How The Radical Left Creates Ambiguity To Hijack Indigenous Relations…

Members of the “Harsha Walia” band at Occupy Vancouver…

I discovered an interesting pattern over the past few months. My investigation began at Occupy Vancouver when indigenous associates of Harsha Walia’s came to the camp who were identified as ‘elders’. I later found out that the truth was that none of them were recognized as elders, nor were they members of their band councils. In fact, none of them were even from British Columbia!

How did she get away with this deception? Well, the answer is simple- and a little bit embarrassing for the non-indigenous people in the encampment. The sad truth is that most Canadians are completely ignorant about indigenous culture and governance- and, rather sarcastically, people on the Left often take advantage of this ignorance to hoodwink us into believing they have the backing of indigenous bands. Quite often they don’t…

The next incident I discovered was when researching Kevin Annett’s claim to have the support of the ‘Six Nations Elders’ in his fraudulent discovery of a mass grave on their territory. What I learned was that the Elders Council did not support his work at all- in fact, they had publicly denounced what he had been doing there.

So, who was supporting him? He found a dissident in the band named Bill Squires, he and his daughter were conned into connecting his name to Annett’s fraud. Annett labelled him as an ‘elder’ and most people fell for that hook, line and sinker. The problem is that the official band council had already made a ruling. This is typical of the ambiguity that the Lefties use to create division and to fool non-indigenous people.

When people on the real band council objected, Annett began a campaign of smearing their names on the Internet. Two of the people who he attacked, Jan Longboat and Frank Miller were bona fide elders. The pain he cause for them, and others in the Six Nations was part of a sarcastic plot to hurt their bands internal relations.

Annett conducted the same deception back in 2008 with the Squamish Nation. He claimed he had the backing of the Squamish when he interrupted the services of a Vancouver church while grandstanding for his fraudulent book. He had the backing of Gerald Johnson, a man who claimed he was the hereditary chief of the Squamish nation. The truth is that the Squamish never had a hereditary chief in the entire history of their nation. The real band council later made an announcement that Johnson “appears to be having personal issues and delusions.”

The more I’ve become aware of this situation the more incidents I see- it is quite astounding really, and it seems that the problem is becoming an epidemic. Take, for example, the battle over the Enbridge pipeline in British Columbia. I was researching my article on the threat of eco-terrorists when I noticed this pattern again. There’s an environmentalist ‘action camp’ going on this week, they too are featuring two ‘hereditary chiefs’ who will attend.

If you listen to what the Canadian media has been putting out, you would believe that the majority of indigenous nations are steadfastly against building the pipeline. On the other hand, Enbridge claims to have the support of 60% of the First Nations’ councils who are on the pipeline’s right-of-way. So, where is all of the noise coming from- are we talking about ‘hereditary’ councils, or the real thing?

Today I discovered another example in a story led by the radical left anarchist publication Media Co-Op. In their story they claim that the “Traditional Algonquin Elders Council” is filing a suit against Resolute Forestry for “illegally logging without consent on unceded Algonquin Territory.” Do you see what is fishy about this? It is the word “traditional” that caught my attention. This group is separate from the Algonquin Nation Tribal Council.

Solomon Wawatie of the “Traditional Algonquin Elders Council”

The Media Co-Op states that Louise & Solomon Wawatie “Land Defenders” are currently being held in-custody on charges of mischief and breaking a court injunction that had restricted them from protesting Resolute’s logging activities. They say that the Wawaties are being held without bail for “”asserting their sovereign rights over their unceded territory.” The question is, whose rights are they asserting- if they are not part of the official band council, are they just making believe they have any authority?

As I’ve mentioned, the biggest problem here is that most Canadians are ignorant of the complexities of indigenous relations. The people on the radical left take advantage of this ignorance and do tricks to fool us into thinking that the majority of indigenous people are for, or against, specific issues. The truth is that, often, this is a big deception.

So, in the future, if you read or see something in the media about indigenous claims that uses words like ‘traditional’, ‘elder’, or ‘hereditary’ I’d strongly recommend that you look deeper into who is being represented. I’m sure there are other red flags to look for, and I’ll be continuing my investigation of this issue. When I learn more I’ll share it with you, my beloved readers…

Permanent link to this article: http://www.genuinewitty.com/2012/08/06/how-the-radical-left-creates-ambiguity-to-hijack-indigenous-relations/

6 comments

1 ping

Skip to comment form

  1. Sounds like you’ve been through a lot… and definitely on to something… why else would Alex care so much that he’d threaten you?

    1. Exactly, the great amount of attention he’s given towards me only goes to qualify that I’ve hit the nail on the head with these people. It’s a shame for them that they don’t understand that every attack they’ve taken against me has only gone towards helping to make my case…

    • Standing Water on August 6, 2012 at 21:57
    • Reply

    Well, it is really a delicate issue—if you provide too much information to the public about indigenous relations, it becomes apparent that democracy isn’t really a contemporary Canadian ideal. As soon as one abandons the “one adult, one vote” view, is it not fairly dangerous ground, where certain groups become _extremely powerful_, and, therefore, they become very valuable to groups like those you’ve identified.

    And as you suggest, people aren’t trained very well to tell, an “authentic indian chief” from a “fake indian chief.” Or elder, councilmember, etc. But what if they’re all fakes? What if “indian bands” or “tribes” or whatever are merely corporations, that is, artificial persons, fakes? As far as I am aware, that is basically what they are—corporations acknowledged by the federal government. And through that federal acknowledgment, sovereign colonies like British Columbia are forced into making deals contrary to the democratic right of the large majority of those on the land of British Columbia.

    So, I would not blame the radical left for creating the ambiguity. The ambiguity exists because to provide clear information about indigenous relations is, basically, to provide clear information about how British Columbians (and the people of the other colonies existing prior to confederation) have been disenfranchised. And who are the beneficiaries? Mostly federal government bureaucrats and the lawyers for the “indian bands.” I mean, there’s not a whole lot of indians going to law school, for all sorts of reasons—but whatever the reasons, we can all be sure who is making a killing off of all this: not the left, not the right, but the lawyers who get oodles of cash, win or lose.

    If this unholy federal-indian relationship did not exist, there would be little value in co-opting indians by people in the radical left. Absent the superhero status that natives get by being “oppressed peoples” (many of the “elders” at OV were borderline incoherent, but, remember, that’s just a “different way of knowing”, etc. etc.) why should anyone listen to them more than anyone else?

    And as for “indian identity”, every people tends to have a continuum of skin colours. In the days before modern identity tracking, I suspect most of the hip indians simply went, got baptized, adopted whatever names they liked and _got on with it_. The ones who refused to evolve, well, that’s a very interesting question: do people have a right to evolutionary stasis? Is that not what the maintenance of indian reserves, tribal governance, etc. outside of our evolved democratic institutions saying, that certain people have a right to stop developing? And if so, isn’t everyone supposed to have equal rights in Canada?

    Another big reason this topic is not addressed is because it is basically “unlawful” to talk about it as though indians have unearned privileges and perks—for some reason their suffering is more important than the suffering of others. I cannot help but think of Animal Farm, where all the animals are equal, just some are “more equal”, so they get more rewards from the federal government.

    • The Hammer on August 7, 2012 at 08:10
    • Reply

    Another reason is that so many in mainstream society seem to forget that all native people do not share the same opinion. Too many also love to beleive in the rascist stereotype of the “Noble savage” when it comes to native people and their history.

      • Standing Water on August 7, 2012 at 10:12
      • Reply

      That too. And the Big Chiefs have even picked up a page from the White Man’s book:

      “The real band council later made an announcement that Johnson “appears to be having personal issues and delusions.”

      How does the “real band council” constitute itself? By labelling as mentally ill anyone who claims hereditary authority. And if we look at what the “real band council” is, I think we find that it is most like a federally registered corporation, with the Indian Act being the instrument under which it is registered. I am all for repealing the Indian Act and unincorporating the indians, requiring them to form Societies under Provincial Enactments. The federalization of “indian lands” is really nothing more than a way for the federal government to intrude into local matters, like land title. It is an attack on the sovereignty of British Columbians, as though we should be carriers of water and hewers of wood for heathens within our own borders.

      And that might sound “insensitive”, but one must understand that calling non-Christians heathens is a part of English folk-culture dating back over a thousand years. Why is it that all the “culturally sensitive” stuff is basically a smokescreen for causing anglos to abandon their ancient values?

      1. I would refer to a band council as being ‘real’ if they are democratically elected to represent their band.

        In the case of the Squamish, they have a democratically elected band council- this should imply that they are legitimate. As for Johnson, his claim is absolutely fraudulent, as the Squamish have NEVER had a hereditary leader in the history if their existence…

  1. […] getting increasingly bold in their attempts to ‘Rabble’ up trouble in our cities. They’ve beencausing immeasurable harm to Canada’s indigenous communities, nuclear power activism, Gay Pride marches, Israel/Palestine marches, Remembrance Day […]

What's your opinion?

%d bloggers like this: