Distinctive Currency

Yurok Price List

Wampum, ke‘kwuk, squau-tho-won; all are Algo­nquian words for shell beads or string of shell beads. Wampum­peage is a Nar­ra­gansett word for “white beads strung”.

Through­out north­east­ern Amer­ica, wampum was used for jew­elry, gifts, com­mu­ni­ca­tion, his­tor­i­cal record of impor­tant events, reli­gious cer­e­monies, and trade. It was the ear­li­est form of cur­rency known in North America.

Its value was derived from the dif­fi­culty involved in pro­duc­ing the cylin­dri­cal bead from both Qua­hog and Whelk, and the scarcity of suit­able shells. White beads were made from Whelk, purple-blackish from Quahog.

The beads were pro­duced from the inner spi­ral of the shells. The spi­ral or columna must be thick enough to with­stand grind­ing, shap­ing and drilling. The shells were col­lected along the coastal shores dur­ing the sum­mer, and worked in the win­ter months.

The inner spi­rals were cut into cylin­ders mea­sur­ing 1/4 inch long by 1/8 inch diam­e­ter. Each bead was then smoothed through grind­ing, pol­ished, drilled, and finally strung on hemp fibers or sinew. It was dif­fi­cult, tedious, and time con­sum­ing work. The pro­por­tion­ate scarcity of the Qua­hog dark beads dou­bled their value to that of white wampum.

Though wampum is most often asso­ci­ated with the Iro­quois, and there are claims that the Iro­quois were the first pro­duc­ers of wampum beads, it is more likely that the Iro­quois were intro­duced to wampum by trade. The Iro­quois lived in the inte­rior, whereas sea shells could be found only in the coastal regions.

The Nar­ra­gansetts were most prob­a­bly the first pro­duc­ers of wampum, with other coastal Algo­nquians, includ­ing the Delaware, fol­low­ing shortly thereafter.

Wampum was a firmly estab­lished base of cur­rency by the time of increased Euro­pean colo­nial set­tle­ments in the 17th cen­tury. Though it did have a mon­e­tary value, its sole pur­pose for the colo­nials, it was by no means lim­ited to an eco­nomic role. As stated above, wampum was used for a mul­ti­tude of pur­poses, not least of which was the bind­ing truth to words “writ­ten” in wampum.

So respected and impor­tant was it that an accom­pa­ny­ing belt of wampum gave great solem­nity to mes­sages, speeches, and agreements.

A mes­sage deliv­ered via a wampum belt is said to have been greater than a thou­sand words, and it was accepted as truth. It was the seal, the proof of covenants made. The old­est extant wampum belt is the Huron belt given to the Jesuits to com­mem­o­rate the first mis­sion house built in Huro­nia. Offered and accepted in 1638, the Huron belt is cur­rently housed in the Vatican.

With the influx of more Euro­peans in the 17th cen­tury, notably the Dutch and Eng­lish, metal tools became widely avail­able to Indi­ans in the east. Among these tools were slen­der metal drills which greatly facil­i­tated the pro­duc­tion of wampum.

These new tools enabled the Indi­ans to pro­duce uni­form beads more quickly and with greater ease. Apply­ing basic eco­nomic prin­ci­ples to wampum as a commodity/currency in the 17th cen­tury, it might be assumed that wampum decreased in value as its pro­duc­tion was sped up.

On the con­trary, its value remained sta­ble. Again apply­ing the basic eco­nomic rule of sup­ply and demand, though the Euro­peans brought tools that helped to increase wampum pro­duc­tion, they also bal­anced their con­tri­bu­tion with an increased demand for the shell beads.

Wampum remained the stan­dard legal ten­der of both Indi­ans and New Eng­land colonists until nearly the end of the 17th cen­tury. It was, in the words of New Eng­land eco­nomic his­to­rian William Wee­den, “the mag­net which drew the beaver out of the inte­rior forests.”

Though the New Eng­lan­ders prized it solely for its eco­nomic value, the Algo­nquians and Iro­quois con­tin­ued to uti­lize wampum for orna­men­ta­tion, com­mu­ni­ca­tion, cer­e­mo­nial use, and as a reminder of the solem­nity of agreements.

For com­mu­ni­ca­tion pur­poses, wampum remained the “bead” of choice. Run­ners car­ried wampum belts from one vil­lage to another bring­ing news. The recip­i­ents of these mes­sages knew as the run­ner approached whether or not he brought tid­ings of great joy, or that he was the bearer of bad news. A belt pri­mar­ily worked in white beads was a good sign. A belt with a pre­dom­i­nance of pur­ple was cause for fear and appre­hen­sion. It may mean war, dis­as­ter, or a death announcement.

Orna­men­ta­tion uses of wampum included bracelets, anklets, neck­laces, belts, straps, and head­bands. Dec­o­ra­tive items of wampum were signs of wealth. One who wore sev­eral adorn­ing items of wampum was a well off, or respected per­son. Sachems would have need of much wampum, as they had need of many other valu­able possessions.

An expec­ta­tion of a New Eng­land sachem was that he be a gen­er­ous gift giver. A gift of any of these was much appre­ci­ated, deserv­ing of a fine return (the term “Indian giver” arose from the Indian cus­tom to expect a gift in return for a gift).

A woman would often have wampum ear­rings, per­haps a sash, and anklets. Delaware women fre­quently wore belts and head­bands of woven strands of wampum, while the Iro­quois and Mohi­cans, men and women, favored sev­eral sin­gle strand wampum necklaces.

As the New Eng­land colonists adopted wampum as their stan­dard cur­rency, inci­dents of fraud (wampum coun­ter­feit) increased. Both Indian and Eng­lish­man were known to pass off infe­rior or fraud­u­lent wampum to unsus­pect­ing colo­nials. In time, reg­u­la­tion and a stan­dard­ized mea­sure of wampum strands was imple­mented. A fathom (6 feet) was the most usual mea­sure­ment and instantly denoted a spe­cific mon­e­tary value mea­sured against Eng­lish shillings, pence, pounds, and so forth.

The fact that leg­is­la­tion was intro­duced, reg­u­la­tions regard­ing wampum man­u­fac­ture were set down, penal­ties for coun­ter­feit or infe­rior qual­ity wampum trad­ing were harsh, and in some colonies the rejec­tion of dark wampum for only white (though its value was greater, it was eas­ier to coun­ter­feit by way of dye), all illus­trate how depen­dent the colonists and Indi­ans were on these shell beads.

There was some fluc­tu­a­tion in wampum’s value, as is always the case with cur­rency, but by and large, it remained uni­formly accept­able and desir­able to nearly the end of the 17th cen­tury in the colonies and into the 18th cen­tury along the fron­tiers. Its worth, how­ever, was tenable.

Wampum was only good as long as the Indi­ans prized it. If or when that was no longer the case, an eco­nomic crash could occur through­out the Eng­lish colonies that would have had seri­ous con­se­quences in New Eng­land, and sub­se­quently, in the mother coun­try as well. It was this real­iza­tion, along with the declin­ing demand for fur, that moved the New Eng­lan­ders to grad­u­ally phase out wampum as a cur­rency stan­dard. With sil­ver from the West Indies begin­ning to cir­cu­late in North Amer­ica, wampum was slowly being replaced by that uni­ver­sally val­ued com­mod­ity, metal coinage.

The Mohi­cans and Mohawk both oper­ated as bro­kers in the wampum exchange through­out the 17th cen­tury. It was a lucra­tive ven­ture to all involved, a point that is high­lighted by Mohawk frus­tra­tion at their inabil­ity to access the wampum pro­duc­ing coastal tribes dur­ing the Mohican/Dutch alliance.

It was impor­tant enough to be the object of diplo­macy and com­pro­mise dur­ing the treaty dis­cus­sions in which the Dutch medi­ated. (The Dutch even tried their hand at pro­duc­ing wampum beads, but the Indi­ans would not accept it, thereby mak­ing it use­less.) The result­ing agree­ment upheld the Mohi­cans pos­ses­sion of their Hud­son Val­ley lands and rights to the fur trade, while the Mohawk were to be per­mit­ted to cross these lands to access the wampum mak­ers. Both tribes traded wampum to oth­ers in the west and north, and were major sup­pli­ers to the Seneca.

By the mid 18th cen­tury, dur­ing the French and Indian War, the use of wampum as cur­rency had declined so much that the Indi­ans them­selves were reject­ing it as pay­ment. They too wanted sil­ver in exchange for their furs and ser­vices, and would often turn to the Dutch set­tle­ments, rather than the Eng­lish, for their trad­ing ventures.

Wampum remained long in use for orna­men­ta­tion pur­poses, though even in this area it began to decline. More and more trade items were being adapted to suit the styles and tra­di­tions of Indian peo­ple in the east. Wampum belts, how­ever, as proof of good will and bind­ing agree­ments, continued.

Some Indian peo­ple still pos­sess the belts their ances­tors wove to record and com­mem­o­rate events and covenants of ear­lier days. With great respect, these belts are kept by the people.

Wampum belts that serve as solemn reminders of past agree­ments are still extant. The most famous of these is the Iro­quois Covenant belt, given in 1794 to the Iro­quois Con­fed­er­acy by the United States gov­ern­ment to mark the great covenant between the two nations.

It is inter­est­ing, if not ironic, to note that wampum remains valu­able even today. A sin­gle wampum bead made from Qua­hog or Whelk, man­u­fac­tured in New Eng­land coastal areas can cost up to $10! Over­seas wampum is less expen­sive, but still demands a good price. Wampum, the first cur­rency of the new world, has sur­vived as a desired item long enough to be con­sid­ered a classic.

dis·tinct — adj
1. Read­ily dis­tin­guish­able from all oth­ers; dis­crete: on two dis­tinct occasions.
2. Eas­ily per­ceived by the senses or intel­lect; clear: a dis­tinct flavor.
3. Clearly defined; unques­tion­able: at a dis­tinct disadvantage.
4. Very likely; prob­a­ble: There is a dis­tinct pos­si­bil­ity that she won’t come.
5. Notable: a dis­tinct honor and high privilege.
dis­tinc­tive — adj
1. serv­ing or tend­ing to distinguish
2. Char­ac­ter­is­tic of one per­son or thing, and so serv­ing to dis­tin­guish it from others.

cur·ren·cy — n
1. Money in any form when in actual use as a medium of exchange, espe­cially cir­cu­lat­ing paper money.
2. Trans­mis­sion from per­son to per­son as a medium of exchange; cir­cu­la­tion: coins now in currency.
3. Gen­eral accep­tance or use; preva­lence: the cur­rency of a slang term.

Ref­er­ences
See Crosby for doc­u­ments and Moss­man for excel­lent recent cov­er­age. On Sea­want and Peag
see the def­i­n­i­tions in the Oxford Eng­lish Dic­tio­nary. Also see J. Earl Massey, “Early Money Sub­sti­tutes,” in Stud­ies on Money in Early Amer­ica , ed. by Eric New­man and Richard Doty, New York: Amer­i­can Numis­matic Soci­ety, 1976, pp. 15–24; Don Taxay, Money of the Amer­i­can Indi­ans and Other Prim­i­tive Cur­ren­cies of the Amer­i­cas,New York; Num­mus Press, 1970, espe­cially pp. 107–148, with the colo­nial infor­ma­tion on pp. 133–136; and on New York, John. M. Klee­berg, “The New York in Amer­ica Token” in  Money of Pre-Federal Amer­ica,   edited by John M. Klee­berg, Coinage of the Amer­i­cas Con­fer­ence, held at the Amer­i­can Numis­matic Soci­ety May 4, 1991, Pro­ceed­ings no. 7, New York: Amer­i­can Numis­matic Soci­ety, 1992, pp. 15–57 on p. 35.

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

Outrageous Governmental and Judicial Misconduct

In recent weeks a few mem­bers of the six nations failed in an appeals process to have an injunc­tion overturned.

To paint a vague back­ground, the city of brant­ford sold some land within lands under six nation inter­ests, and when the builder started his project the peo­ple from six nations asserted their inter­ests, pre­vent­ing the builder from mov­ing for­ward the builder launched a law­suit against the city for not dis­clos­ing prior inter­est on the land, the city pro­vided lim­ited infor­ma­tion that may have been over­looked or insufficient.

Lead­ing to this state­ment and injunc­tion by Har­ri­son Arrells’

I find it as a fact …For more than 150 years, the Six­Na­tions did noth­ing to indi­cate to inno­cent third-party pur­chasers that there was any prob­lem with title to their lands”, “the econ­o­myof this small city is at risk; the employ­ment of mem­bers of the com­mu­nity are like­wise at risk; the rep­u­ta­tion of the city as a place tolive, work and invest is at risk; all as a result of the city being unable to reg­u­late devel­op­ment, pro­vide a conflict-free envi­ron­ment for invest­ment, employ­ment and the rais­ing of fam­i­lies, and the inabil­ity of the city to ensure to local a res­i­dents and the invest­ment com­mu­nity that the rule of law prevails.”

Now here is where I make my case that the col­lec­tive gov­ern­ments use the courts to not only redi­rect the actual cause of the risk but to uphold its duty to res­cue as a tool to pro­tect itself from noth­ing less than total col­lapse of the real estate and cana­dian land claims industry.

Here­about in Arrells state­ment he points out that six nations did noth­ing to indi­cate to inno­cent third-party pur­chasers that there was any prob­lem with title to their lands.

Lets look at the list of so-called third party pur­chaser  (this list may not be com­plete but it does not need be to prove my point):

  1. The Cor­po­ra­tion of the City of Brantford
  2. Every­one else, with exceptions

Now that I have you won­der­ing how is Brant­ford a third party, The Cor­pra­tion of the City of Brant­ford is not a crown cor­po­ra­tion, why is this sig­nif­i­cant? because only the real par­ties of inter­est (British Crown vs. Amer­i­can Indi­ans) have stake in the out­come of any final res­o­lu­tion. Until a res­o­lu­tion only first par­ties must pre­sume to have 50% con­trol­ling andor active inter­ests, unless a supe­rior claim comes to the table.

Con­trary to Arrells state­ment that “six nations so-called claim is weak” the six nations have at least 50% posi­tion in the out­come, so that is a false state­ment and mis­lead­ing at best.

Arrell stated that no indi­ca­tion to the third party was ever made about the land,  herein lies the con­f­sion, Brant­ford is a non-crown com­pany and third party.

The kicker here is that they also rep­re­sent the other third par­ties, which over the last 150 years has failed to inform its cit­i­zens of this defect, cre­at­ing the need to res­cue itself and those they put at risk in the process.

The Cor­po­ra­tion of the City of Brant­ford has a duty to save peo­ple it has put at risk , called Duty to Rescue;

A duty to res­cue arises where a per­son (City of Brant­ford, other)  cre­ates a haz­ardous sit­u­a­tion (non-disclosur of For­eign National inter­est). If another per­son (pur­chaser)  then falls into peril because of this haz­ardous sit­u­a­tion (demon­stra­tions, activism) , the cre­ator of the haz­ard (City of Brant­ford, other)  – who may not nec­es­sar­ily have been a neg­li­gent tort­fea­sor – has a duty to res­cue the indi­vid­ual in peril

The res­cue hap­pens by hav­ing the Cana­dian rule of law enforced onto con­flict­ing nations, now we need to look at what rule of law means. In nations that pro­fess civil­ity rule of law must mean the fun­da­men­tal prin­ci­pals or nations con­sti­tu­tion, how­ever in the con­fu­sion and nar­row view breeds con­ve­nience by the courts pro­tected  tyran­ni­cal con­cept of a multi­na­tional sin­gu­lar rule of law, we must not for­get to study the diver­sity of rules of law in multi-national environments.

When we see the Cana­dian courts pseudo-impose their rule of law (con­sti­tu­tion) onto another nation, it may be unwit­tingly assumed that Canadas’ con­sti­tu­tion is uni­ver­sally applic­a­ble to the Indian because of the addi­tion of con­sti­tu­tional rights under sec­tion 35, the con­ver­sion trick here is to have the Indian agree he is an Indian in the mean­ing of the Indian Act or the Con­sti­tu­tion Act 1982, how­ever if we can believe that rule of law is cre­ated by the indi­vid­ual nation through its own con­sti­tu­tion, we must con­clude that we have inde­pen­dent rules of law.

The sec­tion 35 of Canadas con­sti­tu­tion, being a mere tool designed to con­vert the rights and immu­nity of the Indian from his nation con­sti­tu­tion (rule of law) to Canadas’ con­sti­tu­tion (rule of law), grant­ing the Cana­dian court juris­dic­tion. The use of the sec­tion 35 (canadas con­sti­tu­tion)  shows the court the Indian now choose Cana­dian con­sti­tu­tional rep­re­sen­ta­tion, in the courts eyes The Indian claim to his own nations con­ti­tu­tion (rule of law) was just a mere pre­sump­tion, the use of sec­tion 35 tells the court you may have been Cana­dian all along.

The Cana­dian col­lec­tive gov­ern­ment has a duty to res­cue that by nature over­rides the hopes of due process for any Indian or Indian inter­ests when using the Cana­dian courts.

Ill end by point­ing out these ques­tions: Who are the peers in a Cana­dian trial? How do they relate peer­wise to the for­eign national? Can the court pro­ceed with­out evi­dence that the accused is a Cana­dian cit­i­zen? If not Why? If not, by what rule of law?

 “[W]e may some day be pre­sented with a sit­u­a­tion in which the con­duct of law enforce­ment agents is so out­ra­geous that due process prin­ci­ples would absolutely bar the gov­ern­ment from invok­ing judi­cial process to obtain a con­vic­tion …” United States v. Russell

http://mightisnotright.org/
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/rescue.htm
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=110071
http://benjamindoolittle.com/private-national-law-and-conflict-of-law/

Posted in Articles, Pentortoise | National Asset Recovery Projects | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

LAND CLAIMS AND THE POWER OF PEACE AND WAR

What is a land claim and who makes a land claim?

Land claims are a legal dec­la­ra­tion of desired con­trol over areas of prop­erty includ­ing bod­ies of water. The phrase is usu­ally only used with respect to dis­puted or unre­solved land claims. Some types of land claims include abo­rig­i­nal (the term “abo­rig­i­nal” is a cre­ation of Cana­dian con­sti­tu­tional impo­si­tion, and often­times falsely applied, there­fore most if not all claims from this office is rela­beled and repack­aged Cana­dian land claim) land claims, Antarc­tic land claims, and post-colonial land claims.

This of course is a colo­nial con­cept of own­er­ship prop­a­gated by the papal bulls of the Vat­i­can, allow­ing Chris­tians to stake claims on for­eign lands and rid the lands of con­flict­ing authorities.

Romanus Pon­tifex, Jan­u­ary 8, 1455 — …We bestow suit­able favors and spe­cial graces on those Catholic kings and princes, …ath­letes and intre­pid cham­pi­ons of the Chris­t­ian faith… to invade, search out, cap­ture, van­quish, and sub­due all Sara­cens and pagans what­so­ever, and other ene­mies of Christ where­so­ever placed, and… to reduce their per­sons to per­pet­ual slav­ery, and to apply and appro­pri­ate… pos­ses­sions, and goods, and to con­vert them to… their use and profit

The papal bull was a for­eign claim on lands not within their realm, so this is the root of land claims of today and unlaw­ful occu­pa­tion on north america.

His­tor­i­cally and pre-colonial the six nations as it where, knew and had a shared con­cept of ter­ri­tory and war, to encroach onto a ter­ri­tory meant to risk cer­tain death, how­ever through con­fed­er­a­tion of the six nations and ter­ri­to­ries, the end of land claims brought about the end of war.

Sken:non kowa: In mohawk lan­guage this means “is there still the great peace”, an unaf­firmable ques­tion and greet­ing meant as a reminder to the peace between the peo­ple of the league of nations.

So this leads us into my main point that to make a land claim is the act of wag­ing war against the peo­ple that live on the land  and all those who are out­side of the claim.

When six nations (53 nations)  buried the hatchet between the league of nations and unit­ing the ter­ri­to­ries they had ended war against them­selves by not claim­ing lands, it is known that the peo­ple are the land, the peo­ple are the water, so they speak to it, about it and for it.

From my legal stud­ies, the crown or Vat­i­can has made the land claims, Canada, the provinces, and munic­i­pal­i­ties make land claims,  all based on a fraud­u­lent doc­u­ment from the pope, Since all for­eign claims to this land are based on Indi­ans defined as pagans or sub-human,  the claim is void from the mere fact that we existed then and do exist today.

Could this be why Canada does not want to rec­og­nize that first nations have human rights, would it void their papal claim, thus void­ing every sin­gle colo­nial land claim to date, Fraud voids all from the beginning.

He who makes the claim has the bur­den of proof, he how makes a neg­a­tive claim will walk away smiling:

I have no evi­dence that the papal bull had or has any author­ity to make any claim out­side its juris­dic­tion, and I believe no such evi­dence exists.

Above is a neg­a­tive statement-claim, no need to prove any­thing. We address the pre­sump­tion then assert our own pre­sump­tion and now leave it to them to rebut. If they do not cor­rect the pre­sum­tion, We can now move for­ward in peace know­ing that we have cor­rected their fraud­u­lent claims.

Posted in Articles, Pentortoise | National Asset Recovery Projects | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

WHEN INFORMATION BECOMES INTELLIGENT

Lets take a look at the two words ”Infor­ma­tion” and ”Intel­li­gence”, I like to check wikipedia to get a com­mon usage of the words then look in his­tor­i­cal ref­er­ences,  wikipedia works for these purposes.

  • Infor­ma­tion in its most restricted tech­ni­cal sense is a mes­sage (utter­ance or expres­sion) or col­lec­tion of mes­sages that con­sists of an ordered sequence of sym­bols, or it is the mean­ing that can be inter­preted from such a mes­sage or col­lec­tion of messages.
  • Intel­li­gence has been defined in dif­fer­ent ways, includ­ing the abil­i­ties for abstract thought, under­stand­ing, com­mu­ni­ca­tion, rea­son­ing, learn­ing, plan­ning, emo­tional intel­li­gence and prob­lem solving.

“Intel­li­gence: Knowns and Unknowns” (1995), a report pub­lished by the Board of Sci­en­tific Affairs of the Amer­i­can Psy­cho­log­i­cal Association:

Indi­vid­u­als dif­fer from one another in their abil­ity to under­stand com­plex ideas, to adapt effec­tively to the envi­ron­ment, to learn from expe­ri­ence, to engage in var­i­ous forms of rea­son­ing, to over­come obsta­cles by tak­ing thought. Although these indi­vid­ual dif­fer­ences can be sub­stan­tial, they are never entirely con­sis­tent: a given person’s intel­lec­tual per­for­mance will vary on dif­fer­ent occa­sions, in dif­fer­ent domains, as judged by dif­fer­ent cri­te­ria. Con­cepts of “intel­li­gence” are attempts to clar­ify and orga­nize this com­plex set of phe­nom­ena. Although con­sid­er­able clar­ity has been achieved in some areas, no such con­cep­tu­al­iza­tion has yet answered all the impor­tant ques­tions, and none com­mands uni­ver­sal assent. Indeed, when two dozen promi­nent the­o­rists were recently asked to define intel­li­gence, they gave two dozen, some­what dif­fer­ent, definitions

 

By these def­i­n­i­tions infor­ma­tion is col­lected as raw data to be inter­preted, intel­li­gence is the rea­son­ing of infor­ma­tion as raw data.

At the heart of the intel­li­gence effort lies a para­dox. Intel­li­gence is valu­able only if it can be shared with peo­ple who need it, but, to the extent that it is more widely shared, risks of com­pro­mise are enhanced, In this sense intel­li­gence is of lit­tle or no value to peo­ple who have no need for it.

When infor­ma­tion is accepted as intel­li­gence by peo­ple who need it, its use and func­tion must be stud­ied to develop a sense and under­stand­ing of its pur­pose. An indi­vid­ual may trust and use the infor­ma­tion as “intel­li­gence”, by not trust­ing the infor­ma­tion, its per­ceived intel­li­gence pur­poses are not accepted or iden­ti­fied as intel.

Con­vey­ing infor­ma­tion with rea­son helps the respon­dent trust the infor­ma­tion allow­ing  per­sonal ratio­nal­iza­tion and real­iza­tion of the infor­ma­tion, when infor­ma­tion is accepted as ratio­nal and real,  info becomes intel.

Its in the mind. spo­ken through the masks we wear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona

Per: Through or by
Sona: Sound

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , | 3 Comments