Is the Dundee Tsi:karistisere Deal the Best We Can Do?

By Doug George-Kanentiio

Some years ago, when I was a member of the Mohawk Nation Land Claims Committee, the State of New York, then led by Governor Mario Cuomo, offered us a deal to resolve the theft of our lands by that entity. Cuomo’s lead attorney was Robert Batson, an amicable guy who resembled the actor Stanley Tucci (from the Hunger Games movie among many other roles).

Batson submitted one proposal which consisted of the entire Brasher State Forest, about 24,000 acres. Also, forthcoming would be a cash settlement and the return of the St. Lawrence River islands north and west of Barnhart Island. In return we would cede any and all other claims forever. We countered this with an analysis of the value of the stolen lands and the loss of natural resources to the Mohawk people. Our counter proposal was over $600,000,000 in land values plus and additional $32,000,000 in annual revenues coming from the use of our waters by the New York Power Authority.

We also reserved the right to issue life leases within the contested areas and to buy back at fair market value property which the then current residents were willing to sell and that all lands would be owned outright by the Mohawk people without having to place them into “federal trust”.

To us, “federal trust” mean severe restrictions on the use of the land and denied us exclusive jurisdiction over lands returned to us. It also meant that we would give the US underlying title to those areas while we would have only occupancy options which could be extinguished at any time without our approval. Just this past week the Wampanoags of Massachusetts fell into this trap when their “federal recognition” was arbitrarily withdrawn by the Trump administration.

We knew that the most powerful arguments for the claim’s assertion lay with the Mohawk Nation Council since it was the rightful heir of the singular council which was in authority in the early 19th century until New York formally created, and imposed upon Akwesasne, the St. Regis tribe in 1892. We also knew that the traditional “long hairs” were the legal representatives on the “Canadian” side when the Dundee area was stolen and that the St. Regis Band Council (now the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne) was put into place after John Fire was murdered and the “life chiefs” imprisoned for over a year in 1899.

As as a group we acknowledged the bitter truth of how the US and Canada sought to create artificial divisions and undermine a united Akwesasne using every dirty trick they could. That this tactic of divide and conquer succeeded is painfully evident today as the questions about governance and jurisdiction remain unresolved and festering.

None of us are blind to the many contradictions which cripple the desire to be of one mind, one people. We know it is illogical to assert “sovereignty” in any form while we have two police agencies enforcing alien laws, that we have councils which are not of our making, when we duplicate at great costs programs which should be singular: housing, justice, education, health, sports, culture, language, the arts - why in heck are these separate when common sense tells us they should be shared and administered to in common? Imagine the millions which could be saved if we combined our talents and our wealth.

So too with the Tsi:karistisere-Dundee settlement. When it was lost great harm was done to all of Akwesasne. It was that area which the Life Chiefs council derived an income by leasing the land to non-Natives, just as was done on the islands west of Kawehno:ke. That money was of vital importance and the council had the right to do so not because it was “Crown” land but because it was Mohawk land.

This leads to a number of points to consider. Will the lands to be returned be considered “Crown” territory which is the same thing as US trust which means the Nation does not hold title but may use it with the permission of the Canadian federal government. Will the Mohawk people have exclusive legal jurisdiction, or will we be setting ourselves up for an inevitable fight with the Surete du Quebec, the cops who will use force to apply provincial laws?

Is the MCA the rightful entity to even negotiate the settlement? Does it have proof that the Life Chiefs surrendered its authority to an entity against which it opposed at great sacrifice and the martyrdom of John Fire? If the MCA is not the rightful heir then is it the Mohawk Nation Council? And what role, if any, has the Nation played in the negotiations? Was it sitting at the table? Did it approve of the deal? Should not the MCA have presented a united front or is it so firmly bound by the international border that it would not, or could not, include the other councils? And if it is restricted by the border does this not mean any claim to true sovereignty is automatically excluded?

Another issue is the purchase of Dundee lands. We know there are people in Akwesasne who have made great wealth taking things and people across the river and the border. They need river access and may already be buying waterfront thinking they will profit by this kind of activity or by selling the land at inflated prices to the MCA. No one should profit so if “buy back” is an option the value of the land should be fixed at the time when the formal claims began-in 1988 not in 2018. No one individual should be given a “certificate of possession” but normal leases which restrict what can be done with the property.

The $240,000,000 should be tightly controlled with buy backs and communal activities such as farming and ranching. Forests need to be replanted. Some areas heavily contaminated with E-coli from under-regulated cow farms will have to be cleaned up as will dump sites. Sections of the area will need to be zoned for residential and recreational use. The influx of Mohawks crossing that boundary at Ft. Covington will also be a great concern to the security crazy Americans. When Mohawks move back representation will be an issue - who will speak for them?

The award money should not be given to the Bank of Montreal to do what it pleases without our consent. A Mohawk should oversee the funds backed by a joint committee and be used to establish our own investment plan which prohibits co-mingling or borrowing by anyone.

We should also consider changing the name “tsi:karistisere” since it refers to the dragging of survey chains and the stealing of our land. Perhaps Kohnistikiohneh (corn fields) would be more appropriate.

I am an advocate for the return of our ancestral lands using every ethical way possible. If that means buy backs, the setting up of land trusts (like Ganienkeh) or the creation of educational foundations (like the Hiawatha Institute) then that is what we must do as taking our territorial claims to North American courts is bound to fail. Since when did any US or Canadian supreme court admit that our treaties assure us of true sovereignty and that those nations have to be held fully accountable for the stealing of Native lands in violation of their respective constitutions? Is it rational to expect those courts to give us our aboriginal rights?

Not in our lifetime.

So, we have to do what we must to return what is ours without compromising the very thing which has produced the proposed settlement which is our standing as a distinct people legally and culturally.

Insofar as the Dundee resolution strengthens Akwesasne as a community and the Nation itself, then it has my support. Anything less, then it does not.