Re: Jake Fire Day - Murder by the RCMP (LONG!)

Gerald R. Alfred (mekx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu)
Sun, 3 May 1992 19:36:00 EST


In response to message posted by Ken McVay from alt.native, concerning the
history of the Indian Act's imposition among the Mohawk communities in Canada:

It seems I am again being drawn into defending the history of my people from
contemporary revisionists. This time, I'll certainly be more cordial since the
"offender" is Mike Mitchell, a respected and influential member of our nation.

The posting recounts how the Mohawks of Akwesasne were forced to accept the
federal government's Indian Act legislation late in the 19th century. I have
no dispute with the facts as presented concerning that particular incident.
But, in his analysis of the entire situation during that period, Mike is
mistaken on two points:

1. The Mohawks of Kahnawake did in fact accept the Indian Act legislation
in 1890, and managed to govern their community using both the system of
traditional chiefs and the new Indian Act institutions for many years
after that acceptance. Traditional chiefs participated in the new elected
representative system for years - up until the 1940's - until the split
between traditional people and Christians became an obstacle to political
cooperation. So <"all of the Mohawk people in Canada"> do not have the
same experience with respect to the Indian Act's implementation, contrary
to Mike's statement in the book.

2. Mike also states that the Canadian government failed to live up to the
agreement between the Iroquois people and "British Crown" which guaranteed
that <"each side would remain in its own vessal"> Well, there is no doubt
that the British Crown and Canadian government have failed to live up to
their obligations. But Mike is referring to the Two Row Wampum agreement
between the DUTCH and the Iroquois people. The British were never party to
that treaty.

I don't think we as a people can afford to be confused about the facts at this
point in our history. I also don't agree that we need to revise history in
order to justify current political positions and arguments. I also think that
our positions are justifiable and valid given the facts of our historical
relationship to Canada; there is no need to reshape the past if we define
rational and appropriate responses to the current situation based on on
contemporary needs and goals.

Skennen (Peace),
Gerald R. Alfred
American Indian Program
Cornell University