Paul Moorehead “Cigars and Kachinas: Enforcing the Indian Arts and Crafts Act.”
  Corbin Collins, “Who owns the past?”
  Roberto Mucaro Borrero, “Columbus Day Celebrates Genocide.”
  Annalise Romoser, “U.S. Certifies Indigenous Extinction in Colombia.”
  Jennifer Martiniello, “Howard's New Tampa - Aboriginal Children Overboard.”

 

 

CIGARS AND KACHINAS: ENFORCING THE INDIAN ARTS AND CRAFTS ACT

Paul Moorehead

Reprinted with permission from Indian Country Today, http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096415258, Posted: June 21, 2007

Even though it is a violation of federal law to offer, display for sale or actually sell any good in a manner that falsely suggests it is Indian produced, an Indian product, or the product of a particular Indian or Indian tribe or Indian arts and crafts organization, every year our federal government witnesses hundreds of millions of dollars worth of foreign-made, counterfeit Indian arts and crafts flooding our domestic market.

These imports are made in China, the Philippines, Mexico and other places, and do real economic harm to authentic Indian artists. These imitations ruin the integrity of the market for authentic goods by reducing the demand for the real thing. Some observers will remember the now-famous case of the town in the Philippines that changed its name to ''Zuni'' so that it could stamp the phrase ''Zuni made'' on the ersatz jewelry it shipped into the United States. The story would be funny were it not for the fact that the investigative and prosecutorial arms of the government sit by and allow this to occur year after year, administration after administration, despite the efforts by some in Congress to put a stop to these foreign rip-off artists.

Congress has revisited the issue time and again and has cajoled the Department of Justice to take up and file at least one criminal case and in 1990, and again in 2000, amended the act to increase both criminal and civil penalties for violations. On the criminal side, a single violation of the act brings with it a fine of not more than $250,000, 5 years in prison, or both. Subsequent violations cost either $1 million, 15 years, or both. Civil suits can result in an injunction to stop the activity as well as treble damages (defined as gross profits) or $1,000 per day for each day the activity continues. Courts are also authorized to award punitive damages, attorneys' fees and the costs of the suit. Arizona Sen. John McCain has introduced legislation again this year that would increase the criminal penalties for violations of the act.

The most surprising aspect of all this is that not a single criminal prosecution has been filed for violations of the statute. Not one. Ever. In the 1980s and 1990s, the U.S. DOJ's rationale was that ''scarce resources and higher priorities'' occupied the time of federal prosecutors. In the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, and the ongoing war on terrorism, these rationales would seem ever more persuasive.

How then to explain the zeal with which the United States is pursuing people who have the audacity to buy and bring back into the country a box of Cuban cigars? The Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control is evidently launching a dragnet in the search for offenders and their illegal booty. Indeed, in letters sent to people who made recent purchases from cigar shops abroad, OFAC reminded the recipients that breaking the ban on these outlaw smokes could result in prison time up to 10 years, $250,000 in individual fines and $1 million in corporate fines.

Selective prosecution of our nation's laws has a corrosive effect on our society over time. Even a single, high-profile criminal case involving a large volume importer or distributor would go a long way to discourage these activities. Until then, a person is free to purchase all the fake Indian art, rugs, dolls and jewelry he may want without fear of prosecution; but if he brings home a handful of cigars from an island in the Caribbean, he might very well end up in federal prison.

Paul Moorehead is a partner in the Indian Tribal Governments Practice Group in the Washington, D.C., office of Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, and was the staff director and chief counsel to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.

 

WHO OWNS THE PAST?

Corbin Collins

This commentary first appeared in The San Francisco Chronicle, on page B - 11, in “Open Forum,” September 5. 2007.

            If asked to enumerate their human rights, I doubt that most Americans would mention the right to control their dead. This is not because there is no such right; rather, the entitlement is so basic and universally extended that it is hardly recognized as a "right" by most people. But suppose America were occupied by a foreign invader whose scientists pillaged our cemeteries and shipped our ancestors' remains home for research. I have little doubt that most Americans would regard this as a fundamental violation of human rights and dignity.

The United States, of course, allowed this to happen to its indigenous people. Although our government acknowledged almost every other group's spiritual and legal claim to their dead, for much of American history it did not extend this basic human entitlement to Native Americans. Huge quantities of their ancestral remains and sacred objects were shipped to research institutions such as UC Berkeley's Hearst Museum, which houses the second largest such collection in the nation. In 1990, Congress tried to redress the injustice by passing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which requires museums to repatriate human remains and sacred objects to tribes.

The law has had mixed success. Congress essentially left the details of NAGPRA administration to the institutions that controlled the collections, and although many museums have been conscientious, many have not. Unfortunately, NAGPRA fails to take sufficient account of the inherent conflict between museums' institutional and research interests and their obligations under the law. Museums quite naturally want to keep their collections intact. This is especially true of museums run by scientists who conduct research on human remains, often in violation of Native American religious beliefs. The social utility of this research, by the way, is largely intellectual. Although academic archaeology is a worthy and respected subject, it won't do much to cure disease, prevent global warming or solve other problems of vital consequence for human life. In this sense, it is a luxury endeavor with a limited audience, and ought not to take precedence over human rights.

Many Native Americans believe that some scientists, particularly at the Hearst and other UC museums, are extremely hostile to NAGPRA and deliberately frustrate tribal claims. One way scientists have done this is to exploit basic NAGPRA classifications. The law required that museums file inventories of their Native American collections by 1995, identifying items as either "culturally affiliated" or "culturally unidentifiable." Museums had to repatriate remains and artifacts to affiliated tribes, but for the indefinite future, they were allowed to keep culturally unidentifiable items. It is not surprising that some museums classified large portions of their collections as culturally unidentifiable.

            For example, the Hearst Museum, which did not complete its inventory until 2000, classified more than 80 percent of its collection as culturally unidentifiable. Tribes can challenge this classification, but only on a "case by case" basis. Tribes essentially have to do all of the research and then place their evidence before "repatriation committees." In the UC system, they first have to convince a campus committee and then a system-wide committee. These committees are dominated by scientists. For instance, the University of California Office of the President committee is composed of five archaeologists, one attorney and two Native Americans.

Within this context, a recent decision by Berkeley scientists and administrators is very troubling. The UC Berkeley vice chancellor of research, herself a scientist, commissioned a review of Hearst NAGPRA services by two archaeologists, both of whom sit on the UCOP committee. The vice chancellor excluded Native Americans. The archaeologists recommended eliminating the NAGPRA unit, which included three Native Americans who worked independently of museum scientists. This unit offered comprehensive research and consultation that helped tribes overcome a stacked process. The university has now removed all Native Americans from positions of authority over NAGPRA and has essentially subordinated NAGPRA interests to the goals of research scientists. It

appears that once again, a basic human right of Native Americans has been trumped by a luxury science. It is time for the UC Regents to intervene.

Corbin Collins is a Bay Area writer and communications director for the Native American NAGPRA Coalition.

-mmmmmmmm-

 

COLUMBUS DAY CELEBRATES GENOCIDE

Roberto Mucaro Borrero, October 1, 2007

            As Columbus Day fast approaches so does the realization that it is one of the most controversial of 8 U.S federal holidays. At least 17 States do not celebrate or recognize the holiday and plans for annual protests and related educational initiatives are well under way across the United States.

            While some Americans question why all there is so much the controversy toward the "discoverer of the New World", I am reminded of the collective "human spirit" that brought together the nations who developed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948. The United States was among the original signatories of this Convention whose second article states that genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

            In light of this definition, as we review the legacy of Columbus - from the acts he personally committed to atrocities committed by his "countrymen" and successors - one would be hard pressed to not see the connections to the genocide of Caribbean and other Indigenous Peoples throughout the hemisphere.

Whether "mixed or full blood", the contemporary descendants of the first Indigenous Peoples to meet Columbus, the Taino, Carib, and Arawak Peoples are survivors of what can be considered a centuries-old campaign of genocide committed against our communities. From the encomienda system to the sterilization of our women to the commodity and genetically modified foods that have been imposed on our rural or urban "ghetto-ized" communities, this genocidal campaign continues albeit in subtle forms. These vestiges of old colonial regimes masquerading as a new world order affect the well-being of not only our present but our future generations.

Although Columbus himself never set foot in the United States, Indigenous Peoples throughout the country recognize that the celebration of the federally (tax payer) funded holiday called Columbus Day is a symbol of genocide. Promotion of Columbus as a "hero" is racism as its one-sided mainstream presentation attempts to sanitize the injustices committed during his time or the injustices that continue to be committed against our Peoples today. Indeed, Columbus Day supporters vindicate the celebration of these injustices under the guise of an alleged "civilizing" of savage, non-European peoples.

With regard to racism, I refer to the Webster's definition, which holds that it is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." In the same definition, racism is further defined as "racial prejudice or discrimination."

Again, by reviewing the motives behind the Columbus enterprise as well as his actions toward and against the Indigenous Peoples of the Caribbean, we can link not only the man himself but his legacy and symbolism directly to racism. This link can be made much in the same way there was an outcry against flying the Confederate Flag on U.S. government grounds. The Confederate flag is linked by many to the legacy of slavery and it is generally accepted that slavery in the past or present constitutes a gross human rights violation unacceptable by "civilized" standards today.

Columbus was a slave trader and the majority of his contemporaries promoted and exported this institution. Fueled by his philosophy of racial superiority, Columbus instituted systems on behalf of the King and Queen of Spain, which fundamentally denied the self-determination of Caribbean Indigenous Peoples. This racist philosophy has been supported at all levels of imposed government regimes including past and present educational systems.

Contemporary Taino descendants should have a particular interest in this subject as government and educational institutions continue to deny our right to self-determination by denying our existence. The denial of our right to self-determination is a violation of our basic human rights. Our right to self-determination was recently acknowledged by the United Nations with its adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Non-Taino academics who are elevated to the status of "experts" on our culture without any consultation with our communities are intentionally or unintentionally parties to these human rights violations. While we remain "invisible" peoples with no rights, "they" remain free to say and promote what they want to say about ancestors, our people and our heritage.

Make no mistake if you are a Taino, your rights are being violated everyday whether you want to admit it or not. These violations do not discriminate against "full bloods or mix bloods" as they are violations against our communities as a whole. Our most recent example of the violation of our rights as Taino people is evidenced by the "Grito de Caguana" protest in Boriken (Puerto Rico) and the arrest of Taino people occupying our sacred ceremonial grounds. These violations, these examples of racial prejudice and discrimination as well as the promotion of symbols of genocide against our ancestors and our peoples must not be tolerated even at the most subtle level.

Referring back to Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 3 states that along with genocide; conspiracy to commit genocide; direct and public incitement to commit genocide; attempt to commit genocide; and complicity in genocide are all punishable by law.

As we turn our attention toward the state-sponsored promotion of symbols of genocide such as Columbus and Columbus Day, it becomes ever clearer that our present and future generations can not afford our complicity. While the legacy of Columbus is a part of our collective history, it is not a legacy that should be sanctified with a national celebration at the expense of those whose ancestors gave their lives defending their liberty against a brutal and unjustifiable oppression.

Roberto Mucaro Borrero is the President of the United Confederation of Taino People`s Office of International Relations and Regional Coordination. He is also the current Chairperson of the NGO Committee on the United Nations International Decade of the World`s Indigenous Peoples, a Special Committee of the Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations -CONGO. He can be reached at: rborrero@amnh.org.

<%%%%>

 

U.S. CERTIFIES INDIGENOUS EXTINCTION IN COLUMBIA

Annalise Romoser, January 13, 2007

Reprinted, with permission, from the Fall 2007 issue of the Americans for Indian Opportunity Ambassador, aio@aio.org.

When Miguel Moran Acosta graduated from high school this year in Colombia’s southern jungle province of Putumayo, he went back home to farm with his family in Alto Comboy, an Awa indigenous reserve. Days later, on May 23, Colombian army officials entered the reserve, tied Miguel’s hands and feet together and took him off to a nearby mountain. The following day, Miguel’s lifeless body was put on display in the province’s military barracks as a guerrilla downed in combat.

Hundreds of miles away, and just days before Miguel’s death, 700 Embera indigenous people were attacked by Colombia’s anti-riot squad. Three children ages 6 to 8 were killed and another 22 people went missing.

Out of Colombia’s eighty-four officially recognized indigenous groups, twelve are on the brink of extinction. Although irregular armed groups of the country’s nearly 50-year civil war are responsible for most of the violence against indigenous communities, local human rights groups have thoroughly documented the increasing role of the Colombian military in such abuses.

Although highly organized in many regions, Colombia’s estimated one million indigenous peoples have little control over the military’s actions against them. The United States government, however, does have the power to assert considerable pressure on the Colombian military, and according to the letter of the law, it is required to do so.

The current U.S. Foreign Appropriations bill requires the State Department to “certify” Colombia’s human rights progress every six months before dispersing a large portion of U.S. military aid. Last year alone, that sum represented over 55 million dollars. Nonetheless, since Plan Colombia—a U.S. military aid package aimed at curbing drug production in Colombia—was launched seven years ago, the State Department has not exercised its influence over the Colombian military. Instead, the State Department has consistently certified the military’s human rights record, despite well-documented abuses, and provided them with nearly five billion dollars in aid.

Despite the increase in extrajudicial killings and forced displacement in indigenous communities during the tenure of Plan Colombia, it was not until mid-2007 that the U.S. Embassy in Bogotá agreed to include indigenous leaders in meetings to assess the impact of military aid on human rights. The State Department’s decision was apparently driven by a new condition, included by Congress, in the Foreign Appropriations bill that requires the Colombian military to respect the territory and rights of Colombia’s indigenous people. To date, the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia (ONIC) has been invited to one such meeting.

Darío Mejía, member of the ONIC’s executive committee, recently railed against the government’s record in protecting indigenous communities: “Over 100 forced displacements of our people in four years, nearly 600 political assassinations of indigenous peoples in the same time period and 423 illegal detentions. In this war, we understand that the government has an anti-insurgency policy and we understand that the government has an anti-narcotics policy, but we must ask, what is its policy against indigenous peoples—a policy of extermination?”

U.S. and Colombian human rights organizations are calling upon Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to help protect indigenous peoples in Colombia by “decertifying” the country’s military. Instead of offering the army a blank check that leads to violence against indigenous communities, say human rights groups, Secretary Rice could play a crucial role.

By withholding U.S. funds, Secretary Rice would be sending a clear message in support of indigenous rights to the Colombian military, and, more importantly, she would effectively reduce the likelihood of a mass indigenous extinction in the country. The U.S. Congress has given her the tools to do just this, yet until she does, the process of indigenous extinction in Colombia will continue to be certified with a stamp of approval by the U.S. State Department.

Annalise Romoser (anna@usofficeoncolombia.org) is a Senior Associate at the Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Office on Colombia, a non-profit organization that seeks to educate policymakers, the media and the public about the impact of U.S. policy on Colombia. 

+<xxx>+<xxx>+

 

HOWARD’S NEW TAMPA – ABORIGINAL CHILDREN OVERBOARD

Jennifer Martiniello

            This article was written for newspapers in Australia, and distributed with permission to publish by NGO_ip_undecade: NGO_ip_undecade@yahoo.com. It is a commentary upon Australian Prime Minister Frank Howard strong emergency response to reports of widespread child abuse in the Northern Territory committed by whites and Aboriginal people in Aboriginal communities, with an emergency intervention, calling in police from other areas “to restore law and order” in Northern territory Indigenous communities, bringing in the Military and doctors to do check children’s health; withholding welfare payments from parents whose children are out of school; and taking over Aboriginal lands, revoking the ability of Aboriginal councils to determine who can enter their remote communities. As indicated in the report at the end of International Indigenous Developments, above, in acing as he did, Howard completely ignored the 97 recommendations for an effective and appropriate program to end child abuse in Aboriginal communities, Little Children Are Sacred, undertaken by the Northern Territory.

            Howard's new Tampa children overboard are our Aboriginal children. The Little Children are Sacred report does not advocate physically and psychologically invasive examinations of Aboriginal children, which could only be carried out anally and vaginally. It does not recommend scrapping the permit system to enter Aboriginal lands, nor does it recommend taking over Aboriginal 'towns' by enforced leases. These latter two points in the Howard scheme hide the true reason for the Federal Government's use of the latest report for blatant political opportunism.

            It has been an openly stated agenda that Howard wants to move Aboriginal people off their lands, and has made recent attempts to buy off Aboriginal people by offering them millions for agreeing to lease their lands to the Federal Government, e.g. Tiwi Islands and Tangentyere in Alice Springs. There was also the statement by the Federal Government that it could not continue (?!) to provide essential services to remote communities, which raised an uproar of responses in the press. The focus on the sexual abuse of children is guaranteed to evoke the most emotive responses, and therefore command attention, just like the manipulation of the Tampa situation. But while the attention of the media and the public is being emotionally coerced, what is being sneaked in under the covers? Two issues specifically - mining companies have applied for more exploration permits in the Northern Territory, the Jabiluka uranium mining operations at Kakadu have already hit the media because of the mining company's applications to the Government to significantly expand its operations, including establishing new mines at Coronation Hill, and another critical issue - nuclear waste.

            The Howard Government has already mooted that nuclear waste should be dumped in the Northern Territory, on Aboriginal lands. Aboriginal traditional owners are absolutely opposed to this. We have a long history of deaths and illness from radiation, from the atomic tests at Woomera in the 1950s to the current high incidences of carcinomas in the community at Kakadu near the Jabiluka site. The main obstacle to the Federal Government's desired expansion of mining operations in the Northern Territory and nuclear waste dumping is, of course, the Aboriginal people who have occupancy of, and rights under the common law to, their traditional lands.

            Following the stages of the Howard Government's usual modus operandi (defund, blame, eliminate), defunding of critical programs forremote Aboriginal community projects began in July 2004, with coerced changes to funding contracts, and monies for critically needed youth and health programs in remote areas being the first dollars to go. Take Mutitjulu for example, which was notoriously profiled by the ABC's Nightline program. I say notorious because one of Senator Mal Brough's personal staffers was the so-called ex-youth worker interviewed on that program, and the content of that interview was laden with myths and mistruths. The staffer in question failed to appear when summoned before a Senate inquiry to explain and the Senator's office is yet to issue a statement. When the community lodged a formal protest to Government, it was raided and their computers seized. But the program did show the effects of the Howard Government defunding of essential programs on that community, in particular the youth centre and health centre. The people at Mutitjulu also just happen to be the traditional owners of Uluru, one of this country's most lucrative tourist attractions. The Howard Government would not like us to ask who benefits by the people of Mutitjulu being forced off their community. Under the amendments to Native Title made by the Howard Government, once Aboriginal people have left their traditional lands, forcibly or otherwise, their rights under the common law that every other Australian enjoys over their land are significantly impaired.

            Progressive defunding of Aboriginal art centers has also begun, with a range of community art centers not having their funding renewed by DCITA in July 2005 and 2006 in the Northern Territory, from communities in Arnhemland to mid and southern Territory communities. The art production facilitated by those Aboriginal art centers are the only means through which members of those communities can actually earn a living, as opposed to being on welfare. But then, dependent people are easier to control by means of that dependency. The Howard Government's failed Shared Responsibility Agreements (SRAs) have also been the catalyst for further blame shifting and progressive defunding, take Wadeye for example.

            Our Aboriginal communities are being squeezed further into dysfunction and disenfranchisement by carefully targeted political engineering, the systemic and ruthless roll-out of a planned agenda. It is no accident that Howard's scheme to address what he calls the urgency of the Little Children are Sacred report's 97 recommendations was trotted out so very quickly, and addresses so very few of those recommendations. It is sheer political opportunism to advance an already in motion agenda, and to score points in an election year. After all, The Little Children are Sacred report is not the first of such reports, nor are its findings and recommendations new. The Federal Government has had the 1989, 1991, 1993, 1997 and 2002 reports gathering dust and deliberate inaction on its shelves. Perhaps Mr. Howard has been saving them up for a rainy election year?

            And of course Mr. Howard's scheme targets only Aboriginal communities, despite the fact that the findings specifically state that non- Aboriginal men, that is, white men, are a significant proportion of the offenders, who are black-marketeering in petrol and alcohol to gain access to Aboriginal children. What measures is the Howard Government going to take about non-Aboriginal sex offenders, pornographers, substance traffickers and the like? Nothing according to the measures announced, but then, they're not Aboriginal and they don't live on the Aboriginal communities where their victims live.

            So who are the real victims here, the silenced victims of John Howard's scheme? Aboriginal children, of course, who will be subject to physically and psychologically invasive medical examinations, irrespective of their home and family circumstances, and who will deal with the mental and emotional fall-out from that? Aboriginal men, too, who become the silenced scapegoats, painted by default by John Howard as all being drunken, child-raping monsters. Perhaps the fact that almost every picture shown of Aboriginal men in the media these days shows them drunk, with a slab, cask or bottle under their arms leads Mr. Howard to expect that one to pass unchallenged, irrespective of the fact that statistics show that only 15% of Aboriginal people drink alcohol, socially or otherwise, compared to around 87% of non-Aboriginal Australians. The greater majority of Aboriginal men are good, decent people. Perhaps the media would like to rethink its portrayals of Aboriginal men? How about some photos of the other alcoholics, you know, the white ones. There's more of them.

            And what of our communities? The Howard Government also hasn't mentioned that the majority of Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory are already dry communities, decided and enforced by those communities. But then that would spoil the picture Mr. Howard wants to paint of our Aboriginal communities. Other large communities, such as Daly River, have controlled the situation by only having alcohol available from the community's club and enforce a strict four can limit. Also forgotten in the current politically opportunistic furor is the fact that Aboriginal communities around Tennant Creek and Katherine have been lobbying Governments and town councils for decades to restrict the sale of alcohol on Thursdays, when Aboriginal community people come to town for supplies. So far their pleas have been rejected. Nothing in Mr. Howard's plan to facilitate that, either. Or about the control of alcohol when those people, once forced off the communities into the towns, bring their problems with them, child abuse or alcoholism and all the rest. Of course that would make access to Aboriginal children a lot easier for white offenders, they won't have to go so far to find a victim. One last word on focus of attention. In the famous Redfern Address, the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating asked perhaps the most important question for all Australians to consider. He said 'We failed to ask the most basic of questions. We failed to ask – What if this were done to us?' What if this were done to us - to Mr. And Mrs. Average Australian, to our schools, youth centers, health centers, access to medical care, communities, homes, children, grandchildren?

            After all, current national health reports from a wide range of health organizations name sexual abuse of non-Indigenous Australian children as a crisis area in need of urgent attention. And the numbers of victims are higher. National reports into mainstream domestic violence, alcohol and substance abuse also call for urgent action, again the issues are at crisis level, and the numbers of victims and abusers are far higher than in the Little Children are Sacred report. None of the recommendations in all of those hundreds of national health reports recommend compulsory sexual health tests for every Australian child under sixteen. Not one of them recommends that a viable solution is closing down youth and health programs, in fact they all advocate that more are needed. None recommend that the victims' or the offenders' communities and homes should be surrendered to the Federal Government and put under compulsory lease agreements, and none advocate processes which would lead to either the victims or the abusers losing their rights under common law to their property as measure to control or remedy the occurrence of abuse. Would the Howard Government even dare to contemplate such as that? I think not. It would be un-Australian, and the Government it would expect immediate legal repercussions on the grounds of impairment of human rights, extinguishment of rights under common law, discrimination, and a raft of other constitutional issues. Besides, Mr. and Mrs. Average Australian don't, for the most part, live on top of uranium and mineral deposits or future nuclear waste dumps.

            But seriously, the most critical question for all Australians to ask themselves in the lead up to this year's Federal Election is just that - What if it were done to us? With full acknowledgment of what has already been done to workers, trade unions, student unions, public primary, secondary and tertiary education, elderly care, palliative care, medicare, crisis health care, nurses, teachers, multicultural affairs, migrant groups, women, child care, small businesses and artsworkers, among the many, through the exercise of policies of social engineering and fear, your answer at the polling booth may just determine whether it will be done to you, or continue to be done to you. As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald 25^th June, the Howard Government last week used the military to seize control of 60 Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, which are now under military occupation. This is not Israel and Palestine. The Northern Territory is not Gaza or the West Bank. This is Australia - but is it the Australia you thought you lived in? Walk in our shoes, Aboriginal Australia's, and ask yourselves, what would it be like to have this done to us? And then, walk with us.

Jennifer Martiniello is an award winning poet, writer, visual artist and academic of Arrernte, Chinese and Anglo-Celtic descent. Jennifer was awarded the Canberra Critics Circle Award 2000 for Literature, and was an ACT Creative Arts Fellow for 2003. She has published five books and her poetry, prose and essays have been published nationally and internationally. She is a former Deputy Chair of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board of the Australia Council for the Arts, a member of the Advisory Committee of Aboriginal Studies press, AIATSIS, and currently sits on the Advisory Board of the Australian Centre for Indigenous History at the ANU. She is the Director of Kemarre Arts, and teaches Community Development and Indigenous Issues at the Canberra Institute of Technology She may be contacted at: kemarre@optusnet.com.au, Cell: 0423629470, http://www.kemarrearts.com.au.

>>>>----------<><>><><><><><<><>----------<<<<