discussed each and their interactions with HDI in previous postings. I will, however, provide a bit of context in relation to their primary rival, then focus on the newest group on the growing list of enemies:
1) Six Nations Elected Council. It has been difficult for SNEC, the only legitimate (recognized by the Federal Government who is the source of transfer payments and welfare payments), to be coerced into "consulting" with a group that refuses to even recognize their legitimacy. The HCCC to this day has not accepted that it was seriously dysfunctional in 1924, and was removed from power upon the request in writing of many Six Nations residents. They continue to provide a parallel form of government. They will stand in the way of any endeavor by SNEC although they are given some standing or voice, as much as a courtesy and to keep the peace. Yet despite any peace overtures over the series of Elected Chiefs to the present day, the HCCC refuse to even be in the same room as the Elected Council, and express their disdain of the latter on all possible occasions.
Every time the Elected Council tries to initiate any actions that would be productive and help Six Nations deal with land claims or pot holes on Reserve roads - if SNEC is for it, HCCC is against it. If SNEC negotiates a deal with a land developer or a corporation building wind turbines, HCCC will do everything they possibly can to stand in the way of the deal, or if it goes through, then will try to torpedo it later. Examples here include the McKenzie Meadows Project across the road from Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) where for every unit built a rather large sum of money would be set aside for the building of another Haudenosaunee language immersion school. It was not a project initiated by HCCC so it floundered, despite all the efforts of SNEC to seeking Community involvement. Now the Elected Council as established deals with for example Samsung which will give Six Nations more than $65 million over a 20 year period (based on a false claim of unceded land in Dunn and South Cayuga Township which Samsung accepted), but HCCC through their spokesperson group the HDI have looked to every possible means to shut down projects that "don't have their approval". In effect, the HDI are the HCCC.
2) Land Developers in Haldimand and Brant Counties.
3) Corporations Involved in "Green Energy" Projects.
4) Professional Archaeologists.
5) Haldimand County Council and citizens (particularly those from Caledonia).
6) Corporation of the City of Brantford and citizens.
7) Brant County Council and citizens.
8) Province of Ontario and taxpayers.
9) Federal Government of Canada and taxpayers.
Number 10 on this list is -
Mohawks of the Grand River: I have mentioned the Mohawks of the Grand River (MGR) previously, as one of the factions at Six Nations which appeared to be somewhat on the periphery from the others (i.e., not interconnected such as HCCC, HDI and Men's Fire). They have a somewhat eccentric background where in the early days they were known as "Kanata Mohawks" and "Mohawk Workers". At one point it seemed that the only two individuals involved in this group were Bill Squire and a white supporter, a controversial individual who provided "legal assistance" but who seems to have faded into the background in the past year or so. Later, people who were affiliated with other groups would show up to add support to their "cause" - individuals who seem to add but another level of complexity to the multiple interlaced knots that we find at Six Nations. One thing has remained constant over the years. The Mohawks of the Grand River had a particular interest in the former Burtch Correctional Centre, and were pushing for its return to Six Nations, but under control of the Mohawks, who they believe are the first among the Six Nations, and the true inheritors of the Haldimand Tract. I have posted about this group on a number of occasions in this blog.
A Letter to the Editor appeared in "Two Row Times", July 23rd, 2014 (p.7) entitled, Mohawks respond to HDI. First their spokesperson, Ratsirenhawi (Bill Squire) provides a rationale for the letter to the Editor. It is worth quoting in full. Squire stated, We wish to make public the following letter we wrote in response to Hazel Hill and the HDI concerning their attempt to try and stop Guswhenta Holding's Birkett Lane project as covered in the July 9th edition of your paper.
Basically the HDI were angry at the MGR because the latter refused to follow the "application process" for developments in the area HDI considered their turf (their tentacles extend throughout Southwestern Ontario based on their interpretation of the fraudulent "Nanfan Treaty"), and pay the "required" fees to HDI.
Squire then directs the content of the rest of the letter to the Director of the HDI, in response to the ill-informed letter you wrote dated June 9, 2014 and distributed to investors and Financial Institutes. It is intended to properly educate those same sources as well as yourself on the true nature of the labours of the group known as the Mohawks of the Grand River who are dedicated to the recognition of the 1784 Haldimand Proclamation. On that note, we wish to educate you on two primary points with which you seem to be struggling to understand.
The wording suggests that there is no love loss between the MGR and the HDI (or that the leaders of these groups).
Squire then makes the point that, in the Haldimand Proclamation is found the special responsibility of the Mohawks, as the only formally named Nation on the Proclamation, is the source of our legitimacy and authority to take action to uphold this Proclamation. These actions have included increasing public awareness of our legal rights under the Haldimand Proclamation and the peaceful acquisition of surrendered lands as a result of thee educational efforts.
The spokesperson of the MGR then "reminds" the Director of the HDI of the "Mohawk Workers" (forerunner of the MGR) special role, as "protectors", "preservers" of and advocates for the Haldimand Proclamation. He then names the key people in the Mohawk Workers over the years. Next Squire states, To clarify, the relationship between the people referred to in this letter as the Mohawk Workers and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) and the associated body known as the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), and that the MGR efforts should in no way be construed, to represent the voice of the HCCC.
Now we get into a very interesting perspective that, undoubtedly reflects the thinking of many off and on Reserve. Squire states, Regarding HDI, it should be pointed out that we do not fully understand the relationship between the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council and HDI; not do we understand your personal authority to represent the official voice of the HCCC. Further, who of the Mohawk Nation supported this decision?
The above statement hits the nail on the head. Squire goes on to say that the MGR has, never been intended to represent HDI, nor had they received, any formal information from HDI regarding land transactions involving land held under the Haldimand Proclamation; or been made privy to any financial benefits potentially known to the HDI through any such land deals and/or transactions - although the MGR are eager to learn more of this matter.
The Director had questioned how individual members of the MGR may have been remunerated for their efforts and Squire retorted that, there has been no personal gain or benefit, rather each had invested heavily of their own finances. What apparently irks Squire most is expressed as follows:
It is regrettable that you used a public forum to make such unfounded allegations against the Board of Trustees. We hope that any future communications will convey a peaceful and fact based message, and then Squire offers the Director of the HDI the opportunity to speak to their group, so that concerns may be respectfully addressed in the spirit of peace and friendship.
It is very odd that the Director of HDI should be making allegations that are remarkably similar to those leveled at her by people from various quarters at Six Nations. A common questions is, "Where does the money go?" To this day no one outside the HDI knows the answer to this question. There are numerous differences between the HDI and the MGR though. There are allegations and verified findings that the HDI has been involved in, which include, but are not limited to:
1) Violence, and non peaceful means of attaining goals - in stark contrast to the MGR who have never, as far as I know, been in any way involved with actions such as we see at Douglas Creek Estates. MGR have never threatened "grave consequences" to the public if they do not get what they want.
2) Lack of transparency, which is an accusation constantly leveled at HDI. Where does the money go? Who is paying for their legal representatives very expensive suits? How much is being paid to each of the principals in HDI? How much is funneled into Community projects? Who knows .....
3) Schemes outside the Haldimand Tract to "convince" naieve developers and others that they were a legitimate authority who represented Six Nations and by virtue of the fraudulent Nanfan Treaty that they had rights and entitlements to lands throughout Southwestern Ontario.
4) Activity within the Haldimand Tract claiming that they were empowered to demand shake down money from land developers of purported "contested lands", such as J. Voortman in Hagersville, and the developers in Brantford which resulted in HDI being named in a Court Injunction and ultimately being initially fined over $800,000 but later reduced (because it is not possible for Canadian Courts to recover assets hidden on Reserve) to $125,000 in a settlement.
DeYo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)