-moz-user-select:none; -webkit-user-select:none; -khtml-user-select:none; -ms-user-select:none; user-select:none;

Friday, May 7, 2010

Pages 16-23 "Within the Bounds of a Subsistence Oriented Culture..." (Scott E. Hastings Jr. 1982) Native Vermonters in the Miller Pond Watershed: Heritage and Change...

In sum, the East Side of the watershed appears to be the home of a working-class, native backwoods community of Vermonters with a significant but unmentioned Abenaki heritage.

RURAL LIFESTYLE
By contrast, many things unite native rural Vermonters, regardless of history. Wheter farmers, loggers, or contractors, they have in common a rural quality of life and a common interest in retaining their homes, community integrity, and independence. Although I think there are differences between the Abenaki, backwoods and classic Vermonters (Fifield, 1988). In some respects the nature of the land, as well as generatons of institutional assimilation and ongoing social contact, have served to blur these differences. At times, a backwoods person may identitfy with classic values, or, particularly as farms close down, classic types might engage in backwoods behavior. The distinctions I have made, then, are somewhat arbitrary, and emically not usually recognized. They serve in this paper as conceptual frameworks for understanding the subtle dynamics and distinctions between people who collectively make up the category "Native Vermonters", which is an emic category. A synonymous term I will use is the term "locals".

A. Physical Appearance and General Impressions
Native Vermonters tend to speak, dress, live and eat practical things. There is no great reward to be had for getting above one's neighbor, and impressing others is not a valued quality, particularly amongst the backwoods type. In my interviews with people I noted a few who had a strong native accent, making it difficult to understand them. Apparently this is also experienced by middle class people raised in outlying Upper Valley towns, such as Hanover 14. On at least one occasion, I wondered if members of one family weren't referring my questions to a more articulate (in my lingo, that is) member of the family. Friends of mine living in the area have also related instances of not being able to communicate with certain family members who were nonetheless understood by their own family. More generally, the use of ain't and other non-standard English terms and phrases frequently distinguishes locals from outsiders as well. Finally, min, and one woman frequently used profanity in our conversations, and would sometimes apologize for this as they talked.
The possessions and style of locals are not flashy or stylish in appearance, which would only make them stand apart from their neighbors, but they certainly are comfortable and serve their purpose. In the past, people didn't have a lot of store bought items, because the economy was still linked to the family farm and to the homemaker, who coud sew or knit her own clothes, etc. No doubt mail order catalogues also provided clothing and other necessary manufactured items, as well as local stores. Clothing, then, is one visual determinant between native and flatlander. People I visited often wore old T-shirts or faded dresses, even torn or stained clothing; never anything dressy or fashion conscious. Here again, class economics play into this. The stereotypical Vermonter wears simple, practical clothes, suitable for work. At the Tunbridge fair, I observed men in green farm pants. Other articles include a plaid wool jacket, usually green or red and black checked, work boots--such as Sorrels, but not exclusively, or rubber farm boots, a stocking or baseball cap, and of course an
American pick up truck, covered with dirt, dust, and rust.
As mentioned earlier, no one paints their houses often, and the yards are frequently have old unrepaired barns, sheds, or vehicles. Inside, the furniture and decor looks lived in. By contrast, the second home of a New Hampshire property owner looked spotless and uncluttered, with the furniture resembling a store display. The native Vermonter who has lived in the same house for decades, or even generations, however, fills the house with him/herself. Things do not necessarily match, they are added and incorporated over time. To make a showpiece of one's home has no value, although there is certainly nothing squalid or unkempt about it.

B. Community
People in this area traditionally associate themselves with a particular town, and even particular villages. Some villages communicated more with others, depending upon religious affiliation and class differences (Fifield, 1988). One woman I interviewed, for instance, suggested that since she grew up in Thetford, she couldn't tell me much about Post Mills, a village of Thetford, where she had lived since her marriage. Some people I interviewed were born and raided in the same town, while others had moved to their present house from a neighboring town, years ago. Some families had occupied a particular area for generations, and roads or hills took their name. This was true for both the backwoods and the classic families.
Being with one's family and neighbors remains a mainstay of the culture. Of the various people I survey 15 the majority appeared to be living with, adjacent to or within a few lots of at least one relative--generally a parent and child, occasionally a brother. In one case, the father and brothers appeared to share living space, and to run the family logging operation. Within neighboring towns, several more relativs could be found--giving one almost a sense of dynasty--certainly a sense of kindred. Older interviewees discussed how their children helped them with weatherizing, home repairs, or cooking at family gatherings. Frequently these offspring and even grandchildren would run by us as we talked, or be working in another part of the yard. When asked, people could generally tell me about one or more of their relatives--cousins, half-brother, etc. In one case, four generations were present. I also learned that one must "...be careful what you say, you never know who might be related...". I was in fact frequently surprised to find out either through perusing town records, or work of mouth, just how true this was. Beyond tha, even when I mentioned a non-relative acquainted with other interviewees, I found they were able to pass on new information about that person, and enjoyed hearing updates. This only reinforced my sense of a connected community.
In some ways, certainly for the older generations, people in this area are insulated from metropolitan American society. While certainly some interviewees had worked out of the state (the army being one such employer), some people have never travelled to nearby urban area, such as Boston, and most have little occasion to do so. While TV doubtless diminishes porvincial identification, rural Vermont remains inaccessible to all but one, at most two stations, and the same can be said about radio. There are no movie houses in these towns, and the library hours are limited as are the selections. As one gets away from the Connecticut River, there are hardly any shops, other than the local store and gas pump in each village. Women, particularly elderly, may not drive. Furthermore, during winter, going out is a major undertaking.
One's sphere of activity and knowledge, then continues to be social relations with family and townsfolk--church--and work. Some common social activities include VCR/TV, talking on the CB radio, Lion's Club or other clubs, Volunteer Fire Department and town government, going into town for supplies, catching up on gossip and the mail, Church drinking, and family get-togethers. The people value self-reliance and private property, yet community sharing and neighborliness are equally important. Barn-raising, voluteerism, pulling a guy out of the snow or mud, etc. are some examples. Still today, one finds people almost eager to stop for a stranded car, willing to let one come into a house for a phone call, to jump start or pull a car our free of charge, or even offering to fix a broken snowmobile.
People claim that in the passt, everyone knew everyone in town, and felt free to drop in on each other anytime. My own experience has been, that in complete contrast to the stereotype of the close-mouthed, taciturn Yankee, people are friendly, relaxed, and enjoy chatting--finding no problem with talking an hour or more if one is willing to listen. In part, I believe this reflects the fact that many of my interviewees were self-employed, or unemployed dued to disability or retirement. In a large way, these people seemed almost dying to talk, tell their stories, and were "...tickled..." that I had bothered to come by. As one person said, he had "...nothing to do and lots of time to do it in..."
Even economic exchanges reflect a sense of trust and community feeling. Rather than making a fast buck off of one's neighbor, the exchange/ sale of commodities and services involves a social interaction. In town, I am never asked to provide ID to write a check; likewise many people buy items from the local store on personal credit. If one cheats another, the town quickly knows. News travels fast, and people rely on social networks for doing business.

Politically
Most people think in terms of their particular locale. Identification with one's town remains strong. Traditionally, each town has retained its sense of autonomy, often resisting the State when it disagreed with its policies. Vermonters even today dislike any sort of coercive program, even if it might appear to their advantage. For instance, the state has introduced programs to alleviate taxation on agricutlural land. While people I interviewed too advantage of these programs, they nonetheless implied to me that the state was screwing them, since they would be severely penalized for any reniging on their part. Likewise, some Vermonters dislike coercive programs such as  the seat belt law, gun control, immunizations and so on. Environmentalist legislation requiring expensive septic systems, zoning laws, and the appropriation of lands for state parks are seen as intrusive violations of property rights. Traditionally, town government has been run by public meeting, where everyone can be heard, and likewise one's votes and stances are clear to all. People often get into heated arguments, and can be very direct and frank, particularly if they feel they are being railroaded or cheated. Reports of selectmen's meetings can at times be entertaining, if one is not directly involved in the conflict.
On a personal level, social conformity has been maintained by public pressure. In the four towns in this ara, there is at most one constable, often part-time at that. Until recently, for instance, no one locked their doors as they had no reason to fear their neighbors. On the other hand, people of the backwoods type seem quite willing to look the other of the law, as long as their interests
are not involved. In Strafford, for instance, there is one town drunk descended from one of the original families, who can daily be seen slowly cruising along in his pick-up, beer in hand. Rather than defer to official authority, a backwoods native tends to settle his own disputes, even if it involves violence. Thus, the reputation for being "ornery". In local parlance, the term is "rowdy", which suggests tolerance for individualistic behavior. In my interviews, I heard a number of stories wherein backwoods people used force to punish violations-particularly against wives or property. 16 Stories varied from shooting a man dead in the house (decades ago), banging a neighbor's head against a wall (recently), selling fire to a logging rig in retallation, and grazing a trespasser's bullock's with gunshot. I likewise heard threats to kill and any future marauders, and was shown household weaponry. Further contributing to the macho impression, rifles are openly displayed on the backs of pick-up trucks, regardless of the season.

C. Ecological Relationships
The land has a particularly strong function--serving as a focus of activity, although not necessarily providing one's livelihood. Activities include, ATV/ snowmobiling, weatherizing, shoveling and plowing snow and ice, doing odd jobs and repairs, stoking the woodstove, felling trees, splitting and stacking wood, gardening, berrypicking, harvesting, pruning trees, sugaring, caring for animals, fishing, hunting, trapping, etc. Activities vary according to the season, and many do have economic value. Even though many native Vermonters do not get their sole support from these activities, still, they do bring in something useful: food, fuel, extra income, or tax abatement via the current use program, and significantly contribute to the lifestyle of the people. These activities tie the people to their land and heritage. Also, the lack of entertainment such as found in urban centers reflects the fact that the people here have plenty do right in their own backyards and neighborhoods.

The Dairy Farm: Classic Image of Land Use
In State reports, and public debate, agriculture is seen to be the backbone of rural Vermont. To quote Scott Dean of St. Albans: "...Agriculture is the foundation of our economy and culture...(Report of the Governor's Commission, 1988:7)." Yet only certain types of agriculture really seem to "count". One former farmer in Strafford related to me how he had decided to get out of farming, yet still saw himself as one of the only four farmers left in town. He ignored the operation of a number of sheep and horse farms, as well as some homesteaders with as many livestock, al beit smaller and more  varied, and the commerical apple orchard on Old City Falls road. Seemingly, a farmer to him was a cattle farmer; or other types of agriculture were not included in his thinking. Likewise, most official efforts at saving the rural character of Vermont are aimed at the dairy industry.
Statewide, dairying does account for 79% of Vermont's agriculture (meeks, 1986: 283). On the other hand, most of the land in Vermont and in this watershed really isn't suitable to modern dairying farming needs (Meeks, 1986: 262-272), and dairying has not been competetive with other occupations. In fact, "...by the early 1980's, Vermont agriculture was responsible for only 5% of the gross state product...(Meeks, 1986: 274)". Cultural explanations must be sought to explain the popular importance of the Vermont cow farm.
Emically, the preference for dairy farms is related to its function of keeping open fields, since dairy farms require more land to produce comparable income than other types of farms (Meeks: 282-297).
Public debate has centered around the fear that farms are closing down, and will either become overgrown, or be sold to developers, ultimately to the environmental degradation of Vermont (Report of the Governor's Commission 1988: 13-15). In response to these concerns, the Vermont legislature recently passed Act 200, to require towns to plan development, and to enable them to impose impact fees on developers. Likewise, the current use program has been in effect to encourage farmers to stay in farming. Land conservation trusts have begun to organize in the watershed area, with one Strafford's selectmen a primary supporter and organizer. Specifically, the Vermont Land Trust has decided to use Strafford as a model town (Heil, 1988:1,8). Townspeople have been meeting to discuss these ideas, design and send out surveys, and develope an inventory format aimed towards promoting open space preservation.
reforestation is bemoaned by classic Vermonters as a loss of agriculture potential, a return to the wilderness which earlier white settlers improved and subdued. "...Small farmers have enhanced the beauty of our countryside in a way that nature cannot reproduce,' wrote Dr. D.S. Peterson of Williston...(Report, 1988: 7)". State biologists argue that deer and aother wildlife depend on open, cleared areas to thrive. I did find one classic interviewee who identified a deer yard, where, according to him, once one was sure of a sucessful hunt, but now overgrown, had few deer. In light of this attitude, mowing hay and grazing animals has almost become a public service, resmebland of suburban lawn upkeep. The 'good' Vermonter, then, maitains his property according to agriculturist values, but increasingly, without the traditional economic incentive. This hobby farming is derided by natives as "make-believe". In fact, dairy farmers themselves stand to benefit from less competition as other farms close down (Meeks, 1986: 282). "...Ironically, it is mainly newcomers who are most vocal about preserving Vermont farmland and farming...(Meeks, 1986: 252)".
Since farming requires labor, the "good" Vermonter likewise works both himself and the land--he sees himself as a caretaker, a farmer who controls the ecology of the area according to a certain ideal. Along with aversion to the forest goes the preference for hardwoods, not only for their value as fuel or forestry products, but also for the light they let in. In areas of large farms, and generally near the classic farms, the pines are removed and the view is often expansive and sunny. Pine trees are referred to as wolves, reflecting their propensity to grow up in untended fields, and, I think, the perception that they are unwanted intrusions on this man-made landscape.
Interestingly, I found that many of the backwoods types, particularly in Thetford, were living amongst the pines, preferring the privacy they offer, perhaps not minding their presence. Perhaps this reflects a different ecological orientation also. One Abenaki interviewee, for instance noted that there used to be more pines in his area. My impression was that he bemoaned their loss. The regional name for the Abenaki was Coos, meaning white pine, because this area was heavy with the species. Unlike the southern New England peoples who maintained parklike woods to encourage the passage of deer, the northern Abenaki cleared minimally, did not burn extensively (Cronon, 1983:50), and depended more on animals such as bear, beaver, and moose (Day, 1978: 154), who thrive in undisturbed forest areas (Johnson, 1980). To whites, the pines indicate weeds grown up in fields. But another way to look at it is that the land is healing itself. As Howard Knight put it, "...the farmer is the closest to the land, but he still rapes the rapes the earth..." Of course, another explanation for the
landscape/ settlement pattern is that the pine covered lands represent the least agriculturally valuable areas, which were briefly settled, then abandoned (Wilson, 1936: 97-115), thus becoming and remaining more accessible to working class non-farm people, including Abenaki family members 17.
Although many natives' ancestors are listed in the Gazetter as farmers (Child, 1888), many, if not most of the so called farmers, past and present, may have only farmed part time, as a supplement or complement to other income. In fact the definition of a farm has always been sticky, including just about any operation larger than three acres, even in 1959 (Meeks, 1986: 256) Only those farmers with prime farmland could really maintain profitable commercial farms, so that dairy farmers represent a very specific class, historical period, and geographic area, even within the state as a whole. The hilly areas of this particular watershed do not lend themselves to modern farming, and very few traditional farms of the area remain in operation 18.
These are however, other agricultural and land-use related possibilities which are and have been exploited by the residents of this area, including as I have mentioned, beef cattle, sheep, small livestock, produce lumber, and resort/ recreational use such as horses, skiing, hiking, games reserves, fishing, etc. However the lots required for other agricultural enterprises are often smaller than those required for commercial dairying (Meeks, 1986: 283), and often are smaller than feasible for current use programs. They do not serve the function of keeping large tracts of land in pasture, which meets the image and desires of the classic image-makers. Recreational programs do use large tracts of land, but are still practices by the backwoods Vermonter today. These folks not only do not farm now, but have engaged in other occupations for generations, suggesting that in this area at least, the classic image of the hard-working dairy farmer amidst pastoral rolling pastures, which activists are trying to rescue, does not fit many North Country people who are nonetheless both rural and native.

Hunting: Backwoods Inheritance
A significant activity in this area is the pursuit of wild game. Since this was the traditional Abenaki subsistance activity which distinguished them from British settlers (Thomas, 1976: 9,10). I was particularly interested to see what role this activity played inthe lives of local people today. Letters to the local newspaper, the Valley News, (December 1987-January 1988) suggested that to some readers, hunting and trapping are outdated activities, considered to be obsolete, unnecessary, and even cruel. I had further read that newer residents tend to make land less accessible, particularly in Windsor and Orange counties, by posting (Meeks, 1986: 245).
What I found from talking to hunters and native residents, however, was that hunting is almost taken for granted. Its significance seemed slightly greater to those backwoos types I interviewed, although classics and southern New Englanders also participate. Locally, raccoon hunting, ice fishing (one the Connecticut) deer hunting, trapping, birding, and jacking 19 were all viaable pursuits. Despite
nonhunters' associations with male aggression, hunting was not exclusively a male domain, as I did talk with a woman hunter. I was also told by the head of the trappers' association, Bill Doyle, that significant numbers of women are learning to trap in Vermont. In Abenaki stories (Masta, 1943) and from conversations with John Moody, I have learned that Abenaki women also hunted and fished. In the recent fish-ins, one woman in particular brought in the best fishing catches. Likewise, the Thetford area chief twice told me about his own grandmother and her prowess and aim with both arrows and knives. On the other hand, I have never actually seen a woman in the field in this area. Some of the women I spoke with expressed reservations about killing, even when, for instance, a raccoon was pestering the garbage. One old Abenaki woman from Beaver Meadow, not too far from Strafford, reportedly used to shout to hunters "...I hope you fall!..."(Moody, 1988).
Rather than question the legitimacy of hunting, several people expressed frustration or regret that hunting had declined in recent years. The importance to some of this activity was suggested by the amount of storytelling which occurred when I brough up the subject, and especially by the intensity of feeling which could evince, even to the point of characterizing their feelings generally about living in Vermont. Notably one French/ native's comment that "...Vermont's no good anymore, there ain't no deer...". Unfortunately, in light of the decreasing abundance of game or fish in the area, some residents apparently give up the activity (Meeks, 1986: 245) 20.
Still, I did not see several groups of men, often in heavy camouflage, carrying weapons. Many of these were from out of state. In fact, when I asked residents about posting land, they sometimes felt this was their protection from "gangs" who tended to drive the deer and spoil their ability to wait quietly for a catch. Perhaps it is far-fetched to make the following connection, but I found this difference in style interesting in light of the fact that aboriginal southern New Englanders likewise hunted differently from the northern Abenaki. The southerners, like these intruding gangs, tended to drive the deer; whereas the northern peoples preferred to surprise the deer, as by stalking (Cronon, 1983: 50) (Haviland, 1981: 164). Local hunters confirmed to me that the deer are very clever, and that quiet, stealth, and waiting patiently are necessary to make a catch.
Additionally, out of state hunters deplete the supply of game, where many people feel already there is a shortage. Furthermore, out of state hunting offends people's sense of property. Backwoods Vermonters value the right to dispose of their own property, and resent invasions of their privavcy and/ or control. However, in practice, they were more than ready to share, if asked. For eample, one person strongly resented the State's presumption of "...selling tickets to other people's property...", particularly to strangers. As I was talking to him for his tips on deer hunting. They together reveiled in his successful catch. Likewise, a trapper I spoke with related how really he had no problem with posting, as all one needed to do was ask for right of access. More problematic to him was the rapid rate of development, wherein his trapping spots were becoming occupied with new houses.
As a property owner myself, I have been aware of local hunters coming to us each year, and have noted their sympathy and interest in efforts to discourage disrespectful or abusive persons from using the land. Although there are quite a few non-resident owners and newcomers who post their land, native residents do so also, but for different reasons. Newcomers that I have spoken to seem to be generally afraid of hunters per se, and are often philosophically opposed to hunting. Natives wish to preserve this resource for themselves, and protect themselves from outsiders. A Grove Hill,
backwoods type, for instance, told me he had gotten four deer off of his land 21. On the other hand, the backwoods natives I spoke with indicated that posting was like waving a red flag in front of a bull, and that their best course to take was to post "by permission only". Unfortunately, we found, as did one of my classic interviewees, that these signs were generally ignored, as were direct requests to leave the land.
Another role assumed by some interviewees was that of the caretaker. Individuals reported looking out for irresponsible individuals, from patrolling for "jacking" to protesting does left to rot on the ground. One Abenaki in particular objected not so much to the animal's being killed, but to its being wasted. Wasting food goes against traditional Abenaki culture 22 even today, in Missisquoi (Jed Merrow, nd). Likewise, casually pointing guns at people drinking too much were frowned on. Native Vermonters consistently noted the shortage of deer, in both Strafford and Thetford, whether they hunted or not. Various explanations were offered, from excessive doe hunting, to predation of young by coyotes, to destruction of deer yards from overgrowth. To my surprise, however, none of the native Vermonters related this decline to human development or construction practices, although this was mentioned by Bill DeVaux, the owner of a gun shop in Norwich, in an interview in the Valley News (Corriveau, 1988: 20, 22).
To the backwoods types, hunting especially evinced strong feelings. This suggests that while a deer does not have much meat, it is nonetheless an important resource and cultural symbol to these people. Fathers take pride passing this skill to their children. Hunting is perhaps one of the few persisting aspects of North Country survival and culture, predating commercial agriculture, and accessible to everyone. While other sources of animal protein have been introduced from Europe, these do not have the same taste and quality, and require far more intensive labor.
In the past, hunting encompassed more than the deer season, and possibly accounted for more of people's diets. For example, one 96-year old man mentioned how his peers used to go 'coon huntin'. Raccoon apparently tastes good. One individual did approach us about 'coon huntin' on our land, bt I suspect this is less commonly practiced than in the past. On the other hand, because backwoods people were not large dairy farmers, small game could have provided additional food to their diets. Certainly, there are people today who find it worthwhile to leave work during hunting season. For example, one November day, my car happened to fall over a snowback on Gove Hill, and I was obliged to call a tow. En route, a wounded deer ran across the road and into the woods. Without hesitating, the dirver of the tow truck pulled over, grabbed his rifle from the gun rack behind us, excused himself, and left me sitting there with the engine running on the hillside for several minutes as he dashed into the woods after it. Unfortunately, it got away.
Hunting as an activity requires a different idea of land use than farming or suburban residence. On the one hand, it requires a sedentary orientation. Hunting requires mobility, or at least access to large areas of land. Given the duality of these two activities co-existing, value of sharing are essential. In today's world, without the farmer, the land becomes inhospitable, and when sold becomes divided into smaller parcels which block passage of both game and hunter. Without the farmer, or residents' goodwill, the hunter loses access to quarry. However, the hunter keeps the area from being overgrown with pests which destroy gardens, crops, and livestock.
Finally, when pursuing game, one follows different paths. One gets off of human constructed 

Friday, April 30, 2010

October 29, 2008 E-Mail Communications of the so-called Vermont "Abenaki Alliance" vs. Jews, Homosexuals, Lesbians and Transvestites:

October 29, 2008

http://www.archive.org/download/FredWisemanVermontEditionInterview/VermontEdition10-29-2008InterviewFredWiseman.wma

Pay attention to section 21:45 to 24:00 when I telephoned in to VPR's Vermont Edition, to confront Mr. Wiseman on his alleged "Native Perspective" regarding the Lake Champlain "Quadricentennial Celebration."

Frederick Matthew Wiseman speaking to Vermont Edition:

“For example, Native People are the only ones that do not have to...that cannot self-identify. If I was...a member of the Gay/ Lesbian community or the Judaic Community no one would ask for my....for proof....of that. One of the interesting issues with Native People is that they are the only one's....that continually have to....prove ourselves."

Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:08 AM
Subject: Vermont Native Community

Dear Native Leaders,
I feel that the time has come to really get serious on a united Native Agenda. The "Gay Marriage" bill passed because there was unity and strength in numbers. There was one united voice. Native people in the eyes of the public and legislative body look at us all as weak, fractured, and no more than an annoyance without the strength to do anything about it. We need to change this for our children and our future. Even if we do not concentrate on a recognition bill, let us at least focus on the Native Image or Educating those who want to participated in learing about the Native Culture. Many of you do this already, however we need to work together as one.
I am reaching out to all of you to see if we can become more of a team. I hope that meetings can happen monthly where all are invited to participate and no one is turned away. I feel that we need to bring all native people to the table for a common cause and move the Native agenda forward. At a minimum, the heads of each Tribe, band, or family should all sit down together periodically to forget past wrongs and have a say on moving forward together. If our ancestors could do these things, we should also be able to do these things.
Please let me know if anyone is interested in doing this. If so, maybe one of you or I can organize a first meeting.

Be Well,
Donald Warren Stevens Jr.


 
On Wed, 4/22/09 April 22, 2009, Nancy Millette wrote:
From: Nancy Millette
Subject: Re: Vermont Native Community
To: donald_stevens@myfairpoint.net
Cc: "Roger Longtoe" , "luke willard" , "Luke Willard" , "Chief April"
Date: Wednesday, April 22, 2009, 4:46 PM

HI Donald Warren Stevens Jr.
I can appreciate your concern about Native Issues but perhaps it is the commission who is out of the loop. Our tribal councils and elders councils meet often and stay abreast of the Alliance activities and agendas. I think that it is more your commission should become more in tune to what the Native Community is doing rather than asking us to spend more time with meetings that would amount to nothing more than a dog and pony show for the commission.
Respectfully Nancy Millette – Doucet

From Luke Andrew Willard
I, too, am a bit confused. I browse the commission minutes on Mark Mitchell's site. I sometimes chuckle when the commission discusses topics that only the chiefs and councils can deal with. Without the tribes, the commission is ceremonial at best... but more so, null and void in the eyes of the Alliance. That has been my understanding at least.
If you want some unity with the already unified Alliance, I would suggest pressuring the governor to cooperate with the tribes, giving us some authority over the makeup of the commission. Currently, the deck is stacked. Asking us to sit down with people like Ms. Timmy and Mr. Judy is like asking Israel to sit down with Iran, the nation who calls for Israel's extermination... fortunately for Israel, they've got the bomb... and fortunately for the Alliance, we've got the people and the podium.
My opinions have nothing to do with you and everything to do with them. You just happen to be behind enemy lines. I actually like your idea a lot, but I can't waste my time when I know that the deck is stacked.

Chief Luke Willard
Nulhegan Band of Abenakis
(802) 754-6264 Home
http://www.nulheganband.org/

From: donald_stevens@myfairpoint.net
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 12:13 PM
To: luke willard
Cc: 'Nancy Millette'; 'Chief April Merrill'; 'Fred Wiseman'; 'Elnu Abenaki'
Subject: Re: Vermont Native Community 

Luke,

I understand you position also. I am trying to change things as best I can. However, nothing will change if we do not at least try to move forward together. It is really going to be important to work together now more than ever! I found out yesterday that Odanak just got their Federal Recognition in Canada changed to allow Cards and full voting rights to citizens outside of the reservation and full protection as tribal members. They also won some land lawsuit they were looking for in Canada. Richard Skip Bernier informed Jeanne Brink at the meeting that she and Tim De la Breuere are getting a card and to fill out the application. They also said that they are providing cards to 350 people in Vermont. They are going to work closely with their members in Vermont to secure their rights. This will be in your neck of the woods. I will be asking them to come to a meeting sometime in the future to find out what their intentions are so I can see how it impacts Vermont. I hope that you understand that they are now going to flex their muscle and use the Federal rights in Canada to transfer to the United States. I hope you understand that they are now going to be a tribal force in Vermont and who do you think they are going to go after?? I would bet the alliance....Who do you think will be talking to the Governor to

work with the commission on who should be recognized or not? If their Federal Recognition transfers or is recognized by the United States, then Vermont has no choice but to recognize them like we would the Mahicans. As was written in S.117, the Commission has to work with All Native American Tribes and groups located in Vermont. Guess who's coming to dinner with Genealogy in hand. Food for thought...

Be Well,

Don Stevens

From: Fred Wiseman
To: donald_stevens@myfairpoint.net; 'luke willard'
Cc: 'Nancy Millette' ; 'Chief April Merrill' ; 'Elnu Abenaki'
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 5:02 PM
Subject: RE: Vermont Native Community

Don't worry guys--
There is no mechanism in the BIA or any other Federal Agency (except for Indigenous refugees from third world countries inder the State Department-- a few Mosquito indians came here under that a few years ago, and for the Smithsonian which has unique and crazy rules) for any special treatment of Indians or any indigenous peoples for that matter recognized or not in their country of origin. The Iroquois have used the Jay treaty of border crossings in the past, but that was curtailed years ago and is being entirely cut off as we speak. So we don't have anything to worry about except arrogance - and that is nothing new. There is no "transferral." 
Frederick Matthew Wiseman

From: Nancy Millette
To: Fred Wiseman ; donald_stevens@myfairpoint.net ; 'luke
 willard'

Cc: 'Chief April Merrill' ; 'Elnu Abenaki'
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: Vermont Native Community

I was thinking...if the "Vermont native Commission" is going to give so much attention and concern to Canadian Indians living in the USA and VT perhaps they should also have a special seat for the Mexicans, Aztecs and Incas living in VT ?? they too are from another country and are indigenous to their country and living here. Perhaps we could have a fire dance celebration on the state house lawn in honor of them?? Then we could celebrate the canadian indigenous fur trappers who helped develop trade in Canada? Certainly the indigenous tribe in the Alliance who are indigenous to Vermont have no support to honor our history and contributions to this state....I find it quite insulting that the NA Commission is ready to bow down and support Canadian Indians here however, here in Newbury and Haverhill they turn their noses up on the family members who live 50 feet away from each other on opposing river banks!

I am sure the BIA would think this is as ridiculous and nothing more than a scare tactic as I do.
Nancy Millette – Doucet

This was in Response to Donald Stevens Resignation from the VCNAA:
To one and all,
I have felt that since Donald Stevens recent Resignation that I would respond with the facts, as I know them from the “minutes” of the VCNAA. The following is how I see this recent situation having arisen. I think that ONLY with unbiased, truthful persons on the VCNAA will the Commission be able to move forward on any level. At this point, I think that the people that have removed themselves from VCNAA up to this point simply have left for personal reasons, not that any one VCNAA member has tried to pit one against the other, except for Donald Stevens himself in his Resignation letter. Again, members on this Commission need to maintain their positions of being unbiased and not putting forth any possible hidden agenda(s) or endeavor(s) from any one group(s) vs. another.

Sincerely,
Douglas Lloyd Buchholz
P.O. 83
Lancaster, New Hampshire 03584
(603) 788-2718
douglaslloydbuchholz@yahoo.com

Falsehood 1:
Donald Stevens, Chairman of the VCNAA, stated in his letter dated May 4th, 2009 "I was asked by the Commission to reach out to the tribes to try to get them to come to the table to support vested authority for the commission and to start working with us”.

Fact: 
The commission did not ask Donald Stevens, "to reach out to the tribes to try to get them to come to the table to support vested
authority for the commission". But rather if you read the minutes from February 26, 2009 meeting you will find the following statement. "Judy moved for the Commission to move forward with the proposed language for vested authority and for Donald Stevens to extend a hand to other tribes for their input."

This is clearly the problem with the letters that Donald Stevens wrote. He did not understand what was asked of him.

Falsehood 2:
In Donald Steven's letter dated April 21, 2009 He states "I am reaching out to all of you to see if we can become more of a team I hope that meetings can happen monthly where all are invited to participate and no one is turned away. "

Fact:
Once again this is not what the Commission requested. They did not ask for additionally monthly meetings, rather they asked "for input from the other tribes."

Falsehood 3:
Again in the April 21, 2009 letter Donald Stevens states “I hope that meetings can happen monthly where all are invited to participate and no one is turned away…..If so, maybe one of you or I can organize a first meeting.”

Fact:
Once again the Commission asked Donald Stevens to gather input, not to create a series of separate meetings that he or someone else can or would organize. This would be like running a parallel Commission.

Falsehood 4:
In a letter dated April 24, 2009 Donald Stevens wrote the following: “I found out yesterday that Odanak just got their Federal Recognition changed to allow cards and full voting rights to citizens outside of the reservation and full protection as tribal members.”

Fact:
Canada has always allowed cards and voting rights to citizens outside of the reservation, they merely increased the amount of descendant generations that they would include recently. Which includes those person’s or families south of the Canadian/USA Border.

Falsehood 5:
In this same letter Donald Stevens stated “Skip informed Jeanne at the meeting that she and Tim are getting a card and to fill out the application. They also said that they are providing cards to 350 people in Vermont. They are going to work closely with their members in Vermont to secure their rights….Who do you the commission on who should be recognized or not?….As was written in S.117, the Commission has to work with All Native American Tribes and groups located in Vermont. Guess who’s coming to dinner with Genealogy
[sic] in hand….”

Fact:
This was an informational comment from a member of the community. This comment should have been taken only as information, and subsequently then researched and documented, and afterwards introduced to the community at large. For Donald Stevens to take the comments from a community member out of context, distort it, add his own personal interpretations and then sent it out for publication and gossip is outrageous. This certainly will not encourage other community members to speak out at VCNAA meetings in the future.

Falsehood 6:
The chain of emails in question was addressed to Luke Willard, Nancy Lee Millette, Chief April nee: St. Francis - Merrill, Frederick Wiseman, and Elnu Abenaki.

Fact:
As stated above the commission requested that Don reach out to “other tribes for input”. However, Don specifically left out The Cowasuck and the Clan of the Hawk and various other family bands such as Louise Lampman. The commission needs to be as inclusive as possible. Don chose to recognize the “Native Alliance ” only, and excluded thousands of other people. This is very concerning and clearly shows where Don’s “alliance” stands.

Falsehood 7:
In a letter dated April 24, 2009 Don writes in response to a letter from Luke Willard, Attached to Don’s response was a copy of Luke’s original letter. “Asking us to sit down with people like Ms. Timmy and Mr. Judy is like asking Israel to sit down with Iran , the nation who calls for Israel ’s extermination….. fortunately for Israel , they’ve got the bomb and fortunately for the Alliance we’ve got the people and the podium.”

Fact:
Rather than responding to such an egregious statement from Luke Willard, by not responding, Donald Stevens chose to respond to such an insulting statement by replying and totally ignoring the comment made Mr. Luke Willard, and Donald Stevens completely seemingly ignoring the comment altogether in his response regarding two of his fellow Commission members. Something a Commission member especially a Chairman ought never to have been involved with in the first place.

June 03, 2009
“It’s a little frustrating for us when the gay-rights movement was able to get its legislation passed in one session, and we have been trying to get our rights for generations,” said Donald Stevens, who recently resigned as the VCNAA’s chairman. He was the second chairman within six months to resign — Mark Mitchell stepped down last fall.

Donald Stevens says some members of the VCNAA appear hostile to the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi St.Francis/Sokoki Band. He and others, including Chief April St. Francis, have complained to the governor and his staff.

Luke Willard’s commentary on ABENAKI NATION AT NULHEGAN/ MEMPHREMAGOG on Facebook.com

Evil things happened in Montpelier, Vermont today (Friday, April 16, 2010). What can you expect from a legislature that made it a "priority" to protect the feelings of transvestites? Soon, you will be able to marry your dog and your sister at the same time...but Vermont Abenakis will NEVER be recognized ....FORCING our artisans to be criminals for selling their crafts as “Abenaki Made”. Shame upon these “lawmakers”. Friday (April 16, 2010) at 9:39pm....

MY RESPONSE:

Over a period of time, this self-created and self-promoting "Abenaki Alliance" so-called (of which are merely (4) four Incorporations *under Vermont State laws) has made numberous references to the GLBT Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgendered Organization in rather a denigrating homophobic tone since about 2007 in the media. Is this to solicit Media and PUBLIC "sympathies" because Gay Marriage/ Civil Union rights were bestowed upon the GLBT minority of Vermont, and at the same time, the "Abenaki Incorporated Alliance" felt "it was their due" as well to be officially "VT State Legislature Recognized"?

Well, it would be rather easy if we had a lot of GLBT Abenaki in Vermont. At least that would be a better excuse for an "Abenaki Alliance" member to dye one's hair black, wear dark eye contacts, and/or run a curling iron and hair straightening solution through one's hair so one could look "more Abenaki/ Indian" like some of the so-called "Abenaki Alliance" had retrospectively done in the Quadricentennial Celebration there in Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont !)

Then again, I keep going back to the question...

What really truthfully does "Gay Marriage" or the GLBT minority have to do with "Abenaki Recognition" in the State of Vermont. It's like comparing apples to bananas or nuts to fruits.
One dynamic has really NOTHING do to with other, unless of course your part of the GLBT minority AND of Abenaki descent. Maybe its just the point these people are attempting very poorly to make and that is, that if the State of VT Legislative members can pass a Gay Marriage or Civil Union law (some say "against the Will of the People blah, blah, blah) then that why can't that same Legislature of Vermont officially recognize the newly created "Abenaki Alliance" groups? I guess its because the one minority within Vermont has NOTHING to do with the other alleged/ reinvented Abenaki minority.
I think these disgusting ~ homophobic "sympathy" plea's and "bashing undertones" by these self-proclaimed - self-promoting spokespersons/ or self declared "Chiefs" simply SHOWS and PROVIDES the documentary evidence, that these people could NEVER be inclusive in their dialogues or their recognition of "other Abenakis" that exist outside of the Incorporate Dynamic within the State of VT (or NH). Anyone can read how they "step on" "step over" and "tear down" the alleged "expatriot" descendants from Odanak of whom continue to live in Vermont up to today (and their ancestors have been here for many generations), not to mention that Odanak was documentarily verified to have been created by "relocated Abenakis" THAT CAME in part FROM VERMONT...in particular Abenakis from MISSISQUOI i.e. Swanton, Franklin County, Vermont). Of course, most people obviously KNOW that ODANAK is an legitimate ABENAKI COMMUNITY (Odanak or "St. Francis" was a community in existence since ca. 1672. French Mission established in 1683 which was relocated in 1700, and essentially complete by 1800). When someone looks beyond all other inflammatory rhetoric from the so-called Abenaki Alliance as they want to call themselves, it is ONLY one (1) word that TERRIFIES these Incorporate "groups"/ Organization's who are the Alleged and Re-Invented Abenakis of Vermont (and or New Hampshire). That word is:

G--E-N-E-A-O-L-G-Y



Thursday, April 29, 2010

Louise May (nee: Lampman) Larivee E-Mail Communications w. Douglas Lloyd Buchholz in March through to April 2010:

I was not ASKING the Governor of Vermont, nor was I asking the office of the Attorney General of Vermont either.

I was ASKING Louise May (nee: Lampman) Larivee

All I got was...Nothing but...
1. Deception
2. Excuses
3. Unsubstantiated "Stories"

and...if she or they were allegedly and supposedly "tricked" by Jeffrey Benay into going to this event led by inherited "Chief-For-Life" April St. Francis-Merrill's "protest of whining, bitching and complaining" and so on...then why didn't Louise Lampman-Larivee (and her family members) simply not just turn around and leave the premises, once they got there? Why didn't they object vocally (or in the media) to "appearing" as if they were in support of the St. Francis family, if alleged...as Louise Lampman-Larivee has stated "that the Lampman's were and are NOT in support of April St. Francis-Merrill at all?"

Again, all one needs to do is "review all of the historical records" and the answer's are readily available.

Yet again, there are a lot of questions , and not enough answers...

talk..talk...talk...talk

Talk is cheap.

Louise Lampman Letter of 2 Pages ~ Plus MY Response(s):

Committee on Economic Development:
Senator Vincent Illuzzi, Senator Hinda Miller, Senator Carris, Senator Condos, and Senator Racine
Senator Illuzzi and Committe Members:

I am appalled by what is going on within the Native communities. I have received many phone calls and e-mails from all over in regards with all the stuff that is being said on how this amendment is affecting everyone's lives.
In 2005 I was sent a letter from the Native American Federal arts and crafts board informing us that unless there was state recognition as a tribe we could not sell our crafts. In turn, my brother Lester Lampman had set up an appointment with Suzanne Young about this topic.
I, my brothe Lester Lampman, Larry Lapan Sr. and Connie Brow attended this meeting which was held in Montpelier. We are unsure if any thing was said to any one else about this meeting. I ask myself why didn't Jeff Benay ex-Chair of the Governor's Commission for Native American affairs which I sat on for two terms with him...why didn't he ask me to speak. I had seen him on a regular basis, for our offices were just down the hall from each other. He was and is aware of the different fractions within the Abenaki Nation. He has known about stuff for many years.
In January of 2006 I testified for State Recognition, being asked by Senator Carolyn Branagan.
When I finished my testimony that went for 45 minutes, if not longer, I was commented on about how professional I was and one had commented on wanting to know why I was not first to testify, as it would have answered a lot of questions about who these other bands were.
When the New Commission was set up, me and my brother Lester did approach the commission with this letter about the arts and crafts. Chairman Mark Mitchell and Mrs. Brink along with Mrs. Dow were concerned enough to start conversations going. My family being one of the oldest family bands allegedly from Missisquoi tribe, has been in contact with this commission and we have given input to the effects of this amendment. Most of my family are working people who cannot take time away from their jobs to testify at hearings.
I guess one question would be...has anyone from the committee ever listened to my testimony (more likely the question ought to be...has ANYONE from the April 2010 Committee or ANYONE ELSE ever actually obtained actual pre-1970's documentary and genealogically clear and convincing evidence that the Lampman's...or anyone from Swanton, VT...is actually Abenaki, or descended from the HISTORICAL Missisquoi community, say prior to 1820? I know I have not seen one shred of evidence from Louise Lampman at all to date, as to the merits/ foundation, of her words/ testimony...I have politely and respectfully inquiried and she made excuses and declined my request...and no, this public statement of inquiry is not TABOO, nor disrespectful to her or anyone else...TALK is cheap....Abenakis do not have "secret societies" or operate as if such People's were or are "cults"!). Considering this amendment is to rectify a bill.
I would like to correct some information that Mr. Frederick M. Wiseman has been passing around, especially when it concerns my reputation and family. For his information, I represent my family band, which there are 250. This would be siblings, their children and first cousins, and second cousins. This does not include a few out there that I did not add in to this.
If he had such a connection within the larger Abenaki community of Franklin County he would know of this, and he does not mention the LaPan family band or the others. Family bands which it has always been the way of the head of a family spokesperson for-the-family, but the one who is willing and able to speak. Why didn't he contact all of the heads of these family bands?
I find it insulting that he claims himself to be the tribal historian of the alleged and reinvented Abenaki people, when he does not know who the people are. What knowledge could he possibly hold if he has never spoken to me or any member of my family? Does he not realize that I have been involved in tribal affairs (actually that is INCORPORATE affairs) for over thirty years, long before he, or Jeff Benay were ever in the picture? I remember when Jane Beck did the interviews with my father (Why weren't these tapes/ transcripts submitted and used in the Petition of the St. Francis-Sokoki to the Bureau of Indian Affairs? According the BIA such alleged tapes or transcripts were NEVER submitted! Do these tapes even exist?) . We still have the transcribed copies along with many tapes of my grandmother who said on the tape that she was born in a cave, not the Fortin one, just to correct a rumor going around. These interviews were done before the first time the State gave Recognition (November 1976 by VT Gov. Thomas Salmon) only to have it subsequently taken away (early 1977 by VT Gov. Richard Snelling) for lack of genealogical merit and foundation, then it was just the St. Francis / Sokoki bands.
I also feel it is important to remember that the St. Francis band are those that lived on the St. Francis river, not the family name (St. Francis) which after doing seven years of cultural competency trainings this isse always comes up.
The tribe they all belonged to now should be the Missisquoi Tribe. This amendment is not about who is Native, or Indian. It is about amending a law that was done wrong for the aboriginal people. To acknowledge more than one Tribe within Vermont, takes away the rights away from those of us who know who we are (Knowing who we are, does NOT make that group of persons, families or group what they ASSUME they are...Again, anyone SAYING that their Abenaki is one dynamic; and yet where is the Clear and Convincing Evidence of that self-proclaimed identity? Especially when seeking VT or NH State Recognition based on that Self-Identification of Ethnicity or Race?) .
There is no simple answer to this and by far, there is no means to rush something that is so important, is unfair to all of us. It is the responsiblity for the State of Vermont's government to make a right of a bill that was done wrong, but not the right of a State government to decide who the Indians are by listening to a few people.
This amendment has turned alleged Native against reinvented Native and allowed some to think they have the Abenaki scholar experience about tribal qualifications. Some have gone to the length to ridicule people who have passed on; this in my book is one of the lowest things possible for someone to do.

 (What one of the lowest things possible for a "group of persons" collectively-speaking in my book to do, is mis-appropriate Abenaki Cultural Heritage, and Language in attempts to deceptively unsurp an identity from a legitimate Native People, for the benefit of themselves, with blantant disregard to the truth of their own historical reality and their ancestors).

It should also be known that the Nulhegan, Koasek and El-Nu, for they have called themselves bands or groups...they are not TRIBES...but maybe bands that belong to the Missisquoi Tribe.

Now, that to me, sounds JUST like something the late "Chief" and/ or "Grand Chief" or "Chief-For-Life" Homer Walter St. Francis Sr. would say!

How "seperated from/ and or supportive towards" allegedly "retrosepctively-speaking" Louise Lampman-Larrivee been regarding the St. Francis family up in Swanton, Franklin County, Vermont? one does have to ask one's self.

Pictures speak louder than words
Louise (nee: Lampman) Larivee is, in this photograph standing behind the right shoulder of April Ann (nee: St. Francis) Merrill dated in mid to late November 2005. SWANTON, Vt. - The chief of the St. Francis/Sokoki Band of the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi said the tribe will continue its quest for federal acknowledgement despite a preliminary denial by the BIA. The BIA issued a proposed finding Nov. 10, 2005 saying the St. Francis/Sokoki Band's evidence failed to prove its members descended from the historical Abenaki tribe, that it existed as a tribe from 1900 to 1975, or that it was identified as a continuous community with political authority from first contact with non-Indians.

April A.(nee: St. Francis) Merrill inherited the title of chief from her father, the late Homer Walter St. Francis Sr., who died in 2001.

(So much for Jeanne Lincoln - Kent stating...that April Merrill was VOTED in...NOT!) 
~
SO HOW SEPARATED (DISCONNECTED) FROM APRIL ST. FRANCIS (OR SUPPORTIVE) REALLY WAS LOUISE LAMPMAN, IN REALITY?
WELL?.....
ALL APRIL ST. FRANCIS-MERRILL HAD TO DO....
 WAS SIMPLY TURN AROUND!
~
Here is the actual article that accompanied the above photograph:
Vermont Band Denied Federal Recognition
Indian News Country Today Article
November 22nd or 23rd, 2005 by Gale C. Toensing

The remainder of Louise (nee: Lampman) Larivee's letter to the Senate Committe:
In closing, I hope everyone remembers what the Native American Commission was set up for. A commission made up of Native people to make choice for the Native people. It is unfair for all to bad mouth a group of volunteers who gave up many hours of their time to put people in a position where discussions are today. Amending a Bill that was set up for Minorities, not the Aboriginal people.
For Bennington County was sold by the Mahigan: Or have we forgotten this?
Sincerely,
Louise Lampman Larivee
Daughter of the Late Chief Leonard "Blackie" Miles Lampman  Family, who was recognized by his Tribe (the Missisquoi)

Louise Lampman - Larivee's response(s) to Douglas Lloyd Buchholz regarding the photograph attached in this posting, etc...is as follows in the next posting:

Open Letter to Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas of late March 2008 Pages 32-35:

Kwai Nidobak (In Abenaki, this means "Hello, my friends ")
the following is from my blog at www.morningstarstudio9.com. It is not intended to "bash" anyone, but to recount the events as I saw them to provide the facts from my perspective. Most of the facts can be verified by the speakers own words which were video taped during the meeting.
Morningstar (Jeanne Antoinette nee: Lalime - Lincoln - Kent)
MEETING - Wanaskôwadin
Kwai, Nidoba (In abenaki this means "Hello, my friend)
I attended the Hearing on @ (sic) S.117 on Friday and was disappointed that more "Indians" did not attend. It was mostly "chiefs". This concerns a lot of people who are not making their thoughts heard. There is still time to write to the Senators on the matter. Chief April and Nancy Millet (sic) Millette-Doucet spoke factually and well regarding their thoughts on the amendment as written. They expressed thought which I agreed with and which others might have, had they heard the original statements. As elequently as Judy Dowd's (sic) Dow's thoughts were expressed, she seemed to still be under the impression that it was the intention of the two major groups to exclude others, which was not the intent at all. While there was a great deal of emphasis on the fact that the amendment they added would somehow be exclusive of others that was not their intent at all and it was so stated at the hearing. (Which was video taped). The difficulty is that the Abenaki in particular have for two lifetimes (Chief Homer Walter St. Francis Sr. 's and Chief April Ann nee: St. Francis - Rushlow - Merrill 's) worked government to government (NO, that was Government to Incorporation) on many local issues. They have protected grave sites, continued to teach the young lanugage, dance and culture as well as crafts. They have provided cultural events in their Native territory and were recognized by name in the original S.117 (No, that was recongition of the HISTORICALLY DOCUMENTED MISSISQUOI ABENAKIS of the Swanton-Franklin County, Vermont area...NOT St. Francis/ Sokoki Band of the Abenaki led by April Merrill). It seems redundant to have them go thru another recognition process when the government itself has been recognizing them for nearly 100 years (100 years?! No, that group only incorporated *under Vermont State Law, in 1975-1976).
Both Chief April Merrill and Nancy Millette - Doucet testified that other Bands would be welcome to go through the application process to be recognized. That cannot be made clear enough as others keep acting as scare mongers trying to prevent things from moving forward.
At this point in time, I have serious doubts about the professionalism and qualifications of some of the Commission members. I am certain there are others who are dedicated and honest, but there is room for doubt on some of the them. For instance, Jeanne Brink took some of her time to once again state that she was not connected with Odanak, yet has (more than once) stated in publication that she is a citizen of it. (NO, Jeanne Brink may or may allegedly have said that at that time, the reporter Terry Hallenbeck, the Burlington Free Press reporter stated that Jeanne Brink stated this).
Burlington Press
Wed. October 3, 2007
article by Terri Hallenbeck
"...I think it will solve the problem," said Jeanne Brink of Barre, an Abenaki basketmaker who is a member of the Vermont Commission on Native American Affairs. She is able to sell her work as Native American as a citizen of the Odanak Reserve in Quebec, but she said she works with other Vermont Abenaki artists who cannot."
Not only is this contradictory to her testimony at the Friday hearing, it is contrary to the Arts and Crafts laws which state that in order for someone from Odanak to sell crafts here, they would have to be made on the Reservation there and imported here. It is quite clear that this is not the case. Further, she has threatened that if the commission's version of

the amendment is not accepted, she will recommend that no recognition of any kind be given to anyone. So much for a willingness to compromise for the wellbeing of the Abenaki People.
In his speech, "Chief" Paul Pouliot openly admitted that he provides Artisan Certificates from his Cowasuck group and has every intention of continuing doing so. He has stated that he is going thru recognition (he has a letter of intent on file, but not an application at this time), while defying the Arts and Crafts Law openly. Last summer he openly displayed one of those certificates at the Swanton Heritage Day celebration even as Vermont Craftsmen struggled to do things legally. That is hardly doing things the "right way". His speaking style, as always, introduced key inflammatory words such as "casinos" and "land grabs" in an attempt to frighten the Senate members. It is and never has been the intention of the Missisquoi or Koesucks (sic) Koasek or Koas to seek either, but at least one other band (Inc. Nulhegan group led by Luke Andrew Willard) has approached their Representative for money to purchase a building to house a museum  bar and gambling establishment. A little like the pot calling the kettle black. A point which has not been made publicly clear is that that if the Missisquoi and Koesucks (sic) go thru the same process as everyone else at this time, it will be at least another year or two before anyone is recognized. Having at least one group recognized in the short run would alleviate the pressure being placed on Artisans by the Federal Government. Todd Hebert also noted that without some form of recognition, the upcoming Centennial celebration would be without any recognized Native Bands. It makes that even moot. This happened in Virginia and could happen in Vermont.
I still support the recognition of the Missisquoi and Koesucks and the continued efforts to recognize all bands who qualify. I do not feel the Legislature should be involved for legal reasons and for the time constraints it will place on the process.
Following is a copy of my statement at the hearing:

Kwai Kwai, Nidobak
Good mornings, Ladies and Gentlement of the Senate and all who have come here today.
My name is Jeanne Kent, B.F.A., M.A., Ed., aka Morningstar (Spozowialakwz). I am a retired art instructor and current owner of Morningstar Studio. I am Abenaki of the Bear Clan through the Watso/ Capino family of Odanak and signers of the Robertson's Lease in Missisquoi County. I currently reside in Winchester, CT, but have a daughter, her family and two grandchildren residing in Vermont. I also have a son and two more grandchildren residing in Connecticut. I am not currently enrolled so I speak as an individual, family matriarch, and as an artist/ craftsperson.
I wish to commend all who have worked on both sections of the amendment and thank you for your hours of dedication. However, I was very surprised when I saw the new guidelines set forth by the Commission as they are almost identical to those set forth by the Federal government for Federal Recognition. I had always been under the impression that State guidelines were less stringent in recognizing tribes at State level. That is not apparent here.
As history has shown, it too 33 years for us to have the little recognition currently offered and one has to wonder how long it will take for the new process to recognize the State bands. It should be clear that most of the Bands and family clans, have little or no money or resources to prepare the kind of data being requested. It is obvious that some form of identification is necessary, but what is being asked for would require money and
man hours that most groups do not have. They are still Abenaki. But proving it to these standars could be a hardship.
If the two groups which have historically been active in Vermont were to be recognized, they could then act as a conduit for grant money to help these smaller groups to do the research necessary for their recognition. Asking each group to do their own, places an undue burden on them. I place before you my own genealogy (I placed three notebooks on the table).....

(what happened to Jeanne Kent's other 3 notebooks she claims to have? See http://www.abenakijustice.blogspot.com/ partial quote "I [Jeanne Kent aka Morningstar] don't think anyone proved that I am not descended from Odanak. While I have not reviewed all of my genealogy on Douglas' site, I do have enough information that fills six notebooks which says I do. I simply do not meet the requirement for enrollment there...So, no, I do not meet the requirements, but that does not mean I am not a descendant. Apparently  you do not understand that the Capino/Pineau families are descendants of the Watso family." dated April 26, 2010).....

....which took nearly 20 years to complete, numerous hours, travel, costs, correspondences  phone calls and trips to the genealogical library and Canada, and the  hiring of professional genealogists. Merely printing this and binding it for you today cost about $200.00 (yet she didn't apparently leave the 3 notebooks of her alleged genealogy for anyone in the Legislature to review). Multiply this times each individual or each band, and the matter is an  economic challege for all concerned. (There is currently NO budget alloted to the VT Indian Commission.)
Much of the heated discussions have been over power and personalities, but the reality for many of us, it is neither. We are getting on in years and would like to see recognition before we cross over. We have already lost some of our historians, leaders and valued Elders. We are slowing dying from paper genocide.
I am concerned at this time about the matter of privacy of information. This past week, private emails passing between individuals and Commission members found their way onto the Internet. This makes me and others wary of where personal genealogies and band information will be housed and how carefully it will be handled. In as much as this action was defended by the Commission Chairman (Mark Mitchell at the time), I would request stronger guidelines regarding the handling of Commission information and correspondence.
There are those who are verbally attacking the two major Abenaki groups on personal levels, but they seem to forget that leaderships are no longer inherited (EXCEPT April Ann nee: St. Francis - Merrill) . They are voted in. Rather than destroying the entire Abenaki Nation to take revenge upon a few people, it would seem more rational to appoint two groups and use them as leadership to work with the government (I should have said "continued"). It would be manditory rather than optional. This would also mean that leadership would be by vote and not by self-appointment. It would also mean that the Abenaki would have a voice and unified leadership.
To clarify: I do NOT support the Legislature. I DO support having the Commission approve Bands, NOT individuals. That should be left to the Bands. I also support the appointment of two major bands to handle the research and approval of all other splinter groups.
I have been an artist since I was old enough to hold a crayon (most Kindergartner's can say the same thing!) , and often shuffled four jobs to pay for my college education in the arts. I will continue to do my art with or without a disclaimer. But being able to label my work as Abenaki, would authenticate it as not only Native Made, but made by someone who has dedicated recent years to researching and producing woodland arts in order to help preserve our culture. It would mean being able to produce museum quality work and to teach others about us. I would also like the right to designate my artwork as Abenaki because when the arts, music, language, and stories are taken away from a People, we cease to be a People. For now we still have enough left to preserve, but soon, it will be gone.
As noted, I have done my genealogy and it is documented. I have a home, a retirement plan, medical insurance, a car and an education as well as a business of my own. I ask
nothing of the State of Vermont or the government. I was Abenaki yesterday. I am today and I will be tomorrow. What I do want is the right to SAY it (No one is stopping anyone from SAYING they are alleged Abenaki). I would like my alleged and self-declared birthright to be who I am without question. Too Indian for the white community; too white for the Indian community, I always see to be walking between two worlds. I would like to die having found balance and peace between them.
Will Vermont help to preserve it's history and the history of the Abenaki People? (Or allow these Incorporated Wanna-be Fake False Pretenders who have seemingly mis-appropriated an Abenaki Cultural Identity that doesn't belong to them at all to RE-WRITE the truthful Vermont history and Abenaki Ancestors and descendants blood, sweat and tears?!). You hold a beating heart in your hands. It is our heart. Please handle it with care. (Mohawk style!).
Oliwini (In Abenaki this means to imply that what is given is received  only to be given outwardly again...circular...."what comes around subsequently goes around" "what one puts out eventually one gets back in return").
Thank you for allowing me to speak today
Spozowialakwz (Morningstar)
aka Jeanne Kent, B.F.A., M.A., Ed.

MY RESPONSE:

So...when in late February to at least April 2008 (including the latter half of 2007) Rep. Hinda Miller and Rep. Vincent Illuzzi were retrospectively-speaking working to craft an Amendment Bill to S.177 Vermont Abenaki Recognition bill, these various persons and groups of alleged and re-invented Abenakis of Vermont (along with other persons outside the State of Vermont...including myself were involved in the Abenaki Recognition dynamics, debate, and either advocated or obstructed positively or negatively.

From this retrospective look back at the early part of 2008, these "groups" of alleged and reinvented Abenakis in Vermont (the St. Francis-Sokoki, the Nulhegan, the Koasek, and El-Nu) were simply paranoid and obstructing ANYTHING that had to do with Odanak descendants who have lived within the state of Vermont for generations, and most importantly ANYTHING to do with GENEALOGICAL VERIFICATION, SOCIAL VERIFICATION, and HISTORICAL VERIFICATION that these INCORPORATION'S they themselves have created *under Vermont State Laws, to VERIFY, SOLIDIFY and SUBSTANTIATE their claims and proclamations that these Inc.d groups, their "Grand Chiefs" "Co-Chiefs" "Sub-Chiefs" their "Ambassadors" their "Senior Advisers  their "Elders" their "Medicine People" or what have you, were and are legitimately descended and connected to the Abenaki Ancestors.

Genealogy TERRIFIES the Thieves and Liars, the Mis-Appropriators. The one's who "hide-in-plain-sight"

SO, in April 2010....the Abenaki Circus of Vermont and New Hampshire continue to attempt their deceptions, their manipulations, their lies, their "stories" and their distortions. These alleged and reinvented Abenakis of Vermont and New Hampshire, and IF anyone cares to read this blog, the PUBLIC and Academia would ALSO know this FACTUAL REALITY.

The TRUTH will set N'dakinna free, and the Alleged and Reinvented "Abenaki Circus" led by these Vermont and New Hampshire Incorporation's afore-mentioned, will either travel on...fading into the dark from whence they came from; or the State Legislature's will grant Official State Recognition to these Alleged and Reinvented Abenaki Clowns, WITHOUT having done their research to honestly validate the DECEIVERS from the LEGITIMATELY HISTORICALLY BASED and GENEALOGICALLY DOCUMENTED Abenaki People living in Vermont and New Hampshire.

TIME WILL TELL. So will the factual historical and genealogical documents on this blog.......

Search This Blog