Six Nations Bingo Hall

Over 40 years ago, Six Nations Bingo was hosted in our old community hall. Back then, people used to gather at the community hall only on Monday nights for a 7pm evening session. People used to bring cow corn niblets to use instead of bingo chips. A time when there were no special jackpots and absolutely no such thing as a ‘progressive’ jackpot. A time when $40 was a HUGE cash prize.

Community members operated bingo by volunteers raising money for things such as sports teams fundraising to travel for championships Canada wide. A rather fine example to display how Six Nations Bingo operations have grown from very strong roots.

Canal System Built Brantford on the Six Nations’ Back

SIX NATIONS – The story of Brantford, its growth and the importance of the Grand River Navigation Company in establishing it and a number of other communities along the Grand River between Brantford and Duncanville., goes without saying.

The idea of connecting the Grand River in a more direct path to the Lake, cutting off 12 miles, made all the sense in the world in the 1830s when rivers were the main highways of travel and commerce. The success of the Welland Canal had spawned the idea of connecting another canal to expand the canal network considerably. The industrial revolution was in full swing and foreign trade was in the minds of European and Canadian movers and shakers eager to make their fortune quickly in the New World.

For a time there was prosperity and enormous growth as Brantford began gobbling up more and more land beyond the seven to eight square miles agreed to by John Brant and the Six Nations Confederacy.

The Grand River Navigation Company (GRNC) was incorporated on January 18, 1832 and promoted by several early Canadian industrialists and politicians, including David Thompson who certainly had vested interest in the project. He also had the ear of those in government who lusted over the increasing Six Nations Trust Funds bottom line, acquired through land sales and leases of Haldimand Tract land.

But financial instability slowed the completion of the canal project down, alarming the settler investors of the expensive project. Those with their finances and reputations in the balance, could not afford to let this idea fail.

FourtyBee is an outlet to publish aerial photos, videos, and stories about the evolution of drone technology, documenting ongoing land encroachments; residential and commercial development. We capture images, videos and stories from landmarks to people, we research the history of Grand River Country (and beyond) from a Mohawk perspective.

The Chiefs said “no” to several overtures from government officials and speculators for Six Nations investment in the canal. Desperate, the board of directors found a way to access Six Nations Trust Funds and purchased on their behalf, 6,121 shares of GRNC stock to keep the company solvent for a time.

For all the money invested and all the labour intense carving of the landscape to straighten the meandering path of the Grand, the entire life of the GRNC lasted only 29 years. The development of the railway was the last nail in the coffin of the era of the canal. It was cheaper, more direct and it was usually open year round, whereas the canal season only lasted as long as the river was not frozen over.

But during most of those years, with its connection to the Welland Canal completed in 1824, it made Brantford, Caledonia, York, and Dunnville boomtowns. There is no questioning of the spin-off economic benefits the Grand River Navigation Company has had on settlers and speculators, if not investing in the canal system itself, investing in building the towns and villages along its path.

The entire canal system was not completed and opened until 1848. To accomplish this task, 360 of the 551 acres taken to build locks, erect dams and other support system, belonged to Six Nations. Settlers who sold their land in favour of the Canal were paid quite nicely while Six Nations received nothing. Timber needed for the project was also cut from Six Nations Territory with no compensation. But the biggest farce of justice is that the promoters of the Canal arbitrarily used Six Nations Trust Funds, without authorization or knowledge, to keep afloat this money-losing venture.

In its heyday, the Grand River was a busy place with 100 steamers registered operating on the Grand. By 1850, passengers aboard the “Queen”, Red Jacket” and “Messmore” could make a return trip from Brantford to Buffalo in a mere 48 hours. Passenger and freight steamers made regular stops at Newport, Caledonia, Cayuga and Dunnville, along the way. The canal system created jobs along the canal front and the mills set up close by, but the GRNC itself was still leaking money and getting worse with the advent of the rail system.

By 1859 the canal locks were in need of much repair and the town of Brantford foreclosed on the mortgage it had put up for the GRNC. A court decision put full ownership of the company in the City’s hands in 1861.

The Haldimand Navigation Company was formed to purchase a part of the GRNC, except what is known as the Brantford Cut, comprising of three locks, tow-path and the canal path. By 1880, the system lay desolate, neglected, abandoned and becoming a liability and safety concern to the city.

Mr. Alfred Watts had a solution. He would build a hydro-electric dynamo repurposing part of the canal as a water-race source to turn the turbines.

“Brantford was more than glad to deed this land to Mr. Watts in 1875, for the cost of one dollar,” writes author Bruce Emerson Hill in his book, “The Grand River Navigation Company”.

As part of the agreement, Mr. Watts was to maintain the canal property and protect the banks against the encroachments of the Grand River. By 1905, Watts’ dynamo was generating a capacity of 1,200 horsepower and was supplying electric power to many large industries popping up in the area.

A win-win, right? Not for everyone. There is the little matter of the illegal and unauthorized purchases of 6,121 shares of GRNC stock valued at £38,256.5 ($160,000.00 CAD) bought between July 9, 1834 and March 13, 1845. Six Nations has been demanding some form of restitution ever since.

The town of Indiana was built to offer homes to mill and warehouse workers and a community to live in which was within walking distance to the canal. The community of Indiana was the brainchild of David Thompson, who, with thinly vested interest, promoted the Grand River Navigation Company using his government connections. His mansion, “Ruthven” still stands on Highway 54 as a tourist attraction where it was built, it is said with Six Nations Trust Funds, in 1845 located at the edge of what was once Indiana, facing the Grand River. There is little trace of Indiana left except for the “gatehouse” at Ruthven Park.

This unauthorized use of Trust Funds has never been explained or dealt with by Canada or Brantford and remains on file today. In essence, the Township of Brantford had purchased stolen stocks from the GRNC and using those bogus stocks as authority to sell off the real estate, alienating the people of Six Nations from 360-acrea of their land and all future revenues, which could have been derived from this land had it not been stolen.

This claim has been registered several times in Six Nations petitions addressed to the Crown, but as of today, some 180 years later, there is still no settlement.

In closing, to say the Grand River Navigation Company was essential to the growth and establishment of the City of Brantford would be a true statement and even an understatement, but it most certainly is not a proud moment in Brantford/Six Nations relations and remains a stumbling block today.

Written by: Jim Windle windlejim@rocketmail.com

What happened to the Maple Crown?

The Mohawk community in “Canada” is home to about 13,000 people and sits astride the US-Canadian border aka “the line”. It is not a part of the United States nor is it a part of Canada, but it is also not quite independent either. It’s a place where the border, in some respects, doesn’t exist, even while it is also a constant presence in people’s daily lives. These boundaries, as well as modern Canadian common law, traces its historical origins to the United Kingdom. The common law of Canada became liable to the independent Mohawk legal order because, although they wrongfully do not recognize the Mohawk nation, in 1869 and again in 1919 the Mohawk nation adopted Prince Arthur as the new chief of the Canadian people under customary laws. In recognition of the historical tradition of military alliance with the British and peace treaty in 1701 and later including Captain-General (Commander-in-Chief) Sir Frederick Haldimand’s order in 1784, and the Seal of Upper Canada affixed to the Haldimand Proclamation that pre-determined Canada’s legal fate.

The 1784 order reads in part “Due to the early attachment of the Mohawks and the loss of their settlements in the American states”, “we have purchased a tract of land, six miles from each side of the Grand River, starting at Lake Erie and extending in that proportion to the head of said river, which them and their posterity shall enjoy forever”

In 1701, the Mohawk nation began a strong alliance with the British sovereign under the reign of Queen Anne. During the American Revolution, the Mohawk sided with the British and as the war concluded, they followed their leader Joseph (Thayendanega) Brant to the Haldimand Tract where they now have descendants at Grand River and the Bay of Quinte, including the Six NationsIndian Reserve near Brantford and Teyenadinaga near Bellville, Ontario. However, no matter where the nation resides, it is no longer recognized by the new Canadian governments.

[media-credit name=”Office of Governor General of Canada” align=”alignnone” width=”753″][/media-credit]

Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, served as the Governor-General of Canada from 1911 to 1916. He was the 10th general since the time of the Canadian Confederation and the first royal to serve as its general. Notably, in 1869 the Prince was made an Honorary Mohawk Chief. Alexander Graham Bell and many others had received this honorary distinction and esteem, however, in 1919 the Prince of Wales was condoled by the Confederacy chiefs and made a customary chief, no longer honorary but a full-blooded member of the Iroquois longhouse and subject to the longhouse customary laws. With him comes the people of Canada including the Crown of Confederation, much like the adoption of the Tuscarora in 1728, yet unlike the adoption of the Tuscarora the circle wampum representing ancient 50 Chief titles, was refashioned to confirm the new 51st Brother-chief and his people.

Here the Six Nations Indians were the hosts. A platform had been erected under the very shadow of the monument to the great “Thayendanegea,” and six Indian girls representing the Nations, stood on each side of the entranceway; attired in white they had sashes of maple, oak and pine, emblems of Canada, England, and their own people, while each carried baskets of roses decorated with streamers of Autumn leaves.

The Chiefs, in full array, remained standing until the Prince had taken his place under a canopy of royal purple. Then the Mohawk proceeded to hold a Council, Major Gordon Smith, Superintendent, having first introduced the guest of the day in appropriate terms.

The order of business was the discussion of the Indian name to be bestowed upon the Prince in his creation as a Chief and he was finally asked to select from three titles. The one chosen was Da-yon-hem-se-ia; (Dawn of Day) and when that was conferred he signed the council roll, the only white man who had previously done so with the exception of his uncle, the Duke of Connaught.

During that 1919 visit, the Six Nations people also gave a traditional title to the wife of then-reigning HRH King George V. The Queen Consort, Mary of Teck was adopted and given a traditional Haudenosaunee name by the people of Six Nations— Tanonrohnkiva, or “great woman, mother of love.”

In an essay, “A Royal Mohawk Chief” by E. Pauline Johnson, history recalls the very first condolence ceremony of a British royal to be made a Mohawk chief— Edward’s uncle, HRH Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, in 1869.

In this way, the customary law of the Six Nations and the common law of England and Canada helped shape the modern laws that rule all countries today. The peaceful consolidation of British realms was founded upon fair adoption of customary laws that allowed a continuity of law that defined territories in Canada (and therefore the British commonwealth) whether they were added by conquest, cession, or annexation. These laws were explicitly recognized in the colonial period and were carried from Britain to its colonies in the hope that the theory of customary law would protect and hold nations and territories that were strung together by England.

It is natural that legal custom binds courts to common laws and ensures continuity. However, it is also true that customary law binds those who upheld the common law, namely Britain’s crown and its commonwealth territories, such as Canada. The only instance in which customary law would not bind England’s servant countries is if the laws are inconsistent with the Crown sovereignty itself. Here, this is not the case.

Canada must recognize the Mohawk longhouse customary laws because its mother country and Royal, England, also recognized the Mohawk customary laws hundreds of years ago. These customary laws must be understood and respected and cannot be displaced by common law or ignored as if they were never created. One may simply look to the history of the English crown and its ties to the Mohawk nation to understand its bind.

The Mohawk Chapel near Brantford also received recognition from the English Government by the gift of a Royal Coat of Arms in 1786. It was elevated to the status of Chapel Royal In 1904, King Edward VII gave it the title of “His Majesty’s Chapel of the Mohawks” to revive the original name given to the Fort Hunter Chapel by Queen Anne.

Her Majesty’s Royal Chapel of the Mohawks is a simple wooden structure built in 1785 and given to the Mohawk Loyalists led by Joseph Brant. Joseph Brant’s remains were moved to the chapel from their original resting place in Burlington in 1850.

While no longer housed at the church, on special occasions a silver communion set given to the Mohawks by Queen Anne in 1711 is displayed and used. As well there is a triptych in the Mohawk language given by George III, a royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom and church bell given by George V, and a bible given by Queen Victoria. Queen Elizabeth has given two gifts: a communion chalice in 1984 commemorating the coming of the U.E. Loyalists (which included the Mohawks) and a set of eight silver handbells in 2010.

In 1924, the Canadian government attempted to destroy the Mohawk of Grand River council that they had legally joined in 1919.

The customary law of the nation-states that once a crown (antlers) is brought inside the longhouse, there it must remain. Therefore, in 1924 the Canadian government lost its new Maple Crown of confederation to the Mohawk nation through customary adoption, and in 1982 the Canadian government consented to the Queen of England to repatriate as subjects under the British house of commons and the Queen’s continuity to our allied relationship.

These laws and faiths pledged to the Mohawks must be honored and are subject to the Mohawk longhouse laws as they are customarily recognized. By law, these laws are embedded into common law and remain true for the whole land, therefore, Due to these extensive customary laws that are bound to the Royal British crown and the government of the Iroquois Confederacy (Six Nations of Indians), the Canadian governments must be liable to the ancient Mohawk legal order.

This thesis is a cross-disciplinary study of legal history and customary law. Respect for, and accommodation of local customary law has been a constant and integral feature of law in Britain since Anglo-Saxon times. It guided the emergence of the common law, and continues as a rule of law to the present day. Such respect and accommodation was an essential principle that permitted the peaceful consolidation of the British realms from its constituent parts. Continuity of law is a legal presumption whether territories have been added by conquest, cession or annexation. The principle respect for local legal custom was one of two schools of thought carried to Britain’s overseas colonies; the other was a theory that local customary law could be extinguished by non-recognition on the part of the British sovereign or his/her delegates. Nevertheless, customary laws and institutions were explicitly and implicitly recognized in the colonial period. The doctrine has a modern application with respect to the customary law ways of indigenous peoples wherever the common law has been extended overseas. Rights under customary law are distinguished from Aboriginal rights, though there is some overlap between the two. Customary law can only be extinguished by an express statute, or by clearly unavoidable implication. Legal customs are not invalid merely for being contrary to the common law. Common law defers to valid customary law as a matter of constitutional common law. But the common law provides tests by which courts can identify valid legal custom. Where a valid, unextinguished legal custom is found, courts are bound by the common law to apply it. Where customary law can be identified, it binds the servants and agents of the Crown, except when it is inconsistent with Crown sovereignty itself. (Source)

Per McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Arbour and LeBel JJ.: Under English colonial law, the pre-existing laws and interests of aboriginal societies were absorbed into the common law as rights upon the Crown’s assertion of sovereignty unless these rights were surrendered, extinguished or inconsistent with Crown sovereignty. The enactment of s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 accorded constitutional status to existing aboriginal and treaty rights, including the aboriginal rights recognized at common law. However, the government retained the jurisdiction to limit aboriginal rights for justifiable reasons in the pursuit of substantial and compelling public objectives. The test to establish an aboriginal right focuses on the integral, defining features of the relevant aboriginal society before the Crown’s assertion of sovereignty. A claimant must prove that a modern practice, custom or tradition has a reasonable degree of continuity with a practice, tradition or custom that was in existence prior to contact with the Europeans. The practice, tradition or custom must have been integral to the distinctive culture of the aboriginal people in the sense that it distinguished or characterized their traditional culture and lay at the core of the aboriginal people’s identity. (Source)

Customs and Usages

Long-time and long use, beyond the memory of man, suffices for right.
Custom is the best expounder of the law.
Custom is another law.
A prescriptive and legitimate custom overcomes the law.
Custom leads the willing, law compels or draws the unwilling.
Usage is the best interpreter of things.
Custom is the best interpreter of laws.
What is done contrary to the custom of our ancestors, neither pleases nor appears right.
Where two rights concur, the more ancient shall be preferred.

Arrowdale Snow Day (Brantford, Haldimand Province)

The Corporation of the City of Brantford voted in a colonial-styled meeting to sell the Arrowdale golf course, although the land is part of a questionable lease of 807-acre plot designated as a Reservation to host the influx of alien residents, a lease signed by 28 “Sachams” of the Six Nations, the plot is historically known as a white man’s reserve in local media.

After Royal eviction orders failed to vacate the squatters, a plot designated to prevent further encroachments of the Mohawk Farmlands.

Mohawk of the Grand River maintain that they possess the title to peaceably enjoy the lands forever and that they have never waived their Mohawk civil liberties or freedoms., they further maintain that that has never granted jurisdiction to any foreign alien governments, including municipalities as third party service providers pretending to be a government.

The lands are under federal lands claims processes. Yet, while Brantford released a policy on Native lands claims, asking that natives have patience while the process is ongoing, the city does not give the same level of commitment and restraint shown by the UE Mohawks, and further yet, earlier in 1994 the Brantford city mayor commissioned a lands claims report on the real-world value of the lands claimed by the city, including the 807-acre plot known as Arrowdale.

First Nations Policy (removed from website 2019, archived on waybackmachine 2014): http://www.Brantford.ca

The commission valued the land Brantford has claimed as its own at 250 billion, which the Arrowdale lands would have been designated a certain value, and this value is total risk, and the Arrowdale lands could be valued at anywhere between one dollar to 250 billion.

However even now this is being actively covered up by city staff, city lawyers and the council, not only do they propose to gain $20 plus million from the sale of UE Mohawk lands (Haldimand tract), they will be shedding known risks forwarded by their own 1994 lands claims commission.

This is a concern for good faith, and the legal landscape of the ongoing lands claims process, by compounding the risk, selling risk, and frustrating the title to this particular parcel of land. The UE Mohawk has informed the Council of the UE Mohawk’s desire to liberate the lands and place the land into the mohawk Lands registry system.

The city council has also been put on notice that they are intermeddling with trust property and that they have by their own action have personally become liable as de facto trustee for the real party in interest to the Haldimand Pledge and Proclamation and the true beneficiaries to the Haldimand Tract., namely the UEL Mohawk descendants.

Share this video and join the campaign to Save this endangered space on Facebook “save Arrowdale”, the city of Brantford may be discriminating against and segregation the lower-income citizens, why treat this common asset and community any different from the North ridge community.

It was not long ago this was seen as a necessity for spatial equality, the green space and Winterlands need to be preserved for the coming generations, If you care about these spaces do something to show the council you care.

Write them, sing to them, make plays in their names, let the records of history show you tried, and let the record show when they fail. The harm caused by spatial inequality is quantifiable and has real-world effects on mental and physical wellbeing.

Where did the Canadian society come from?

Who does Canada really think it is, no, really, I would like to know. Who are they, and where did they come from.

After the exodus from the American colonies, the British Loyalists became refugees and moves to the East, and some who remained close to the Six Nations and Brant Family moved to the Grand River and Bay of Quinte.

A major influx of colonists came after the Treaty of Paris and created total confusion of the Loyalists communities and terms such as First loyalist, Simcoe loyalist, and late loyalist came into effect. To limit these confusions an Order in Council on 1789, was passed, a Mark of Honor and distinction, including the Post Nominal UE, granted to the descendants of the named Loyalists, this is Canada’s only hereditary title.

Its believed by the Loyalist society, a federally incorporated genealogy society that nearly 10% of Canadian could qualify to use this Mark of Honor.

Before the loyalist-refugee society could move forward the Law that would govern the refugees had to be chosen, they decided to mimic the so-called “Peace, Order and Good Governance” British styled administration.

Although some Mohawks and the Six Nations people are seen today to be of loyalist descent, the Mohawk had its own laws, and they choose continuity of their ancient forms of governance, and natural-born freedoms.

The land along Grand River and Bay of Quinte was placed under a special trust when the Canadain Government confirmed the document in 1791 [Haldimand Proclamation], this pledged the faith of the “new” Canadian Government to the Mohawk on these two tracts of land, and they became Trustees for the Benefit of the Mohawk and Such others of the Six Nations of Indians, for greater certainty the UE Mohawk descendants.

Today, the Government of Canada and those in municipal offices to newcomers alike, who take the Oath of Allegiance, are in effect also, pledged to the Mohawks by this deed, this is a lifetime obligation.

This is the basis of any foundational structure that Canada can claim; when anyone takes the Oath of Office or Oath of Allegiance regardless of these words being visually embedded or verbally spoken, they are not required as part of the Oath to bind them to these laws, Mohawks and our lands. These are the pillars and foundations of the Canadian Society.

So who is Canada? They are a subservient nation to the Queen of England, the Queen and UEL Mohawks share a familial bond, and perpetual offensive and defensive alliance.

Many Canadians have ancestors who remained loyal to the British Crown in the American Revolution and, having found themselves on the losing side of the war, were forced to rebuild their lives in Britain’s Canadian colonies. Today, any descendants of Loyalists can still apply to the UELAC (United Empire Loyalists Association of Canada est 1914) to include the initials UE (for Unity of Empire) after their names because the title is hereditary.

Published February 19, 2020, Two Row Times Newspaper, Archived on Wayback Machine.

Arrowdale Municipal Golf Course (Brantford, Haldimand Province)

An undeveloped corner of the Orginal 807 (null surrender 30) acres designated as a white man’s reservation, is now an endangered space for the aging and growing community. Although the Brantford City Hall wants to sell off this small tract of land, the lands shall not be developed until a full audit of the cities risk and obligation to the U.E. Mohawks have been fully considered and assessed. The U.E. Mohawk is the named real party in interest to the Haldimand Pledge and Proclamation and the acquired territory known as the Haldimand Tract, The city has been put on notice of these special interests. The city is aware of the ongoing land claims processes in the courts, and they are aware of the desire of the U.E. Mohawks to recover the lands from the city as extraterritorial under the Haldimand Pledge and Mohawk lands registry system.

1763 Royal Proclamation

By Royal Proclamation dated October 7, 1763, the Imperial Crown recognized indigenous title in the North American colonies including Canada, reserved large tracts of land for Indians, and assumed fiduciary responsibilities to protect the indigenous peoples in the enjoyment of their inherent and aboriginal rights and in particular in the possession and use of their lands.

Pursuant to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, no lands were to be taken from indigenous people without their express consent. In particular: (a) colonial governments were forbidden to grant any unceded Indian lands; (b) private parties were forbidden to settle on unceded Indian lands; (c) private parties were forbidden to purchase or otherwise possess unceded Indian lands, and (d) a system of public purchases was adopted as the official mode of extinguishing Indian title.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 recognized the constitutional crime of “Misprision of Treason,” which has no legal meaning other than as a sanction against colonial officials and judges who prematurely assume jurisdiction.

Indeed, Blackstone’s authoritative Commentaries on the Law of England, published in 1825, gives as the classic example for misprision of treason the breach of faith to the Queen’s allies attendant upon disregarding the terms of a royal proclamation.

Furthermore, the newcomers’ taking of Indian land without the Indians’ prior consent is the classic form of “Pretence” and “great Fraud and Abuse” that the proclamation constitutionally intended to preclude.

These words, “Misprision of Treason”, “Pretence” and “Fraud” are the proclamation’s words, not mine. I do not say these words to shock; they are the words of existing law – and to bring the law into courts of law without using these words is impossible, for these words are the body and soul of the law.

The injustice resulting from the constitutionally prohibited premature assumption of jurisdiction by the newcomers courts and band councils imposes “serious mental harm” upon a “national, ethnical, racial or religious group,” and therefore constitutes “complicity in genocide” within the meaning articles 2(b) and 3(e) of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948.

Following the Royal Proclamation of 1763, there was a long series of cases that recognized and affirmed the nature and character of aboriginal rights. The series is too long to permit going into each one in the time allotted for the making of these considerations.

What the long series of cases confirms is that all the British crown ever claimed in virtue of its assertion of crown sovereignty was the exclusive right to buy jurisdiction and possession from the aboriginal people. And then only if the aboriginal people are, as the Royal Proclamation confirmed, “inclined to dispose” of the land.

Until that bilateral and consensual purchase is completed, the aboriginal and for greater certainty, the Mohawk people are constitutionally guaranteed the integrity and inviolability of their previously enjoyed jurisdiction and possession.

Fraudulent Surrender number 30, under the Haldimand Pledge, vandalized by 28 Sachems and Chiefs of the “Six Nation” on April 19, 1830, sold 807 acres of land – land that came to be known as the Brantford town plot – to the Crown for “5 shillings of lawful money of Upper Canada.” No wampums confirming the sale on record.

Forbidden Voice: Reflections of a Mohawk Indian

Have you heard about the Mohawk “curse” that was placed on a shopping mall in Brantford, Ontario many years ago? The Mohawks claim they own the land on which the mall is built.

Although Alma Greene did not originate this curse, she frequently and publicly reminded the Brantford City Council about it. Many people in that community believe it is no coincidence that Alma’s book, Forbidden Voice: Reflections of a Mohawk Indian, then reappeared (after years as being out of print) just as the shopping mall faced closure because of the likely shut down of the Eaton’s store in the mall.

Alma Greene was called Kawanohston (Gah-wonh-nos-doh, Forbidden Voice), a Mohawk of the Grand River Country near Brantford in Oniatarí:io (Southern Ontario). Daughter of the Turtle Clan Mother, Alma was descended from a long line of Iakotiiá:ner. She was a medicine woman, community activist, storyteller and, in later years, an author.

From childhood, Alma had a sense of her future as a healer and community leader. As a future Clan Mother, she was allowed to attend political meetings, sitting quietly beside her father who was a Council representative of the Confederacy. Early in her life, she became aware of how hard her people would have to fight to keep their identity; white society had already eroded most of their rights and, in her lifetime, she saw more of those rights slipping away.

All her life, she worked for justice for her people, but at the same time, she tried to encourage a deeper understanding of the Native community by the non-native community. She wanted to bridge the gap between the communities – to show to those outside her community the cultural richness of the Mohawk people. She told the legends of the Mohawks, first in the oral tradition, and later, in her late 70s, in her bestselling book, Forbidden Voice: Reflections of a Mohawk Indian.

A woman of tremendous energy, Alma worked as wife and mother, in a variety of jobs, and as a Clan Mother, healer, and activist. She was particularly noted for speaking her mind when Council members lacked the will to take action. A woman of great imagination and strong opinions, Alma also liked to have fun. She enjoyed dressing up in different costumes.

At the celebration of her book’s re-issue, chiefs and members of both Native and non-native communities recalled Alma’s influence. She was a woman of great courage with the ability to inspire others to take action. Her granddaughter, Lori Greene, is following in Alma’s footsteps, nurturing her people’s culture and traditions. There are many other young Native women across Canada like her who are active in their communities in many different roles.

Many like her who are active!

To name a few:

Melanie Goodchild, Ojibway, Pic River First Nation, Ontario, film producer, and entrepreneur.
Mary “Jill” Johnson, Micmac, Chapel Island First Nation, Nova Scotia, student.
Janet Smylie, Metis, Ontario, family physician, and community health consultant.
Miriam McNab, Cree, Gordon First Nation, Saskatchewan, university lecturer, and researcher.

More To Consider

Tales Of The Mohawks, as shown above, is the second book written by Clan Mother Alma Greene.

Alma Greene sure packed a lot into her life. She had the same kind of energy as some of our other strong Women – Sylvia Stark, Kay Macpherson, and Amelia Burritt, to name a few.

Much happened in Alma’s lifetime, including the repeal of legislation regarding traditional forms of governments recognized under the Indian Act, and England’s editorial direction used to polarize the two named factions, the Traditionalist and the U.E. Loyalist Mohawks. Portrayed in the Expositor, the traditional government was dissolved by the Canadian government; to begin the destruction of the traditional form of Mohawk self-government in which Clan Mother’s participated with the hereditary chiefs, to revolutionary conflict with the RCMP. Alma’s house was used as the Mohawk of Grand River post office, stamps and all.

GREENE, ALMA [Gah-Wonh-Nos-Doh] (1896-1983), was the author of two books of Mohawk culture and legend, and a clan mother and active member of the Six Nations Reserve. The daughter of a Turtle clan mother and a Confederacy Council representative, she lived on the reserve near Brantford, Ontario, her entire life. As a child she attended political meetings with her father, gaining there a sense of the erosion of Mohawk culture in the twentieth century that would fuel her later activities. She also was identified as having been born with a gift that would allow her to become a medicine woman. Her education in traditional medicine is outlined in her Forbidden Voice: Reflections of a Mohawk Indian (1972), which also contains many of the traditional stories she was told as a child. The book’s title is a translation of her name, Gahwonhnos-doh. A second book, Tales of the Mohawks (1975), and includes more Mohawk stories and legends. According to family members and others who knew Greene, her intent with both books was to keep alive Mohawk traditions and culture and to foster understanding between Native people and non-Natives. In addition to her published writing, Greene was a storyteller, medicine woman, and political activist. She achieved local notoriety for annually renewing a curse on a Brantford shopping mall that, she maintained, was built on land the Mohawks still owned. Forbidden Voice did not find a publisher for six years after it was completed but finally was printed by a British publisher, Hamlyn. It quickly became a best-seller in Canada, but when the initial press run sold out, Hamlyn declined to issue a second printing. Greene’s family—especially her granddaughter Lori, a current clan mother—lobbied for years to get Forbidden Voice reissued. Finally, in 1997, it was reprinted by Green Dragon Press.

References
oocities.org, http://www.oocities.org/soho/lofts/2954/almagreene.html (no longer available)
Greene, Alma. Forbidden Voice: Reflections of a Mohawk Indian. London: Hamlyn, 1972. Reprint, Toronto: Green Dragon Press, 1997. —. Tales of the Mohawks. N.p.: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1975.
National Archives of Canada, Indian Affairs RG 10, Volume 2284, File 57, 169-1. Letter to Seth Newhouse, Chief, Six Nations, addressed to the Ka-nyen-geh (Mohawk) Post Office, Ontario, from Duncan Scott, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, Ottawa, Canada, April 2, 1914.

Letter to King George, January 31, 1917. “War 1914-1918, Applications made by Indians for Discharges from the Armed Forces” addressed from the Ka-nyen-geh (Mohawk) Post Office, Ontario, Library and Archives of Canada (LAC), Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Fonds, RG-10, Vol. 6767, File 452-15, Part 1.

In 1924, the federal Indian Act unilaterally foisted a system of elected chiefs, a system of which Alma said, “I can tell you many of us do not recognize that elected council as our government.”

“Forbidden Voice remembered the dream of the old chief, about the pony with two heads, how the native head welcomed the blond head and his tribe to find refuge and shelter with the red men and how the blond stretched his neck around the red man’s head and killed him. Now the blond heads had made a law which was called the Indian Act to destroy the wonderful heritage of the natives who once rode the whole of the western hemisphere.”

Florence Howe said, “a leader is someone who knows how to control her life, & who has a vision of possibilities for others; who work to make that vision visible to others, to share it without trampling on other persons, but engaging them, enabling them to work for that vision as well.”

Alma worked with non-natives to help them understand her people.

Alma’s granddaughter recalls “Alma was called Forbidden Voice & I think it’s a great name. I feel ‘forbidden’ when I am in a room full of white people. I am there, but I feel ‘forbidden’ to speak by the dominant group, the ‘power over’ group. How dare I want to speak out, how dare I have a VOICE. I think they don’t care what I think or feel, maybe they don’t even see me.”

[/media-credit] SEPTEMBER 21: Medicine woman Alma Greene; 80; of the Six Nations Reserve at Ohsweken says corn husks tell her we’re in for a bad fall and a cold; cold winter. (Photo by Bob Olsen/Toronto Star via Getty Images)

Message from Alma Green, Turtle Clan Mother

The Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) People are free and Independent, who are governed by covenants made in very Ancient times by our Forebears and handed down to us their children. And these covenants protect our right and freedom to govern over our own affairs in our own way. And we consider these covenants to be a precious inheritance of our Children and Future Generations with which no one can interfere. And we say these words before the Iroquois children who have gone before us, the Iroquois Children who are with us yet and before the Iroquois Children who yet to be born.

Ne kati iakwanonhionni:ton iakwataewenha:wi ne’ iakwaianenha:wi tsi ni:ioht tsi iethihsotshera’kenha wahatihwake:ron ne wahi ne:’e ionkhiia:wi ne iakwahwatsirake:ron. Ne:’e iakwanonhstatonhatie tsi sken:nen tsi iakwarihwahtenti:tha onkwarihwa’shon:’a tsi niionkwariho:ten. Kano:ron tsi iakwaia’torehtha ken’ i:ken. iethiien’okon:’a tahnon ishatikonhsatonnontie rotiiena:’onh, ne kati iah onhka’ok thahatikwe:ni aionhkhi’nikonrha:ren. Ne iethiien’okon:’a o:nen ronatohetston, ne iethiien’okon:’a she:kon ronataten:ron. tahnon tehatikonhsatonnontie. ne raotihentenhson e’tho ni:ioht iakwawenninekens.

– Ta onen etho

Kawanohston (Alma Green Turtle Clan Mother)
Kanienkehaka Sa’tekariwateronon Akoiiane

Scouting the Haldimand Tract

THE COUNCIL MET and talked for many days. Through careful deliberation, they discerned a way forward. “Let us send men and women to scout this land; land that was promised for our use over 200 years ago, land six miles deep from each side of the Grand River.” With approval from the clan mothers, the idea was brought to the community, who also agreed.

From each clan and each nation of the Haudenosaunee, men and women were chosen.

From the clans of land: bear, wolf, and deer;
from the clans of water: turtle, eel, and beaver;
from the clans of air: snipe, hawk, and heron.
From the nations: Mohawk, Seneca, and Onondaga,
Cayuga, Oneida, and Tuscarora.

These were their instructions: “Go up and down the river called O:se Kenhionhata:tie (which in Mohawk means “willow river”) and see what the land is like, and whether the people who live in it are strong or weak, whether they are few or many, and whether the land they live in is good or bad, and whether the towns that they live in are unwalled or fortified, and whether the land is rich or poor, and whether there are trees in it or not. Be bold, and bring back some of the fruit of the land.”

So the scouts left the Six Nations Reserve, the land in which they had been living, less than five percent of the land promised them.

They went up the river to its headwaters,
travelling through Brantford and Paris,
Cambridge, Kitchener, and Waterloo,
Elora, Fergus, and Grand Valley,
to its source outside Dundalk.

They also went down the river to its mouth,
through Caledonia and Mount Healy,
Cayuga and Dunnville,
to its mouth at Port Maitland.

At the end of 40 days, they returned from scouting the land. They came to the council and to all the people and showed them the fruit of the land: corn, beans, and squash; BlackBerries and Google Maps. They reported: “We travelled the land that was promised and it is an abundant land; it flows with fish and syrup, and this is its fruit. We found the documents that show how the land was taken from us and the lease money cheated from us. Yet there are many people who live on the land. They have cut the trees and covered the land in boxes. They block the rivers so the fish cannot spawn and bring toxic waste to its headwaters. They are giants on the land with giant machines to tend their crops in straight rows, giant trails to travel quickly in straight lines, giant buildings to reach straight up in the sky.”

A woman from the bear clan spoke: “Let us go at once and rejuvenate this land, for we are strong enough. Do we not have proof that the land was set for our use and how it was unlawfully taken from us? Did not some of the people already know that this land was promised to us?”

But others who had gone with her said, “We are not able to go up against these people yet, for they are stronger than us. Their eyes only look at screens and their ears only listen through cords; they will not see or hear us.” And so they brought an unfavourable report back to the Haudenosaunee council, saying, “All the people that we saw in it are of great size. To ourselves we seemed insignificant, like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

By: Sara Brubacher, UNSETTLING THE WORD Biblical Experiments in Decolonization

Launching a drone photography website

Normally I wrap the code above in divs to control the behavior and place the video where I want it. Because I’m neurotic about clean code I insist on always using conditionals in cases like this to avoid leaving empty divs lying around when no video was added through the custom field. With the conditional added the code gets a bit expanded, but works the same way.

Dont mind me, I’m developing the podcast section. I used sample content to see what it will look like when I have special content to add, please stand by. But go ahead and check the articles and photos.

Items mentioned in this episode:

Transcript

Rob: In this Taberrific episode of Startups for the Rest of Us, Mike returns to the show. This is Startups for the Rest of Us episode 458.

Welcome to Startups for the Rest of Us, the podcast that helps developers, designers, and entrepreneurs be awesome at building, launching, and growing startups, whether you’ve built your fifth startup or you’re working on your first. I’m Rob.

Mike: And I’m Mike.

Rob: And we’re here to share our experiences to help you avoid the mistakes we’ve made on our journeys. Mike, it’s been a long time.

Mike: Hi. Yeah, it has. What? 10 episodes?

Rob: Ten episodes. I don’t think either of us realized that it would be that long. Just so listeners know, you and I had literally not spoken verbally. We’ve texted since that episode, but we have not spoken since episode 448.

Mike: That’s true.

Rob: We’re not talking that much. We tend to text and email a lot.

Mike: I hear that from people when I talk to them at MicroConf. They have the expectation or the inclination to believe that you and I talk either everyday or at least a couple of times a week. That’s totally not true. We’ll email back and forth. We will sometimes go for a couple of weeks without talking at all.

Rob: Yeah, if we don’t record the podcast. Ten episodes. What have you been doing with the enormous amount of free time you had not had? Showing up every week to record this and all that.

Mike: I’ve come to the realization that I was probably recovering from a pretty massive dose of burnout. I feel like I’m at the tail end of getting over that. How do I put this? There were times where I would just take an entire day off just because I felt like I needed it. Then, there are other times where I would just sit at my desk. I really wouldn’t feel like I was getting any work done. I would say that was the early stage when I started to take the time off.

I got to the point where I realize just sitting at my desk wasn’t actually doing anything. If I wasn’t actually being productive in any ways to perform, I’ll just get up and go do something else. What’s the point of sitting there if it’s not doing me any good? Because then, I’m just going to feel bad about it later and that’s not good for me either. It was rough to get through, but it was probably necessary, too.

Rob: It’s nice to have the luxury to be able to take that time and did not have to show up everyday for a season. It’s like over the course of years, you need to show up everyday in general, but when you’re burned out, you have to take time off. There’s really no other way to get around that. You have to get away from it. It’s hard to show up even once a week and be like, “All right. I’ve got to sit there and talk on the mic about stuff that I don’t really feel great about.” I’ve gone through months of time when I felt that way. When I listen back to the show, I can hear that in either one of us at a given time when they’re burned out.

It’s great you have that time to step away. You just got to give yourself permission to do that. That’s the thing. I often feel guilty when I do it, but you come back the next day or the next week assuming it’s not a long term depression or a chemical imbalance, which is totally very valid and real thing. But assuming it’s not that and you are just burned out because of the work or whatever it is, it’s super valuable. Each of us should give ourselves permission to do that.

Mike: Yeah. That was a good realization for me is just giving myself permission to walk away then come back later either when I felt like it or maybe the next day if I didn’t feel like it. Sometimes, there were definitely a couple of periods where I would take two or three days just because I didn’t feel like doing anything and I wasn’t being productive. You can’t beat yourself up all the time because that’s really what was happening to me. I don’t know how long it was going on, either.

When you’re sitting there trying to get work done, it’s like you’re concentrating more on beating yourself up about why you’re not getting things done, not focused, and not moving at all forward. Then, you are about taking a larger view of things saying, “How long does this been going on?” I try to forgive myself, I guess, for those periods of not being able to get stuff done. Like I said, things just has gotten a lot better over the past month or so.

Rob: We’ll dive into that. That’s the whole point of this episode. I have a couple of questions for you before we get into what you’ve been thinking about, how things have been with your health, your progress, and what’s going on. Have you been listening to the podcast?

Mike: I’ve not. I’ve gone into hermit mode.

Rob: Yes. You haven’t been on Twitter at all, right?

Mike: Aside from logging in very briefly on Twitter and Facebook just for authentication purposes for a couple of different things, I haven’t gone on either one of them. Nothing. No social media. I don’t even really watch the news or anything like that. There’s stuff going on. I’m just like, “I have no idea what’s happening in the world.” It’s just hermit mode.

Rob: Mike, do you miss it desperately and feel like there’s a huge Twitter-shaped hole in your heart?

Mike: No, not really.

Rob: Not at all?

Mike: I do miss some of the playful interactions and stuff like that. At the same time, I know they’re also distracting for me. I miss reconnecting with people just to shoot them a message here and there, and just make a comment on different things that are going on. At the same time, a lot of those doesn’t necessarily add any real value for me. I guess there’s a social contact, but I’ve tried to find personal social contacts outside of the internet.

Rob: That makes a lot of sense. I find it fascinating you have been listening to the podcast at all. The listeners who’ve been listening, they know the format. I’ve changed the format. I’ve been doing a lot of interviews, really trying to dig in and not just do the same old. We never wanted an interview show. There were enough interview shows. I’ve been trying to dig into people’s stories and the struggles. Done several Q&A episodes. I did a Q&A episode where Tracy Osborn came on and co-hosted with me. Jordan Gal came on for one.

That’s been actually the cool part for me. It was almost an excuse/motivation/force to me to figure out how I run the show on my own. It forced me to innovate. It’s the mother of invention to sit here, stare at the mic, and be like, I don’t just want to do what a lot of solo hosts do which is interviews. I don’t just want to monologue on the mic. Heaven knows I can sit and talk for 30 minutes. How do I try to up the game?

I’ve been spending a lot more time on the podcast than I used to. Over the course of the last several years, we show up and we talked about on the mic, but I’ve been trying to be really deliberate about trying to craft stories, just experimenting with new ideas, and new formats. It’s been cool. You can go back and listen to them now, I think your hermit mode is great, and it’s probably what you needed at this point. Someday, go back and listen, and let me know what you think.

The response I have asked in some of the episodes for folks to write in, or write me personally, or tweet, or somehow give their thoughts on the new format are overwhelmingly positive. I probably got 20-25 responses saying, “Yup, this is great.” “Keep being creative.” “Keep changing it up.” Some folks have mentioned that they missed the Q&A episodes probably the most. We used to do it every other episode, this Q&A.

That’s easy enough. I did one that went live today when we’re recording this. It was just me doing Q&A. I listen through it and it’s good. I think that works. I also like bringing experienced folks like Jordan Gal or Tracy to co-host with me on the Q&A. I think I’m finding my groove here in a way to keep it going.

Mike: Yeah. It’s interesting that you bring up the forced innovation. There’s a couple of things that come to mind in terms of just the podcast in general. I call it a general success and general longevity. The fact that we show up all the time, I guess until 10 episodes, we show up every week. Then, the past 10 has just been you showing up every week. The fact that it’s there and people can rely on it is not just a testament to the show, but it’s one of the reasons why it has been successful.

The other thing that you look at is you can continue to do the same thing over and over again, but eventually, maybe it gets boring. Maybe you decided that there’s other things that you want to do or there’s other ways to innovate on this show or whatever it is you’re working on. Those things don’t get done sometimes unless you force it because you’re either afraid to make changes or you decide, “I’m comfortable now. I don’t want to go through the…” I don’t want to call it pain but the uncomfortable mess of trying to change something that is already working. That applies in not just the podcast but in a lot of other places, too.

Rob: I would agree. I actually have a snippet from one email that we received from […]. He had a couple of comments, but one thing he said, it was indicative of what a lot of folks said. He said, “You asked for feedback about the new format. I’m really enjoying the in-depth nitty-gritty interviews with entrepreneurs who are in the trenches and openly talk about their successes, failures, and what they’re currently working on. It’s so valuable to hear what people think through the challenges, problems, and decisions. You’re a great interviewer because it doesn’t feel like you’re an interviewer, if that makes sense.”

I really appreciate that piece because I’m trying to deliberately do that. I’m not trying to be an investigative journalist. I’m trying to be a founder who’s just having a conversation with another founder much likely we would have whatever, at a bar, or at a conference in hallway track or something.

Back to his email, he says, “I also appreciate how you introduce the guest’s background yourself so you can go right into the good stuff with your guest.” That’s been very deliberate. The first 2-3 minutes, I hammer through their history so that we don’t have to sit there for 20 minutes talking through, “So, when did you become an entrepreneur?” Nobody really cares about that, in general. We really want to know what’s this pivotal piece of your story and let’s dig into that; that element of it.

His emails continues. He says, “I’ve learned so much from the topic-focused/listener-questions episodes as well.” That’s some more of the older format. “There’s so many concepts I’ve incorporated into my own thinking that have made me vastly more productive and effective.” It’s cool he rattles up a bunch. He said off the top of my head, relentless execution, road blocks versus speed bumps, almost all decisions are reversible, good glucose, moving a business forward, I could go on. He says, “I like the new format. I like the new voices, I like the stories, but the previous format is also great and it has taught me a lot.”

I appreciate that email. That was in general, indicative of the feedback that I saw. There was one person who wrote in and said, “I like the old format better.” That’s not super helpful without more description, but yeah, in general, it’s been a fun adventure.

Mike: That was cool.

Rob: How about the website? Have you been to the website? I’m about to announce it today, but about a week-and-a-half ago, brand new, Startups for the Rest of Us website went live.

Mike: I did see that.

Rob: It’s a new WordPress design. I’m sorry that I had to deprecate our 9½ year old WooTheme that we customized. Oh Mike, the humanity.

Mike: That was so hard to work with.

Rob: It’s not because it’s a WooTheme, it’s because it’s 9 years old. It was so crafty. Everything was breaking. We have plugins that were deprecated six years ago. Thanks again to Rich Staats at the Secret Stache who jumped in. The podcast feed would have died three months ago. We weren’t able to get new episodes in. He jumped in a day’s notice and hacked something in a plugin to get that going. That was cool. It keeps us going.

I don’t know if you know, but we’re now on Seriously Simple Podcast hosting which is Craig Hewitt’s WordPress plugin. We were in ProdPress and it hadn’t been touched in six years. Craig did us a favor, jumped in, and spent several hours migrating us over. We were just bailing the water out of the boat, in essence, to keep the podcast going. That’s cool. Now, we have a new theme. My hope is that we’re in a much better situation now.

Mike: Yup. In 2027, we can update it again.

Rob: It’s the thing I was thinking. It was like, “Oh my. We need to do this a little more often.”

Mike: It might be a good idea, but I think we both just got busy doing other things. It’s still work and it’s functional, it’s a little along the priority list.

Rob: Yup, that’s right.

Mike: That happens.

Rob: I was motivated by the fact that the momentum carried through were I was like, “Okay, here I am doing this show on my own, setting up interviews.” I kept going to the site and being just like, “I’m so bothered by this website.” The copy’s out of date. The greatest hits ends at 220, it’s like half of our podcast feed had been analyzed for greatest hit, and just the design and everything. It’s never fun to redesign a site, but it’s fun to have redesigned it. Now that it’s done, I’m glad that it’s all taken care of.

Mike: Now that it’s over and it looks nice, then it’s much better off.

Rob: Yeah. Episode 448 really struck a nerve. We received north of three dozen comments on that episode, tweets, emails to myself, emails to questions@startupsfortherestofus.com. It is the episode that received the most feedback, perhaps, of any episode in our 450 episode run.

Mike: Yeah. You can probably at least add 50%-75% to that. I’ve got a ton of things that came directly to me through email as well. I don’t know if anybody has tweeted at me. If they did, I apologize because I have not logged into Twitter since 2½ months ago. On top of that, I’ve got a ton of personal direct emails to me, as well.

Rob: That’s cool. Thank you to everyone who reached out, honestly. I’ve responded to a lot of them, but I read every single one of them. I know you did as well, the stuff that came to you, Mike. In general, it was just super encouraging. There was a voicemail last episode that I felt like it had a couple of questions. He had a piece that I felt summed it up nicely. He said, “I wanted to take Mike for his immense courage in being so open and vulnerable in sharing his Bluetick blues with the podcast community. As a fellow, still struggling in Boston area, B2B SaaS founder, I empathize with him in the challenge he’s facing and I deeply appreciate his willingness to share them in public. I wish him the best in deciding what’s next.”

I felt that was, in general, like, “Thanks for coming in the mic and doing this, both of you.” “Thanks for diving into this difficult topic in front of 20,000 listeners,” and, “This is helpful.” That’s what I keep hearing is, “This is helpful for me to hear as a founder to know that I’ve gone through this, I am going through this.” It really humanizes it and a lot resonated with a lot of people that we were able to dig into that for 40 minutes, 10 episodes ago.

Mike: Yeah. When that episode went live, I got inundated with a ton of emails upfront. Then, they just kept trickling in. They tapered off after three or four weeks. It was hard for me because I wanted to respond to every single one of them, but I just really wasn’t in a place where I could. I apologize to anyone who I didn’t respond to. I started replying to them and I got to a point where I just couldn’t. It was like I was seeing the same things over and over again to people which is continuing to beat me down, I guess. Apologies to anyone, but I do want to say, definitely, I want to thank anyone who did email me. I did appreciate it.

Rob: Mike, when we last left our hero, we were talking about […] of things. I have seven or eight bullet points here to cover and revisit. You don’t need an answer to all of them. Some of the answers maybe. I don’t know. I haven’t figured that out yet. To take 2½ months off and expect that everything is thought through, everything is fixed, I don’t think is realistic. I am curious and I’m sure the listeners are, too. Did you give this particular bullet a thought? What’s your conclusion? Where do you stand now? Where do you see it heading over the next months and years?

To start high level, a question I brought up a couple of times in that episode was, “Do you still want to be an entrepreneur?” and you said, “The answer is absolutely yes.” That’s cool. The other question towards the end, “Should you be an entrepreneur? Do you feel like this is what you should be doing? Or do you feel like you should—not want to, but should—take a step back? Do some consulting? Build up the bankroll? Take a salary job?” because healthcare is so expensive. I know salary jobs make both of us sad. They make me depressed, but they are so stable, they’re so much less stressful, and there’s less need for that intrinsic motivation. Did you have a chance to think through that stuff?

Mike: I did think about it. Coincidentally, it was maybe four or five days ago, I got an email from a recruiter who was asking me. He’s like, “Hey, I saw your job experiences and stuff on LinkedIn. There’s a position over here at Amazon that you’d be really good for.” I looked at it and I thought for eight or ten seconds, “Oh my God, No. I just can’t do that.” Not just the fact that it would be all the way up for in Summerville. It’s taken me an hour to get there, so no. Absolutely not. That’s part of why I went out on my own anyway.

The thought of going back to a full time employment, there is an attraction from just the healthcare standpoint, but at the same time the lack of flexibility. The past couple of months, we’ve been able to make things work because I’m working at home. My wife’s got her business. She’s in and out. We just tag team on all the stuff with the kids during the summer. It’ll be so much harder if I had a fulltime job. Yeah, I could probably make it work if I were working remotely, but it’s still just the hassle of working for somebody else.

I saw this Dilbert comic. My wife and I actually talked about this, me going back and working for somebody else. I remember coming across this Dilbert comic very recently that really summed it up. The boss comes in and he says to Dilbert, “Hey, good news. We just won this nationwide contracts to roll out a wireless network.” Dilbert says, “Newsflash: We don’t know how to roll out a wireless network nationwide.” The boss says, “How hard could it be to not roll out wires?” That completely sums up exactly why.

Don’t get me wrong. Not every company is like that. But there are some things that I see that companies done where you’re just like, “This is the dumbest thing ever.” Yet, it’s hard to say something in those situations. Then you come off as an adversarial employee, you’re not working with the team, it’s just like, “Come on. This is a dumb idea. I can’t believe you don’t see it.”

Rob: Did you just quote a Dilbert comic as a reason not to get a full-time job?

Mike: I think so.

Rob: I hear what you’re saying. Honestly, if you were to get a job, it should be for a startup. It should be for 10, 20, 30, person company. Probably, with funding so they have good benefits and it should be remote.

I get it. I’m not saying you should do this, but I think that not wanting to go back to the cubicle form or the hour commute, I get that. Neither of us should do that. But I don’t think you need to in this day and age.

Mike: Yeah, I totally agree. I could probably find something that’s remote. I thought a lot about it. Even if I had all the money in the world, I would still build stuff. The problem with that is that money isn’t necessarily a main driver for me. That’s the problem that I’ve run into. I have enough money in the bank and I have enough income coming in where I don’t have to work my ass off in order to have the things in life that make me happy. The problem is I’m not really making a ton of forward progress on a lot of things.

It really comes down to an existential question of, “What is it that actually drives me if it’s not money?” It used to be money because I was the only one in my household who was working and now I’m not. My wife is able to help out with the income side of things. It’s great because now I don’t have to push myself nearly as hard. But as a direct result of that, the question is, if I don’t have to work nearly as hard, why am I doing this? What’s the point?

It’s something I definitely struggled with, to be perfectly honest. I don’t have a great answer for it yet. I’m still working on that, but the reality is, that is what stopped me or prevented me for going full speed on a lot of stuff because I haven’t needed the money, so what’s the point?

Rob: That makes sense, although you’re not independently wealthy. You do have to work. If you stopped working altogether, it’s not like you can take five years off. When I was in your shoes, that was my motivation. It was to get to a point where I could take years off or the rest of my life to achieve financial freedom. It’s an overused term and it’s almost devoid of meaning at this point, but I wanted the ability to never have to work again. That was a big motivation for me. Does that not motivate you?

Mike: I feel like the runway’s long enough. It’s not like a hardcore motivator for me, if that makes sense. I’m not under the gun. I don’t have two months or whatever to make ends meet or I’m done and I have to go find a full time job because that’s not the position I’m in. I’m fine for probably several years. That’s not a big deal. The problem is that there are going to be points along the way.

Let’s say Bluetick completely went away, for example, I lose that income. Yeah, I would probably be in a little bit of trouble, but I would still have plenty of runway left to figure out what I was doing at that point. The question is how do I address that? What do I really want? What am I really looking for?

I don’t necessarily have specific answers for that. I’m still working on those. I agree that the financial freedom aspect of it is a good and worthy goal. The question is, what is it that I’m really looking for above and beyond that? If I have that, what am I going to do? What’s going to drive me and motivate me? Even if I achieved that, then what’s next? What’s going to prevent me from just saying, “Okay, now what?”

Rob: That’s so interesting. I hear you, but I would get to that point then say, now what? I have gotten to that point a number of times. For me, quitting a salary job was this huge goal of mine. I quit it and went full time contracting, remote, consulting, in, let’s say, 2002 or 2003. I remembered being like, “Oh my gosh! This is it. I’ve dreamed of this for 20 years since I was in high school. I wanted to have this remote job.” And I did. Six months later, I said, “Now what?”

You know what “now what?” for me was? It was, “Huh, I’m bored of working dollars for hours. I want a product. I want a product to support me.” Then, in 2008, I’ve got a full time income from products. I remember loving it for about a year. Then, I said, “Now what? I’m bored. I needed to do something bigger.” That was podcast, conference book, Micropreneur Academy. Then, it was HitTail. It was like, “I need to level up.” Then, after that it was Drip. After Drip, it was, “Now what?” Now, I spend more time in the podcast than I do in TinySeed.

Your and my motivations do not have to be the same thing. That’s not what I’m saying. I do think that the best entrepreneurs I know have a driving motivating factor. It is either to create—to build stuff that people use—or to achieve. There are a bunch of folks who just want to build a big company. They want to build the Amazon, or Google, or the Uber. That’s not my motivation. My motivation has always been to create interesting things that other people can use. I’m sure there are other motivations.

The thing that I’ve seen, if you ever heard of the Enneagram, it’s a personality test. It’s like the Myers-Briggs or whatever. It’ll tell you, “This is what motivates you and this is what doesn’t.” I’d be fascinated for you to take that. Whether you talk about it on the show or you just take it for yourself to get some insight into your likes, dislikes, your pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, and your motivations.

I think that until you know that, it’s going to be a challenge for you to really be motivated to launch products because this […] is hard. That’s what we’ve experienced. It is hard to do this. Without a real drive of, “Man, I need financial freedom,” or, “I need to create stuff that a bunch of people can use,” or, “I just need to escape this inner voice in my head that probably my dad or my mom put in me.”

These are the motivations that I’ve seen drive entrepreneurs to do really interesting things. I don’t even mean great things, you don’t have to build a multimillion dollar business. That’s not what Startups for the Rest of Us is about. It can just be about shipping cool things into the world that people use and showing up everyday to do it.

Mike: Yeah. Part of my question that I’m kicking around in my head is, what is it that I want? All of the things you talked about are like, different people have different goals. Some may want to build the next Amazon and for you personally, that doesn’t resonate. It’s not what you want. But when you’re talking about your journey from going to self employment to building a product then to HitTail, Drip, and TinySeed, that whole journey is a series of challenges that you’re undertaking.

In my mind, what I’m really struggling with is what is the challenge that I actually want to tackle? What is it that I personally want to do. That’s not something that comes over night. Especially, if you have the time to figure out what it is you want to do rather to be in having some forcing function that makes you decide within a week. Within a week, that’s a time constraint. You have to deal with the constraints right there and then versus I’m in a position where I can take some time to figure out what it is I actually want, reflect on exactly why that is, and why it’s going to make me happy. If it’s not going to make me happy, I don’t want to do it.

Rob: You’re right. Until you’ve been there, it’s hard to understand how saying, “I can move and live anywhere,” actually makes it a lot harder. It’s tough to say, “I can build or do anything. I have a few years of runway,” makes the choice a lot harder because there is no forcing function for you to make a decision. There’s not a ton of things pressing on you to do it. I hear what you’re saying.

It sounds like, “Here’s what I’d like to do with this because this is really an interesting topic.” I noted, “What is the challenge that Mike wants to tackle? Why is he doing this?” I want to revisit this. I think that you should give a thought, do a retreat, do whatever it is that you’re going to do to figure that out. Take the Enneagram. I’ll just put the link. It’s not a silver bullet. Take it. Take some personality test and do some thinking and stuff. Think about what it is you want to do. This is a time to be deliberate about these things.

The mistakes that I’ve seen some founders make, it’s a founder I have in mind in particular, he sold a company and sold it for several hundred thousand dollars and didn’t have enough to retire, but he could take time off. He didn’t take time off. He made a quick decision that said, “I got to get right back on.” He launched this next thing within a few weeks. It was a mistake because it was almost like a rebound, like a rebound startup or like a rebound idea.

You’re not in a position to where you’re shutting Bluetick down and looking for another thing. You are in a place where you have the luxury of taking a month or two, set a timeline so you don’t take a year or two, but figure it out. That’d be my advice. What do you think? Do you think I’m full of BS?

Mike: Well yeah, but no. That’s a great way to phrase that question. I like that. An excellent point about the fact that when you got a blank slate, you can live anywhere, and you can do anything, what is it that you’re going to do? When you’re facing the problem, there’s all those constraints. It helps guide you in the right direction. But when you have no constraints or very, very few that makes it a lot harder. That’s the position I’m in. I have much fewer constraints on me now than I probably did five or six years ago.

Rob: The paradox of choice.

Mike: Yeah. I’m just trying to make sure that I make the right choice for myself, go in a direction that is going to make me happy, and that’s actually what I want to do. I remember a time when I was a kid. I was like, “I want to do this. I want to do this. I want to do this.”

Fast forward 30 years and you don’t have time in your life to do all of those things. The question I’m trying to answer for myself is, in 10 years, or 15, or 20 years, when I look back on my life, what is it that I want to have achieved? What would make me happy? Or what do I believe would make me happy? That’s what I’m trying to figure out right now.

Colonel Joseph Brant Statue

I had a gut feeling I was going to find this coin at the Crossroads Antique market. This replica was under five dollars, the original bronze coins have been seen online and sold for over 400 dollars. I’m always on the lookout for the original coin. Many of the coins were modified and made into ribboned amulets.

The Joseph Brant Memorial cost $16,000 and was unveiled in Victoria Square October 13 , 1886 by the Hon. John Beverly Robinson , Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. The cornerstone was laid earlier on August 11, 1886, by Chief Ka-non-kwe-yo-teh.

Victoria Square in Brantford, designed by the British born architect John Turner, is laid out in the plan of the Union Jack Flag with four diagonal paths intersecting at the centre where the Joseph Brant Memorial was unveiled in 1886 at a cost of $16,000.

The memorial consists of a colossal statue of Brant, nine feet in height, two groups of three life sized figures each, and two trophies flanking the sides of the upper base, and four bassi-relievi upon the lower base, which terminates in a step upon the ground line.

The pedestal is of gray granite, quarried near Penryn, Cornwall, England and weighs slightly less than fifty tons. The stone is of the very finest quality and chosen with regard to a coarse grain.

The right hand group as one faces the memorial shows chiefs of the Mohawk, Tuscarora, and Oneida Nations, furnished with the scalping knife, spear, and pipe of peace. The left-hand group shows the Seneca, Onondaga, and Cayuga Natives, with the bow and arrows, war-club, and flintlock gun. The trophies consist of artistic arrangements of their weapons and instruments, including snowshoes and lacrosse sticks. The totems of the Six Nations, the bear, the wolf and the tortoise, are introduced in the memorial, especially at the request of the Indians themselves.

On the front of the lower base is a bas-relief, showing about 15 Indians engaged in a war dance. At the back another relief shows Brant addressing the chiefs in council.

Two circular reliefs at the sides are devoted to the bear, with winter Canadian scenery, pines, etc., and the owl with maple tree foliage etc.

The trophy at the back of the memorial exhibits the designations of the six tribes or nations and upon the trophy in front is inscribed in bold characters the single word “Thayendanegea”.

Her Majesty’s Government recognized the importance of the work by granting 13 bronze cannon weighing about 600 pounds each, to be melted and used in the casting of several statues. Some of these guns were over a hundred years old, formerly cast at Woolwich and a number of them were in use during the Crimean War.

The sculptor, Percy Wood of London, England, received his education at University College, London, England, and studied medicine for some little time. The knowledge of anatomy thus acquired has doubtless proved serviceable in the profession which he subsequently adopted.

The inscription at the memorial reads:

This national monument erected by the Brant Memorial Association, incorporated 41 Vic. Ch. 62 S.O. to

THAYENDANEGEA

(Colonel) Capt. Joseph Brant, born 1742, died 1807, interred at the Mohawk Church and to the Six Nations Indians for their long and faithful services on behalf of the British Crown and their strict observance to treaties.

Contributed to by the Six Nations Indians, the Chippewas, the Dominion of Canada, Province of Ontario,the City of Brantford, the Counties of Brant and Bruce, and private subscriptions.

The British Government presented bronze cannons for the statues.

Patrons: H.R.H. Duke of Connaught, the Marquis of Lorne, The Earl of Dufferin, the Marquis of Lansdowne.

Directors: Allen Cleghorn, president; I. Cockshutt, v.p.; Robt. Henry, treas.; G. H. Muirhead, sec.; Alex Robertson, Lt.-Col. Gilkison, Wm. Paterson, M.P.; C.B. Heyd, Mayor; H. McK. Wilson, Q.C.; Wm. Buck, J. W. Digby, M.D.; A. J. Wilkes, LL.B.; Dan’l Burt, Warden C.B.; Wm. Watt, R. Henwood, M.D.; J. H. Stratford.

Chiefs: Ska-na-wa-dih, Ah-wem-in-neh; Ska-ko-ka-nyes, Kenehdageh, Ka-non-kwe-yo-teh, A. G. Smith, Interpreter.

Sculptor: Percy Wood, (gained by international competition).
Cornerstone laid August 11, 1886, by Chief Ka-non-kwe-yo-teh.

Unveiled October 13th by the Hon. J. B. Robinson, Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario.