THE T. REX PAGES

Press Conference Statement: National Chief Matthew Coon Come Assembly Of First Nations
Ottawa - August 26, 2001

In a few days at the World Conference Against Racism in South Africa , Canada will no doubt present itself as a world leader in respect of human rights.

Yet within Canada there are two realities. There is the “reality” of a highly developed, just society that the world knows, and then there is the harsh and deadly reality which Aboriginal peoples endure.

First Nations peoples’ social and economic conditions are plain evidence of the discrimination and systemic racism that we continue to suffer in this “gentle and just land”.

Our people are the poorest of the poor. We don't live as long as Canadians overall, and we suffer disproportionately high rates of diseases of poverty and dispossession such as tuberculosis and diabetes. Hopelessness and despair are driving our children to commit suicide in epidemic numbers. Many or most of our communities, all federal towns, lack basic infrastructure, clean water and adequate sanitation. Unemployment in many of our communities is as high as 85% , while the economic regions of which they are part -- even in the poorest regions of the country -- have functioning resource economies and standards of living that we can only envy.

In short, we are excluded from the Canada known and taken for granted by all other Canadians.

Our human rights situation is so serious that in 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples concluded that Canada was pushing our peoples "to the edge of economic, cultural and political extinction".

Will Canada inform the world about this dire warning from its own federal commission, which was co-chaired by an eminent Supreme Court Justice?

In 1998 and 1999, the two highest United Nations expert human rights monitoring bodies echoed this warning, and told Canada that the conditions faced by aboriginal peoples in Canada are a violation of its international human rights obligations.

Will Canada tell the world at the UN Conference that its human rights record was recently severely criticized by these two key UN entities?

Will Canada tell the world that these UN bodies demanded urgent land and resource reallocation in favour of Aboriginal peoples in this country?

And will Canada tell the world that instead of heeding these international judgements, last summer federal officials were ramming and sinking the boats of native fishermen who were exercising their treaty right to fish in accordance with a Supreme Court of Canada ruling?

We are travelling to South Africa because we are concerned, once again, that Canada will not tell the full truth about the ongoing racism, and even the ongoing use of state violence, against indigenous peoples by the Canadian state.

As South Africans have demonstrated through their courageous truth and reconciliation process, official public acknowledgment of the full truth is a necessary first step toward change. Without truth and full acknowledgement of the facts, there can never begin to be reconciliation or justice.

Canada is one of the richest and most-developed countries in the world. If indigenous peoples here are faced with the threat of extinction as a result of governmental laws and actions, as we are, I ask: How much worse is this threat for other indigenous peoples around the world?

And how can Canada, or any other country, undertake at the World Conference to take steps to eradicate racism against indigenous peoples if this threat -- the demise and extinction of indigenous peoples -- is not first openly discussed and confronted by Canada and the UN?

We trust that Canada, as a state with great influence at the World Conference, will not only speak fully and openly, but will also ensure that indigenous peoples are fully enabled to speak for ourselves in the form of direct addresses and full participation to the Conference Plenaries.

We trust that Canada , as a state with great influence at the World Conference, will take all necessary steps to ensure that all discriminatory and harmful clauses that are presently part of the draft World Conference Declarations are removed.

Please note my words: I am referring not only to the racist clauses affecting the rights of indigenous peoples. I am also referring to clauses containing the language of racism affecting other peoples. I am also referring to clauses that reflect efforts by states to cover their wrongdoing, and actually impede the world struggle to eliminate the scourge of racism and discrimination.

The goal of the United Nations World Conference Against Racism is to develop concrete steps to this end. Racism against indigenous peoples in Canada alone, direct and systemic, costs thousands of lives per year. Racism against all affected peoples globally costs millions of lives.

I and fellow representatives of indigenous peoples in Canada are travelling to South Africa to try to ensure that this goal is actually fulfilled for First Nations peoples in Canada , and, by extension, everywhere in the world.

Thank you, merci, Migwitch

Matthew Coon Come, national chief of Canada's Assembly of First Nations, recently (August 26, 2001) noted (as reported by the Canadian Press) that the social and economic conditions endured by the Aboriginal Peoples in Canada are clear evidence of the "discrimination and systematic racism" directed toward them. He stated that such racism contributes to the higher unemployment, lower life expectancy rates and greater rates of disease and suicide suffered by members of the First Nations in Canada. Mr. Coon Come also noted that Aboriginal Peoples in Canada "are faced with the threat of extinction as a result of government laws and actions."

Mr. Coon Come is quite correct in his assessment of the situation; and the various levels of government in Canada could quite easily and very quickly rectify the majority of the problems being faced by the First Nations of Canada: problems that are due to the historical context of how the First Nations have been treated by the various governments of Canada. But, that is not happening. Why?

In reference to the field of schizo-analysis, we can look at the situation with regard to what are termed ‘the three syntheses’ (as presented by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari in “Anti-Oedipus”). These are basic organizational principles that describe how the mechanics of human desire interact with the mechanisms of social production. We can note here that a basic problem exists with reference to the first synthesis, the connective synthesis of production: members of the First Nations have consistently been denied the right, means, and opportunity to regain control over the basic elements needed for economic production (resources, a viable land base, etc.).

Next, we can then note how this basic problem is expressed through the second synthesis, the disjunctive synthesis of recording: and here, the fact that conveying information necessarily separates that information from its point of origin has been exploited in such a way as to mythologize the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada, and to obscure the true conditions of their actual lives with all manner of hollow, government-sponsored platitudes, mis-directions, and outright lies. This is where racism and stereotypes assert their vicious and degrading nature.

When we come to the third synthesis, the conjunctive synthesis of consuming-consumption, the truth of the situation emerges. Here, the true nature of the government’s relationships with the First Nations emerges: one step beyond subjugation, the nature of the pairings between the federal government and the First Nations has developed to the point where the Aboriginal Peoples have become, for the Federal government, simply a source of issues that the government can make the appearance of rectifying.

As with the conjunctive synthesis which advertising is, where the product being marketed is the ability to create marketing itself, so too have the First Nations become a source for the federal government’s consuming-consumption. Thus, instead of actually rectifying the problems which the First Nations face, the Federal government instead prolongs and orchestrates such problems…in order to perpetually present the appearance of rectifying these problems. Much as companies design products which break and wear out after a certain period of time (thus ensuring an ongoing market for their goods), so too has the Federal government taken to claiming to have solutions for problems which the First Nations face and which the government is, in the final analysis, at the root cause of.

Instead of being treated as the first citizens of a democracy called Canada, the members of the First Nations are instead being used as a source of problems that the government can create the illusion of solving…problems that are in fact perpetuated by government inaction and misaction. In this way, the government can present itself to the general electorate of Canada as having consistently solved such problems over and over again…without any of the problems actually being rectified, but with the government creating the illusion of its compassion and competence.

In other words, the suffering of the members of the First Nations of Canada has become a raw material for the government’s primary products: “political solutions” and "crisis management".

This is exactly why the First Nations MUST be given control of their own lives, and over the mechanisms of their self-determination: none of the problems which the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada face will EVER be rectified through the control of people other than themselves.

Such observations are easily confirmed; and anyone who is in any way associated with the situations faced by the First Nations in Canada realizes this:

COON COME’S DURBAN COMMENTS RING TRUE; MINISTER NAULT SHOULD RESIGN
(Vancouver, Coast Salish Territory/September 4th, 2001; Joint Policy Council, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs).

Chief Stewart Phillip stated today “National Chief Matthew Coon Come’s recent comments at the World Conference Against Racism accurately reflect the situation of First Nations in Canada. National Chief Coon Come has exposed the truth for the international community to bear witness to the systematic oppression, dispossession, discrimination and flagrant violation of our human rights here in Canada.”

The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs fully supports National Chief Coon Come’s observation that the Government of Canada’s international position is that the right of self-determination applies to all peoples, including Indigenous Peoples, and yet through its policies and actions Canada has demonstrated their unwillingness to recognize domestically what they have endorsed internationally. This failure to recognize our right to self-determination has resulted in the grinding poverty and personal hardships borne by the many First Nation communities and people here in Canada.”

In particular, Chief Phillip noted that Robert Nault, Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has steadfastly refused to consider that policies like the Comprehensive Claims Policy of 1986 as outdated documents which utterly fail to recognize the full breadth of Aboriginal Title and Rights as recognized and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1997 Delgamuuk’w decision.

Chief Stewart Phillip noted “The policies and inaction of Minister Nault has directly contributed to the mounting tensions at the community level across Canada. We have Elders, youth and land-users of places like Skwelkwek’welt, Halfway River and Burnt Church who are protecting their Aboriginal Title and Treaty Rights. The continued criminalization and harassment of community people does not remove the fundamental need for the recognition of Aboriginal Title, Aboriginal Rights and Treaty Rights.”
Chief Phillip went on to say “Minister Nault is attempting to circumvent what the courts and the Canadian Constitution have affirmed, our Aboriginal Title and our Aboriginal Rights exist.”

Chief Phillip observed “Minister Nault has demonstrated his intransigency time and time again. His confrontational and arrogant approach to Canada’s fiduciary responsibilities has harmed all efforts to date and in fact has added to the growing tensions across Canada. Rather than entertaining an apology from our National Chief Matthew Coon Come, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs feel it is time for Minister Nault to resign.”

Indeed, there is widespread support for the Assembly of First Nations National Chief Mathew Coon Come's remarks regarding racism in Canada:

PRESS RELEASE: Indigenous Bar Association on racism in Canada
10 September, 2001

Dear Friends:

I am writing to you as President of the Indigenous Bar Association (IBA), the national association of Indian, Inuit and Métis lawyers in Canada. The IBA is a professional organization and normally refrains from commenting on political matters. However, recent events require that the public record be set straight.

I wish to preface my comments by stating I do not believe Canadians are racist, for the most part. Nor do I believe that the Canadian government is overtly racist, though it is often ill advised. Having said this, I take issue with criticism by both the press and federal politicians, of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief, Mathew Coon Come, in reference to comments he recently made at the UN Conference on Racism, in Durban, South Africa. While I do not agree with everything the National Chief has done while in office, I wholeheartedly agree with many of his comments about racism in Canada. And, though only some of the racism that exists in this country may be willful and deliberate, there is no doubt that systemic racism is a part of the daily lives of many Aboriginal people.

Many members of the Indigenous Bar Association are practitioners and work on a daily basis in the justice system, where racism is rampant. The most glaring example of systemic racism is the disproportionate number of Aboriginal people in prisons. Aboriginal people are approximately 3% of the Canadian population, yet Aboriginal people make up approximately 15% percent of the prison population. In provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan, it is much worse. One need only visit the halls in provincial courthouses in some prairie cities or in northern communities to get a sense of the tremendous injustices. The Supreme Court of Canada has acknowledged this discrimination in a number of cases, particularly in R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688 and R. v. Williams, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128 decisions. In Williams at paragraph 58, the Court said this of the criminal justice system:

There is evidence that this widespread racism has translated into systemic discrimination in the criminal justice system: see Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Bridging the Cultural Divide: A Report on Aboriginal People and Criminal Justice in Canada, at p. 33; Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution: Findings and Recommendations, vol. 1 (1989), at p. 162; Report on the Cariboo-Chilcotin Justice Inquiry (1993), at p. 11. Finally, as Esson C.J. noted, tensions between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals have increased in recent years as a result of developments in such areas as land claims and fishing rights. These tensions increase the potential of racist jurors siding with the Crown as the perceived representative of the majority's interests.

But systemic racism is not only reserved for the justice system, it extends to the manner in which social programs and services are delivered. So, while it is with great pride that the federal leadership refers to United Nations reports indicating the living standards in Canada are among the best in the world, if measured against the same criteria, Aboriginal communities would be ranked among the poorest. Clearly, whether intentional or not, Aboriginal peoples are not receiving the same socio and economic benefits as are other Canadians. In fact, the National Chief made reference to findings in 1998 and 1999 by the two highest human rights monitoring bodies at the UN that the conditions faced by Aboriginal peoples in Canada are a violation of Canada's international human rights obligations. The remarks made by the National Chief were in fact for the most part references to findings by other bodies that racism against Aboriginal peoples is undeniably a part of the Canadian reality.

I am astounded by the reaction of the media, which has almost unanimously condemned the National Chief for his comments. Less than a year ago, members of the media were stumbling over themselves in the rush to praise Mathew Coon Come when he criticized First Nation leadership for their indulgences. I now question whether the media itself is guilty of its own form of racism through willful denial. I am equally astounded by the reaction of the federal government. The veiled threats, the denial and the demand for an apology are inconsistent with the honour of the Crown, which is always at stake in its dealing with Aboriginal peoples. Though national pride may have been injured, denial will not resolve the problems that exist. Nor will simply spending more money. What is required is an understanding amongst federal politicians of how grave the problems are, a commitment to address the problems in a systematic manner, and a long term vision for fundamental change.

This would have to be coupled with a long term commitment to provide the necessary resources. The report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples identified a path to follow, but the report lies on shelves gathering dust.

In 1969 the federal government thought that racism could be eliminated by eliminating Indian reserves and Indian status and treating Indians "like everyone else". That is exactly what the federal government tried to do with the residential schools policy and through policies of legislated assimilation. Canadians are very much aware of that sad legacy of attempts at forced assimilation. Government orchestrated assimilation is a form of social engineering, with racism at its core. The 1969 White Paper was a continuation of these ill advised racist policies and that is why it was so vehemently rejected.

Aboriginal peoples were here first, living on the land in organized societies under their own laws. Aboriginal people want to be recognized as the original owners of the land and receive the benefits that ought to flow from that recognition. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized original Aboriginal occupancy as a source of entitlement in Delgamuukw v. B.C., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010, through the characterizing of Aboriginal title as something akin to full ownership. Unfortunately the government refuses meaningfully to address this. The clock cannot be turned back, but in moving forward, past wrongs must be made right. Land claims must be dealt with fairly. Socio economic disadvantages must be eliminated so that substantive equality can be achieved. Substantive equality involves achieving socio-economic indicators that demonstrate equal education levels, equal incarceration rates, equal infant mortality rates, equal income levels, equal levels of employment and so forth. This can only happen when the discrimination that is endemic in our system is eliminated It is inequitable to ignore and to refuse to address these issues with honour and respect.

It was racist to take Indian land under the pretext of colonial theories that Aboriginal people were "infidels," "children", or "barbarians" who could not own land; and it was racist to take the land without informed consent, without paying for it fairly and properly, and to marginalize Aboriginal people on tiny reserves. And it is racism today to allow this situation to be perpetuated. It is wrong, and the government has been told it is wrong by the highest court in the land, by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, by numerous reports and commissions regarding Aboriginal peoples and the administration of justice, and by the volumes of socio-economic studies that have been undertaken.

With respect to the (AFN) National Chief's comments in Durban, we now live in a global society and in an age of enlightenment where human rights have captured the attention of the world. It is impossible for Canada to keep the unsettled land claims and the socio-economic conditions of Aboriginal peoples quiet. Canada is being judged and will continue to be judged by the international community on how it treats First Nations. If Canada is as open, transparent and democratic as it professes to be, it should welcome international scrutiny and be prepared to change its policies if they are racist when measured against both domestic and international standards.

The media should encourage this international scrutiny rather than engaging in denial and falling into the strategy of federal spin-doctors by demonizing the AFN National chief because he speaks the truth, however harsh it may sound.

Respectfully

Mark L. Stevenson

President
Indigenous Bar Association

And what was the government's response to all of the above considerations? Well, you have to read it yourself to believe it, because it is something one would expect from a dictatorial system of government:

FUNDING CUTS CAUSE LAYOFFS AT THE ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS

The struggle of the First Nations toward self-determination is a long and hard one; and it is far from over. Every effort made to achieve ever modest improvements in the lives of the Aboriginal Peoples in Canada seems to meet with the most outdated, racist attitudes imaginable...attitudes that are too often expressed from positions of authority:

"...it would not be accurate to assume that even pre-contact existence in the territory was in the least bit idyllic. The plaintiff's ancestors had no written language, no horses or wheeled vehicles, slavery and starvation was not uncommon, wars with neighbouring peoples were common, and there is no doubt, to quote Hobbes, that aboriginal life in the territory was, at best, 'nasty, brutish and short.'"

British Columbia Supreme Court Judge Allan McEachern, in announcing his decision against the land claim entered by the Gitxsan and Wet'suwet'en peoples; March, 1991.

In the course of my research, I have come to conclude that everything which Judge McEachern based his decision upon (apart from the lack of wheeled vehicles, which aren't of much use in such mountainous terrain: there is more vertical land there than horizontal) was WRONG.

McEachern, who before becoming a judge had been a lawyer serving the interests of logging companies, also noted:

"There are, unquestionably, immense forestry reserves throughout the territory which are of great economic value."

From: "Race, Wilderness, Territory and the Origins of Modern Canadian Landscape Painting", by Scott Watson, in Semiotext[e] Canadas, 1994 (page 93).

"The very way Canadians conceive the large territory their nation claims sovereignty over is saturated with a genocidal intent."

I would like to conclude here with an observation: one of the things that bureaucrats, government officials, and hardened, habitual criminals have in common is the inability to conceptualize a difference between "You don't know what we did", and "You can't prove what we did"...coupled with an inability to realize that others CAN and DO conceptualize such a distinction.

(Of course, people who have not done anything wrong tend to have a completely different attitude).

"Proof", of course, is a semiological attribute characteristic to and found within structures of meaning. Any philosopher can tell you that the real, as a given, does not require proof in order to be functional. That which is real need only be known in order to be put to a functional use.

Conversely, describing and defining the functions of a thing is often sufficient for establishing "a reality" for that thing: this produces a pragmatic and somewhat nomadic form of knowledge, which can function quite separately from the "proofs" which are so often appended to the reality of the physical world.

Within the definitions supplied from semiological systems, "proof" can be taken to mean 'establishing determinacy'; and this conceptual manoeuvre ignores the fact that indeterminacy is a fundamental aspect of our relationships with (and within) the real. To deny the reality of indeterminacy is, in fact, to deny the nature of our existential encounter with the world.

A conceptual insistence and dependence upon such an ideal of "proof" is nothing more than an ideological preference for a certain distinct and definable image of thought: and it is nothing less than the delegitimization of all thought which does not conform to the domination of this definition. Here, to "prove" something means to define how the world must conform to the determinations of thought.

However, indeterminacy is always encountered in thinking's true nature, because thinking's true nature is always about how thought conforms to the realities of the world. Thinking, in its encounter with the indeterminate, need not be any less rigorous in its dedication to consistency than thought which concerns itself with determinacy; and in fact, quite the opposite tends to be true: defining consistencies is often a more involved and rigorous task than identifying determinacies.

My point here is: I have consistently found that the approach taken by Canadian governments toward First Nations issues has been predicated upon a semiological conception of 'proof', rather than a fundamentally experiential sympathy grounded within basic human decency and integrity. This only seems to change when international attention is brought to bear upon such issues; and this seems to be so because of the domination of a definite and definable attitude of "scientific objectivity" (drawn from 'the science of Anthropology') which colors and configures all of the governement's dealings with the First Nations.

I find it quite ironic that the scientific disciplines of Western culture have for so long dismissed the traditional histories of the First Nations as “myth”. According to such fields of study, only that which can be demonstrated as proven and documented as authentic should be considered as ‘true’…or so we are told. And yet, we very quickly find upon a closer examination that the ideas which Western culture holds as ‘true’ of the First Nations are, in fact and in themselves, a scientific mythology.

Western culture presents the First Nations as having been, in pre-Columbian times, primitive cultures which lacked histories, written languages, social organizations, and all of the other refinements of advanced culture. In fact, the First Nations used one of the oldest forms of writing ever invented; they employed an accurate system for mapping territory; they maintained oral histories; and they developed very advanced systems of social organization (which were adopted and adapted by ‘modern’ Western societies).

Far from being primitive societies which benefited from contact with Western cultures, the First Nations were advanced civilizations that were all but destroyed by the exploitation which characterized the post-Columbian colonization of the Americas. For the last 500 years, various myths of Western science have been employed to justify this exploitation and to assure that an industrial-grade theft of natural resources from the rightful owners and stewards of North America can proceed unopposed.

To this very day, the First Nations of North America are (in Canada) being kept in a position of third world poverty and acute cultural disassociation (imposed through in the past through the residential school system, and maintained in the present through economic marginalization) so that the exploitation of the resources of their traditional territories can continue. Even the most basic treaty and Aboriginal rights, enshrined in Canadian law and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, are not being honored by the various levels of government in Canada.

Here is an example of the context in which my above remarks apply.

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 25, 2005

Provincial Government Will Lose in the Courts

(Coast Salish Territory/Vancouver, February 25, 2005) The Province of British Columbia has all but admitted that it will lose in court if it proceeds next week with two cases regarding Aboriginal title – one with the Okanagan Band and the other with the Spallumcheen, Adams Lake and Neskonlith Bands.

Both cases, Jules and Wilson were initiated by the BC Ministry of Forests in 1999 when they issued and enforced stop work orders to the Bands following logging operations started by the Bands under the authority of timber licences and permits issued by their respective Tribal Nations.

“I am astonished that the Province would rather “weasel out” of a fair fight in court when in the past the Province used every lame excuse to legally attack our judicially recognized Aboriginal Title and Rights. It is a clear and undeniable admission that the Bands involved in Jules and Wilson have cases of substantial merit, in other words, strong legal arguments that cannot be overcome” stated Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the UBCIC.

Chief Phillip observed “The Province claims sole ownership to the timber and exclusive jurisdiction to manage and harvest it, I firmly believe that the Bands were legally cutting trees pursuant to their unextinguished Aboriginal Title and Rights. The logging operations undertaken by the Okanagan and Secwepemc peoples were clear examples of the legal reality of their respective Aboriginal Title interests to the timber in their territories”

Legal counsel for the Bands were able to successfully argue that the Province has to pay the Bands’ costs of fighting Jules and Wilson following a 2003 BC Court of Appeal decision on the costs issue which was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. This decision levelled the litigation playing field, making it possible for First Nations to use the courts as the Province must pay for litigation in exceptional circumstances - where there is a case of merit and the First Nation cannot afford the litigation.

Chief Phillip concluded, "By shamelessly weaselling out of the court proceedings and attempting to run away, the Province is deliberately obstructing First Nations in their efforts to achieve the outcome of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Haida decision in terms of reconciliation, consultation and accommodation. Reconciliation cannot result from the Province’s unilateral 'take it, or leave it' approach and when that fails, refusing to commit to a fair hearing in a court of law. Reconciliation can only occur when First Nations are recognized to have true and meaningful involvement in land and resource use decisions, allowing us both to benefit economically, but also to make the decisions necessary to protect our lands for future generations. Anything less is completely unacceptable!"

It is a situation which is perpetuated because those who are responsible for maintaining such a status quo seem to think that "no proof" of what they are doing exists.

And when proof to the contrary of the status quo arises (such as I offer here), it is discounted, ignored, and suppressed.

SO: do you think that working with functional indeterminacies produces an 'arbitrary' approach to knowledge? It does...in so far as, we all must negotiate our nomadic way through the random expression of the physical laws of nature which this world always is; but, as I have said: I am not here in the role of a negotiator. My research is pretty much 'out of the woods' at this point.
Naturally, I am, of course, quite use to the fact that trees will grow where they can; and, that is where they are to be found.
But that is something that can not be seen by people who reduce all the differences between individual trees to a simple metrical variance in dollar value. Needless to say, the environmental importance which attends with the different qualities of spaces found BETWEEN the trees is seldom, if ever considered by these people. Yet, that is where almost EVERYTHING in a forest happens.

Similarly, my observations - being, as they are, grounded in personal experienc - do not NEED to be 'proven' in order to produce functional and pragmatic consistencies of interpretive analysis. I think that people can pretty much see what has been going on here in Canada by examining that which I am presenting through this web site.

There is quite a bit to see here, once you become accustomed to looking; but I'll leave you to explore and enjoy your own perceptions in the pleasure of the differential textures of these pieces...and certainly, no one needs a Judge McEachern to tell them what they should be seeing here!