Michael Osborne, “The Karuk Ceremonial Dance House Fire: Diplomacy and Cooperation is Necessary for Government-to-Government Relationships.”

 Arch Super, Chairman, Karuk Tribe of California, Response to Michael Osboorne on Ceremonial Dance  House Fire.

  Jack D. Forbes, “Native American Sovereignty Enhancement Act of 2007: A Proposal.”

  Andre Cramblit, “Census Gaff.”

  Tim Giago,  “State Stifling Growth on Reservation.”

  Az Carmen,  “Feathers at Graduation.”

  Survival International statement: UK: BBC – First Contact with Isolated Tribes?

  Declaration of the Indigenous World Uranium Summit

 

 

NATIVE AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY ACT OF 2007: A PROPOSAL

 Jack D. Forbes, Professor, Native American Studies, University of California, Davis

Native tribes face many serious problems relating to their ability to exist as self-governing and viable governments. These proposals are designed to solve a number of existing issues with a single piece of legislation, one which will allow historic tribes to attain full self-determination and yet, at the same time, allow tribes to pool their powers together for certain judicial and other purposes, such as environmental protection, healthcare, and law enforcement, whenever desired.

I.      Purposes:

            The purposes of this legislation are:

             a.  to carry out the intent of the Snyder Act of 1924 and the Wheeler-Howard Act of 1934 that all American Indian tribes wherever found in the United States be accorded equal access to federal services and programs and that all American Indian individuals who are members of organized pueblos, bands, communities, tribes, or nations be accorded access to federal services and programs;

             b.  to apply the principles of tribal sovereignty and self-determination uniformly in all operations of government in recognition of the equality with the states granted to tribes by the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States.

             c.  to give full faith and credit to all cases where states have recognized American Indian tribes within their own boundaries; and

             d. to provide a mechanism to correct situations where historic tribes have been combined with different tribes or separated from divisions of their own tribe.

II.     Definitions:

            For purposes of this legislation the term tribe shall stand for all organized indigenous entities including pueblos, bands, communities, or nations; and         the term "indigenous" shall stand for American Indian, Native American, aboriginal, and all other terms referring to the pre-Columbian inhabitants of the American continent and their descendants.

III.   The Use of Joint Powers Authority:

            A.   All indigenous tribes shall possess the authority to enter into joint powers agreements with other tribes or with states for the purpose of pooling inherent authority to accomplish a specific governmental purpose; such as the establishment of a joint legal system with appellate courts, the establishment of a joint law enforcement authority, the establishment of a joint education authority; the establishment of a joint health authority, and any other joint powers agency which will facilitate governmental operations;

            B.   Tribal joint powers agencies shall be governed by the same federal statutes and court decisions as apply to joint powers agencies existing between states; except where tribal sovereignty exceeds that of the states.

C.     Tribal joint powers agencies may be established without the approval of any agency of the United States government or of any state government but funding or the committing of non-tribal resources may require external negotiation.

IV.   Federal recognition of State-recognized Tribes

            A.   Any indigenous tribe which has been or is currently recognized as an indigenous tribe in any state of the United States shall henceforth be regarded as a federally-recognized tribe or community provided that the Governor of the state in which the tribe or community is principally located notifies the Secretary of the Interior that the said tribe has the status of an indigenous tribe recognized as such by one or more state agencies or provided that the tribe in question provides a communication to the said secretary as to  which state agencies, such as the Legislature, or the State Department of Education, have so recognized the group and provides evidence which documents said recognition such as a copy of the legislation showing the establishment of a state commission on Indian affairs with membership accorded to the said group, or other appropriate evidence.

            B.   Any group recognized as above shall become eligible for federal services provided to tribes as tribes when evidence is submitted by the tribe to the Secretary of the Interior showing that the said tribe possesses a reservation of land recognized as such by the state in which it is located, and which shall become land held in trust with the United States, or that the tribe is the owner of ten or more acres of land which it intends shall be placed in trust status with the United States; and also that the tribe has a written constitution duly ratified by tribal members which is consistent with the Constitution of the United States and has a tribal governing body elected by a vote of the said tribal membership according to open and democratic procedures;

            C.   the membership of each state-recognized tribe shall consist in all those persons who have been recognized in the past as members of the said tribe including all of their living descendants, said membership being documented by previously recorded membership lists, membership cards   issued, or other documentary evidence of membership, supplemented where documentary evidence is lacking by the notarized statements of at least three documented members, for each individual claiming membership.

            D.   Because of the sovereignty implied in the recognition of an American Indian tribe by a state or by the United States the previous membership of the tribe is not subject to challenge by the Department of the Interior except as to the guarantee of continuing membership status for all past members as described above in C. and that federal recognition shall not result in a loss of membership for any prior members.

            E.   Those state-recognized tribes having a prior treaty with the United States or with a colonial predecessor of the United States shall have the same status as other treaty-making tribes and for this purpose all of the unratified treaties of California and Oregon shall be regarded in the same light as ratified treaties whenever the tribe or tribes in question were required by the Federal government to adhere to the treaty and whenever the treaty was negotiated by an official representative of the United States of America.

            F.   Any tribe which has been formally terminated for all or part of its federal relationship shall be restored to the full federal relationship provided that the provisions of sections A, B and C are met.

            G.   Any tribe which has been informally terminated for all or part of its federal relationship by oversight or neglect shall be restored to the full federal relationship provided that the provisions of sections A, B and C are met.

 

V.    Self-Determination for Historic Tribes

            a.    All tribes which have had a historical relationship with the United States government, with a state government or with any colonial predecessor government possess the inherent right to organize them-selves in any manner consistent with the Constitution of the United     States and with treaties ratified with the United States or with any state or colonial predecessor, and with unratified treaties if the pro-visions of such were enforced upon the tribe by the United States government;

            b.   the above right of organization includes the re-establishment of self-government in cases where two or more pueblos, bands, tribes or nations have become combined as one, provided that the two pueblos, bands, tribes or nations existed previously as separate, sovereign entities, or that the two or more pueblos, bands, tribes or nations are possessed of mutually distinct languages which are not dialects of the same language;

            c.    the said right of organization to include the re-establishment of a unified governmental structure, of either a confederated, federal, or unitary nature, for two or more communities, pueblos, bands, tribes or nations which formerly constituted a single nation but which have become  separated due to historical circumstances;

            d.   the separation of two or more pueblos, bands, tribes or nations shall be initiated by a petition of the members of the combined tribe who would prefer to separate, said petition to be directed to the Secretary of the Interior; the Secretary of the Interior shall ask the government of the combined tribe to hold an election, provided that the petition contains the signatures of at least 25% of the group proposed for separation.  If the combined tribe authorizes an election, separation shall be approved if two-thirds of the adult members of the proposed new group, voting and non-voting, are in favor or if more than 50% of both the separating and the remaining group's adults, voting and non-voting, are in favor, of separation.  If the combined tribe refuses to hold an election, or fails to hold one during a period of twelve months from the date of the Secretary of Interior's request, the Secretary shall authorize an election among the     proposed separating group members only, all elections to be held under the age and eligibility rules of the combined tribe;

            e.    under either procedure, a determination of those who are eligible to vote as a part of the proposed separating group shall be based upon self-selection except that if challenged, a voter must show evidence of appropriate tribal, village, pueblo, or band affiliation as determined by official enrollment records and provided that no person may choose to be both part of the proposed separating group and the proposed remainder group for voting purposes, however, any person may abstain from voting or registering;

            f.    When the Secretary of the Interior determines that the proposal for separation has succeeded, as above defined, then the said Secretary shall ask the members of the newly separated entity to draw up an interim or permanent tribal constitution and by-laws; to select an initial or interim governing board or council; and to determine if the group wishes to form a unified tribe or nation with a related group under the provisions of V (c) and V (h).

            g.    In the meantime, the Secretary of the Interior shall appoint a mediator to facilitate discussions over the division of assets between the separating and remaining groups of the previously combined tribe.  Negotiations between the two entities must be based upon an equal division on a per capita basis of all assets and liabilities other than land; land in tribal ownership or federal trust shall always go with the affiliation of the individuals for whom it is held in trust or who hold a majority interest in the case of heirship lands or, if tribally-owned, shall be divided by negotiation and if that fails by arbitration, according to regulations to be established by the Secretary of the Interior.

            h.    When two or more tribes wish to merge to form a new consolidated tribe the proposal must be approved by a majority vote of each of all concerned tribal councils and by a majority of all adult voters in each tribe entitled to vote.  The proposal must include principles for a new constitution but the precise manner of electing the new tribal council and drawing up a constitution shall be left to the tribal councils concerned, subject to the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to review and comment upon, but not to countermand, the decisions reached.

            i.     When two or more tribes wish to merge to form a new consolidated tribe their form of union may include a unified parliamentary body for the unified tribe along with the continuation of existing tribal councils to manage local affairs, or any other reasonable form of union not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.

            j.    In a case of merger, as above, assets and liabilities of the combined tribes shall be consolidated, partially consolidated, or not consolidated according to the agreements reached by the merging parties, but all liabilities must continue in force and be met by the merging governments in some manner.

VI.  Law Enforcement ,Judiciary and Health

        a. As an inherent aspect of sovereignty, all tribes shall have the right to maintain jurisdiction over law enforcement and over their own court system and to resume jurisdiction in the case of tribes affected by Public Law 280;

        b. Any tribe may resume jurisdiction over law enforcement and establish its own judicial system provided that: (1) it possesses a land base of at least four sections (2,560 acres) of trust land and allotments still in trust and a membership of 1,000 persons, and (2) submits a plan to the Secretary of the Interior outlining the precise manner in which law enforcement and judicial matters will be handled;

        c. If a tribe possesses less than four sections (2,560 acres) of trust land including allotments still in trust and less than 1,000 members it must form a joint powers agency with other tribes in order to resume jurisdiction over law enforcement and judicial matters; the tribes forming the joint powers agency must together meet the above land and membership requirement except that if as many as four tribes are included in the joint powers agency the latter requirement is waived;

        d. The joint powers agency shall submit a plan to the Secretary of the Interior outlining the precise manner in which law enforcement and judicial matters will be handled, making specific reference to how law enforcement officers and courts will be shared by the several tribes creating the joint powers agency.

        e. A tribe, or a group of tribes by means of a joint powers agency, may establish under this section a system of jails and prisons and may take over, by contract with the Department of Justice or with any state or county, the operation of federal, state, or county facilities, or parts thereof, for the purpose of developing special culturally-relevant programs of rehabilitation for Native American prisoners convicted of federal, state, or tribal violations, respectively;

        f.  To carry out the intent of section VI  (e) above, the Department of Justice is authorized to turn over a federal prison, or a portion of a federal prison, by contract to a tribal or intertribal joint powers agency, as described in VI (e), provided that the latter agency proposes to operate the prison for the same or a lesser per-prisoner cost than can the Department of Justice, subject to a cost-of-living increase each year.

        g. A tribe, or a group of tribes by means of a joint powers agency, may establish a system of health care facilities and may take over, by contract, the operation of federal, state, or county facilities, or parts thereof, for the purpose of operating culturally-relevant health and mental health programs.

        h. To carry out the above, the Department of Health and Human Services is authorized to turn over federal facilities and federally-funded health-related research centers by contract to a tribal or intertribal joint powers agency.

            These proposals are intended to solve a number of serious issues in Indian Country with a single piece of legislation.

            It is very important that tribes which have been forcibly combined and/or separated from their fellow members, be allowed self-determination if they wish.

            It is also important to prevent the ousting of previous tribal members in new federally recognized tribes because of such issues as the color of a member’s skin, or the possession of some visible African ancestry, or because of family rivalries. We have all heard of cases of tribes, especially in southern states, attempting to purge their rolls of persons with “too much” African ancestry. This kind of factional in-fighting must be prevented prior to the granting of sovereignty by guaranteeing membership to all persons on previous lists of members and their current descendants or who hold valid membership cards issued by appropriate authority, such as a tribal chief or chairperson.

            These proposals will benefit all tribes, east and west.

*Jack D. Forbes, Native American Studies Department, University of California, Davis, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616, (530)752-3626, jdforbes@ucdavis.edu,  http://nas.ucdavis.edu/nasforbes.htm.

>----(((((((X)))))))----<

 

CENSUS GAFF

Andre Cramblit,  andrekar@ncidc.org, Apr 2, 2007

            There are two issues of critical importance to Tribal Governments and Indian community regarding the U.S. Census. It has come to our attention that the Census Bureau will NOT hire any tribal liaisons to work with tribal and Indian communities until possibly 2009. This will mean that there will be NO regional Indian staff to assist or coordinate with Tribal and Indian communities as Census 2010 takes place.

            Contact needs to be made with the U.S. Census Bureau and Congressional committees regarding the demand that American Indian Regional Liaisons be employed as soon as possible. This may well result in a DECLINE of funding for various programs such as WIA, housing, education, and other programs that rely on Census data.

            There was a significant increase in the Census numbers and data pertaining to Indians as a result of the 2000 Census.  This was in part due to the efforts of the Indian liaisons at the Regional office. This in turn resulted in an increase in some programs for the Indian community.  If the Census count decreases there will be a DECREASE in federal funding for programs impacting Indian communities. It is our understanding the Census Bureau will not be doing specific analysis of Indian communities unless the total population is over 60,000. This means that there will be virtually NO specific Indian data generated in Census 2010. The Census Bureau has reported that they intend to discontinue the use of the "long" form as soon as possible.  This form enabled the Census Bureau to more accurately gather information on Indian families.

            By returning to the "short form" the Census will NOT capture the necessary information on the Indian community and will result in a loss of federal funds. As we previously reported the Census Bureau is presently conducting their LUCA process, Local Update of Census Addresses.  We were told in Census 2000 that the local police, fire departments, and others serve on a LUCA advisory committee and will have the opportunity to review the address although the information is supposed to be kept confidential.  Our concern is that tribal or Indian community representatives were not included in the LUCA committee.

            The Census Bureau will soon begin "map spotting" of the Tribal communities.  This means that a person will be hired to go on the reservation to place a spot on a map where every housing unit is located.  Again, there is no intention at this time to hire American Indians to do this work. We have been informed that a Ms. Marilia Matos will be appointed to head the Partnership Department of the Census Bureau.  She is presently with the Department of Interior.  It is very important that contact be made with her office regarding the total lack of involvement of Indian people in the conduct of the 2010 Census.  Her present number at Interior is 202-208-6761. Contact should also be made with the Congressional committees:  Information Policy, Census, and National Archives Jurisdiction will include public information and records laws such as the Freedom of Information Act, the Presidential Records Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Census Bureau, and the National Archives and Records Administration. Majority: Wm. Lacy Clay, Chairman, Paul E. Kanjorski, Carolyn B. Maloney, John A. Yarmuth, Paul W. Hodes; Minority: Michael Turner, Ranking Member, Chris Cannon, Bill Sali, The full Committee is chaired by Henry Waxman of California. Democrats: Henry A. Waxman, California, Chairman,  Rep. Tom Lantos, California, Rep. Edolphus Towns, New York, Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski, Pennsylvania,  Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, New York Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio, Rep. Danny K. Davis, Illinois, Rep. John F. Tierney, Massachusetts, Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri, Rep. Diane E. Watson, California, Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts, Rep. Brian Higgins, New York, Rep. John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky,  Rep. Bruce L. Braley, Iowa, Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia, Rep. Betty McCollum, Minnesota, Rep. Jim Cooper, Tennessee, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Maryland, Rep. Paul W. Hodes, New Hampshire, Rep. Christopher S. Murphy, Connecticut, Rep. John P. Sarbanes, Maryland, Rep. Peter Welch, Vermont; Republicans: Rep. Tom Davis, Virginia, Ranking Minority Member, Rep. Dan Burton, Indiana, Rep. Christopher Shays, Connecticut,  Rep. John M. McHugh, New York, Rep. John L. Mica, Florida, Rep. Mark E. Souder, Indiana,  Rep. Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania,  Rep. Chris Cannon, Utah, Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee,  Rep. Michael Turner, Ohio, Rep. Darrell E. Issa, California, Rep. Kenny Marchant, Texas, Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland, Georgia, Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina, Rep. Virginia Foxx, North Carolina, Rep. Brian Bilbray, California, Rep. Bill Sali, Idaho,  In the Senate, the Census Bureau falls under the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. The membership of the Committee—Democrat: Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman (Independent) (CT), Carl Levin (MI), Daniel K. Akaka (HI), Thomas R. Carper (DE), Mark L. Pryor (AR), Mary L. Landrieu (LA), Barack Obama (IL), Claire McCaskill (MO), Jon Tester (MT); Republican: Susan M. Collins Ranking Member (ME), Ted Stevens (AK), George V. Voinovich (OH), Norm Coleman (MN), Tom Coburn (OK), Pete V. Domenici (NM), John Warner (VA), John E. Sununu (NH).

<<<<<<(+)>>>>>>

 

STATE STIFLING GROWTH ON RESERVATIONS

Tim Giago, Nanwica Kciji, Native American Journalists Foundation, Inc., November 20, 2006

            Something is rotten in South Dakota and the smell seems to be emanating from the office of Republican Governor Mike Rounds, the man just re-elected to serve as governor for the next four years. It would be presumptuous of me to play the race card here so I will set down the facts and let my readers decide. But first a little history of Indian gaming.

            When Congress signed into law the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1987 it included certain specifications that many of the older and wiser traditional Indian leaders found unacceptable. However, younger and greedier heads prevailed. One specification gave state governments jurisdiction over Indian casinos within their boundaries. The law stated that Indian tribes could only have games that were legal within the state. In other words, if there were no legal slot machines in the state the tribes were prevented from having slot machines in their casinos.

            The Act also said that the Indian tribes had to sign a compact that had to be approved by the state government. This gave the state government the power to tell a sovereign Indian nation how many slot machines they could have and what other gaming devices they would consider as legal. Without a gaming compact an Indian tribe could not operate a casino. Some tribes, primarily the Apache, told the state government to ‘go to hell’ and they put in the number of gaming devices they wanted in their casinos. Their obstinate stand proved to be a winner and the states involved failed to stop them.

            In South Dakota the government wanted to revive gaming in Deadwood. The Deadwood Initiative went on the ballot and as publisher of the Lakota Times I waited until a couple of weeks before the election and then came out with an editorial urging all tribal members to vote yes on approving gaming for Deadwood. In this fashion any gaming device allowed in Deadwood would also be allowed on the Indian reservations. The Deadwood measure passed unanimously and thus opened the doors for gaming on the reservations.

            The South Dakota tribes were restricted in the number of gaming devices they could have in their casinos by the state/tribal compacts. For instance, each tribe was allowed only 250 slot machines. Since the first Indian casino opened more than 15 years ago that number has remained the same. It’s as if growth is allowed in the gaming industry in South Dakota everywhere except on the Indian reservations, the poorest counties in the state.

            As an example, in 1990 Deadwood had 863 slot machines. In 2005 it had 2,996 slot machines. South Dakota Video Lottery had 2,439 slot machines in 1990. In 2005 it had 8,564 slot machines. This means that from 1990 to 2005 the number of slot machines owned by white operators grew by 8,258 slot machines. In 1990 Indian casinos had 1,667 slot machines. In 2005 Indian casinos still had only 1,667 slot machines. This means that the number of slot machines in casinos owned by the Indian people had a growth of ZERO. Scorecard: Additional slot machines to white operators since 1990 ó 8,258. Additional slot machines to Indian operators since 1990 - 0.

            Gov. Rounds would probably say that the growth in white owned casinos came about because more gaming establishments were built. Is that any reason to prevent economic growth in the most impoverished communities in South Dakota? Four years ago I sat in the audience and listened to the several candidates running for the office of governor in South Dakota. I was most impressed with the comments of candidate Rounds when he said, ‘I will open my house to the Indian leaders in this state and invite them to have a meal with me so we can talk about the problems they face.’ In fact, I was so impressed that my newspaper at the time, The Lakota Journal, endorsed him for governor, only the second time we had ever endorsed a Republican.

            As many of my readers know, I am not exactly pro-gaming, but I am most definitely pro-growth. Because gaming is legal in most of America, it has allowed the poorest people in this country, the Indian tribes, to gain a semblance of financial stability and independence. In South Dakota the opportunity to grow and to generate the finances to become economically viable is stifled by the inconsiderate (I almost said racist) attitude of Governor Rounds. He can applaud the growth of the economy in Deadwood and in the communities with video lottery, but he refuses to push for the growth of the economy on the Indian reservations.

            The Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe in eastern South Dakota is situated in an area with a fairly large and growing population. As the surrounding communities grow the tribe has attempted to grow along with them but it cannot do so unless the governor allows it to increase the number of slot machines in its casino. It is a simple matter of arithmetic. On busy weekend nights people have to stand in line to play the 250 slot machines now available. The income of the tribe and hence its economic growth would increase ten-fold if its expansion was not blocked by a seemingly unfeeling governor. It is high time Governor Rounds lived up to his campaign promises and stops standing in the way of economic growth on the Indian reservations. What is he afraid of? Economic growth and stability on the Indian reservations can only mean the same for the rest of the state.

>-+-<><><><><><><>-+-<

 

THE KARUK CEREMONIAL DANCE HOUSE FIRE: DIPLOMACY AND COOPERATION IS NECESSARY FOR GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT RELATIONSHIPS

 Michael Osborne, Graduate Program, American Indian Studies, UCLA

This essay is in reaction to “The Karuk’s Frustration in Developing Well Working Government-to-Government Relations in Law Enforcement” in the Dialogue section of the Fall 2006 Journal of the Indigenous Policy Network. A ceremonial dance house utilized by the Karuk and neighboring tribes was burned down on July 2, 2006 in what was suspected to be arson. Since the sacred house was located on federal lands in a National Forest, the U.S. Forest Service performed the initial investigation, handing the investigation over to the Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Department. Two detectives were assigned to the case, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation was contacted and consulted regarding the incident.

The aggravation and sense of loss the Karuks experienced having the sacred dance house destroyed again (the last being ten years ago by bulldozers) is apparent. Spokesmen for the tribe likened the fire to a “church-burning” and a “crime against the spiritual.” However, in the provocative letter by Arch Super to Siskiyou County Sheriff Rick Riggins it appears that the frustration is clouding Super’s judgment as the leader of a sovereign government. 

A unique relationship exists between the Karuk tribe and Siskiyou County. This is due to the inherent sovereignty of the Karuks. Sovereignty means the Karuk, as a Native American tribe has the power to make and enforce laws, and to establish courts and law enforcement. Consequently, they are an independent government and not an ethnic or special interest group  The term “government-to-government” describes the relationship between tribes and governments such as county, state, and federal administrations. Interaction with other sovereign governments is a necessary function of tribal governments, and these interactions require diplomacy, tact, negotiation skills and patience.

            The August 12 letter revealed none of the above attributes. After only forty days into the arson investigation, Chairman Super not only suggested that the Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Department’s investigation is being slowed due to a racial bias, he also accuses the department of outright racial profiling of Karuk tribal members in the community. Instead of welcoming the sheriff’s investigators visiting tribal offices, which would appear to indicate the detectives are actively investigating the case, Super inexplicably chastises the detectives for not “providing adequate notice before they arrive.” With official statements such as these from the Karuk Tribe, the silence regarding the investigation of the fire from the Siskiyou Sheriff’s department is comprehensible.

A suggestion to the leadership of the Karuk Tribe would be to examine a nearby tribe’s example of their commitment to external tribal relations. The Confederated Tribes of Grande Ronde in Oregon have created an institution called the Intergovernmental Affairs Department, whose sole purpose is enhancing relationships with local, state, and federal governments. The tribal bureau has been highly successful and respected as representatives of their independent government.  

Chairman Super must understand that, unlike popular crime scene investigation television shows where crimes are solved in one hour, offenses such as this fire committed in remote areas with no witnesses and little or no physical evidence can take weeks, months, or even years to solve - if they are solved at all. A government utilizing inflammatory rhetoric as an attempt to induce action from other government will only create an adversarial atmosphere that leads to little or no cooperation in the future.

.>>>>>>>-<<<<<<<

 

KARUK TRIBAL COUNCIL REPLY TO MICHAEL OSBORNE ON THE CEREMONIAL DANCE HOUSE FIRE

Arch Super, Chairman, Karuk Tribe of California, May 16, 2007

The Karuk Tribal Council would like to address the letter from Mr. Michael Osborne. Normally when we read something like his essay we put it aside as the ramblings of some incoherent illiterate that has no concept of the struggles of Native Americans. We see by his introduction that he is in a graduate program at the distinguished University of California, Los Angeles.

This in itself would not lend us to take note; however, Mr. Osborne is in the American Indian Studies program. This might lead a reader to believe that he is somewhat of an expert and gives credibility to his statements to some respect.

The Tribal Council is fairly certain that the fire being discussed was in fact an arson fire, spontaneous combustion is highly unlikely and we don't burn down our ceremonial houses intentionally, the ceremonies at that location had been over for a couple months so the small fire in the central pit was certainly out. Some of the Tribe's aggravation came by virtue of the initial "investigation" itself. The area we live in is unique; we are in California, Siskiyou County, Klamath National Forest. California is a Public Law 280 state. This provides law enforcement full access to tribal lands. In this case the land is only Tribal because of a special agreement we have with the Forest Service. The Forest service does not investigate felonious crimes as the primary investigative agency in this area. If one were murdered on forest lands, the sheriff’s department would handle the investigation. In this case, arson was suspected from the beginning and that being a felony crime, against the Karuk Tribe, the Forest Service should never have had anything to do with the crime scene. The Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Department has access to state arson investigators but none were called to the scene. The Forest Service arrived at the scene, and took it over possibly disturbing or destroying critical evidence that the Sheriff’s department investigators could have located and used in their investigation. The Sheriff’s department on the other hand didn't even show up at the scene for several days after the incident.

Mr. Osborne knows nothing of our historic relationship with Siskiyou County or the Sheriff’s Department. We have been here since time immemorial. The local governments allowed the genocide of our Tribe and many of the neighboring Tribes. We have been treated as second class citizens in every sense of the word. At a recent Council meeting we were reminded of an incident that occurred many years ago where 3 tribal members were killed in a house fire where no investigation was carried out. We have found local government agencies very slow to respond to the diplomatic methods you speak of.

Their understanding is that Native Americans have never been in a position where they had to listen to them before so why should they start now. You have to understand the unique position the Tribes in this area have been put into. We have recently had a local city turn the water off to the homes of our elders and take the meters illegally. We replaced the meters only to have them removed again. Only with the threat of legal action did the city officials return the meters and allow the elders who lived in those homes, owned by the Tribe, to live in peace.

Diplomacy works when you are dealing with equals whether it is in intelligence or in strength and attributes. We are not considered equals therefore we have no leverage in the eyes of some here in Siskiyou County to inspire diplomacy. You state that we are not an ethnic or special interest group, this is true. But we are treated differently with respect to the rest of society. The needs of Native Americans to succeed in the existing world around us while retaining the unique history, customs, and traditions we have makes us apart from any others in our perception.

The Karuk Tribe successfully works with many government entities on a daily basis. We have contracts, grants, agreements, and working relationships with private and government groups. The tact, diplomacy, patience and negotiation skills to develop the programs we operate are apparent if not obvious.

The initial investigator for the Sheriff’s department did not show up for nearly 2 weeks following the destruction of one of our most sacred places, Katimiin. This place was invaded and destroyed, and then the law enforcement agency with the primary investigative authority didn't do anything to show interest in the case until we used other means to force them to take action.

We did chastise the Sheriff’s department on many levels. Regarding their provision of notice of arrival, again you are speaking off the cuff. The circumstances are this; we have administrative offices in the areas that the Sheriff’s department wanted to utilize for interrogation rooms. We only asked that we receive notice so that we could temporarily reassign staff members to other places. Our employees have work to do that is important on a daily basis, we were providing these spaces to the Sheriff’s department as a courtesy to assist them, the deputy in question had to drive over 2 hours to get to those offices and they didn't even call us on the day they came so we could make arrangements. Also, we made appointments with people who had information to meet with deputies on certain days at certain times, and then the investigators never showed up, not even calling to tell us we needed to make other arrangements. The silence from the Sheriff’s department is certainly comprehensible; they have interior management problems and little or no consideration for the needs of the people they serve.

Don't belittle our struggles and endeavors to make our way through this difficult world by giving us examples of other Tribal governments or sarcastically state that we educated ourselves by watching CSI, how condescending of you. The honorable officials of the Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde have made great strides in their efforts to work on their relationships with the local, state, and federal governments. We don't question that, I am sure that they in turn would not question what we are doing in our place. You questioning it without knowing the truth is disturbing. You present your essay with the apparent intention of educating our Tribe and others of our ignorance. These are issues that you know nothing of.

We are very offended by your essay and if we were grading it would give you an "F." It is too bad that you are not willing to seek out the truth but rather seeking to put your own spin on an instance that has actually existed for many years. The tragedy here is that your essay might influence others to this point and you are apparently willing to misuse your position to further your own existence. It would have been wise of you to speak with us prior to your work of fiction being presented to the public.

Sincerely,

Arch Super, Chairman, Karuk Tribe of California

 

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

 

FEATHERS AT GRADUATION (Letter to NSU Vice President Neal Weaver)

             Az Carmen, May 12, 2007

Dr. Weaver,

My name is Dr. Az Carmen. I am an enrolled member of the Chickasaw Nation and, due to sheer determination, I graduated last year with my doctorate. I also walked proudly through the processional with my eagle feather in my hair. I placed the tam with its gold tassel on the other side of where the eagle feather was laced. The University of Oregon was proud to have me as the only Indian person who received a doctorate degree at graduation. I know this because the president of the school told me so as I was hooded.

You were wrong to ask Indian students to take off their feathers at NSU's commencement. The newspaper report stated that you are the one who instituted this policy and in my opinion you can make this right. Recognize that NSU has a proud history of inclusion of Indian students and that to not honor the history of the school and its students will most probably be considered biased and racist in Indian Country. Cultural gaffs can be fixed. Just apologize and give NSU the opportunity to maintain its proud tradition.

As an Indian person, I encourage you to embrace the many Indian cultures that surround you in Oklahoma and recognize that tribal sovereignty gives us unique legal and cultural rights as individuals and tribes. The wearing of eagle feathers is not something that a non-Indian can participate in legally. This distinction was not mentioned in your comment about "academic culture" vs. Indian cultures. My hope is that this was simply a comment out of context and that you are not unaware of this distinction.

Please reconsider your actions as reported in the Tahlequah Daily Press article that I have included for your review,

Az Carmen D.Ed.

Enrolled Chickasaw Nation, azcarmen@comcast.net

"Feathers prohibited at graduation attire at NSU"

By EDDIE GLENN, Tahlequah Daily Press

            NSU has a higher percentage of American Indian students than any other university in the nation, and since the school hosts an annual weeklong symposium on Indian culture, some students who attended last week’s graduation ceremonies were surprised when they were told they would have to leave their culture at the door. Warren Hawk graduated Saturday with a master’s degree in education. But before the commencement ceremony began, organizers told him he would have to remove the eagle feather and medicine wheel he was wearing.

            According to Hawk, a member of the Lakota tribe, organizers threatened to have him removed from the ceremony by campus police if he didn’t comply with the graduation dress code: gown, cap, and a rope of a specific color (depending on the degree obtained) around the neck, but no feathers. Hawk said he removed his feather until right before he walked across the stage to receive his diploma, when he put it back on. “There was one other [American Indian] student who came up to me and asked me about it,” Hawk said. “I told her they want uniformity, so take it off for now, but put it back on later, which is what I did. A couple of students did comply, and it was really sad that they didn’t really get to wear their feathers at all.” Hawk said he understands the reasoning behind the graduation dress rules, but he’s still disappointed that a school that is so intrinsically tied to native culture - like NSU, which actually began as the Cherokee Women’s Seminary - would not allow feathers at graduation.

            “I know their intention wasn’t to exclude people,” he said. “Their intention was to keep people from doing outrageous things. But for us, an eagle feather is not something that’s given out haphazardly. You have to earn it; you have to accomplish something. It was given to warriors when they did great accomplishments. With the push among Indian people for education, graduation is an accomplishment, not just for the graduate but f or all their people.”

            Hawk sent out a mass e-mail about his experience Saturday, and got responses from other American Indian students who said their graduations weren’t quite as strict. “I got e-mails from Wyoming, South Dakota, all over,” he said. “They said that where they graduated, [wearing eagle feathers during graduation] was actually encouraged.” But according to NSU Dean of Enrollment Management Services Bill Nowlin, graduation is an academic ceremony with very specific guidelines for dress, and feathers just aren’t part of those guidelines. “It’s not just about feathers, Nowlin said. “There are guidelines on academic regalia, and what can be added to it. “I’ve checked with other universities in Oklahoma, and they have the same guidelines. Everybody has a culture, everybody has a history, and everybody has sacrificed. We can’t say, “These people can [vary from the graduation regalia requirements], but these people can’t.” Neal Weaver, NSU vice president for university relations, said he doesn’t see the graduation restrictions as a ban on eagle feathers, but rather a preservation of another kind of culture: academia. “What we’re concerned about is preserving the tradition of academic regalia,” said Weaver. “Everything we wear has meaning - very much, I would imagine, like native traditions. The ropes, for example, are a different color for a bachelor’s degree than for a master’s degree, and a Ph.D. is another color.” Weaver said American Indian students can wear traditional items like eagle feathers any place and any time they want on campus - except at graduation. “That’s the case across the country,” he said. “There’s not a school in Oklahoma that allows non-academic regalia to be worn at graduation.”

Contact Eddie Glenn @ eglenn@tahlequahdailypress.com.

}~~~~+~~~~{

 

SURVIVAL INTERNATIONAL STATEMENT:

UK: BBC - FIRST CONTACT WITH ISOLATED TRIBES?

A BBC film broadcast on Thursday 1 February documents an expedition to make first contact with an isolated tribe in West Papua - and asks whether such people really exist. Survival estimates that approximately 107 uncontacted tribes exist worldwide - and all are threatened with extinction. The film follows journalist and adventurer Mark Anstice, who signs up for a tourist trip to make 'first contact' with an isolated tribe deep in the West Papuan jungle. Anstice does meet some tribal people, but questions whether this is a genuine uncontacted tribe or if the trip was in fact a hoax.

Survival's director Stephen Corry said January 25, 'There are something like 107 largely uncontacted tribes in the world, about 44 of them are in West Papua. They remain separate because they choose to; and with good reason. 'Tourists could threaten these peoples, especially through the risk of bringing in disease. Tourists shouldn't try and go there: it's dangerous and irresponsible. If the encounter in the film wasn't staged, then both the tour operator and tourists should be ashamed of themselves. In fact, that's extremely unlikely: it wouldn't be the first time that people have staged 'first contact' situations to extract money from tourists.

'But this isn't the worst danger. Many tribes are survivors of past massacres and diseases, who have fled to remote areas. They face mining companies, loggers, colonists, and the armed forces, which have killed around 100,000 Papuans as Indonesia continues its violent occupation.' For further information contact Miriam Ross (+44) (0)20 7687 8734 or email mr@survival-international.org, or go to: http://www.survival-international.org.

-+---<<<<<<<(XX()XX)>>>>>>>---+-

 

DECLARATION OF THE INDIGENOUS WORLD URANIUM SUMMIT

Window Rock, Navajo  Nation, USA, December 2, 2006

We, the Peoples gathered at the Indigenous World Uranium Summit, at this critical time of intensifying nuclear threats to Mother Earth and all life, demand a worldwide ban on uranium mining, processing, enrichment, fuel use, and weapons testing and deployment, and nuclear waste dumping on Native Lands.

Past, present and future generations of Indigenous Peoples have been disproportionately affected by the international nuclear weapons and power industry. The nuclear fuel chain poisons our people, land, air and waters and threatens our very existence and our future generations. Nuclear power is not a solution to global warming. Uranium mining, nuclear energy development and international agreements (e.g., the recent U.S.-India nuclear cooperation treaty) that foster the nuclear fuel chain violate our basic human rights and fundamental natural laws of Mother Earth, endangering our traditional cultures and spiritual well-being.

We reaffirm the Declaration of the World Uranium Hearing in Salzburg, Austria, in 1992, that “uranium and other radioactive minerals must remain in their natural location.” Further, we stand in solidarity with the Navajo Nation for enacting the DinÈ Natural Resources Protection Act of 2005, which bans uranium mining and processing and is based on the Fundamental Laws of the Dine. And we dedicate ourselves to a nuclear-free future.

Indigenous Peoples are connected spiritually and culturally to our Mother, the Earth. Accordingly, we endorse and encourage development of renewable energy sources that sustain - not destroy - Indigenous lands and the Earth’s ecosystems.

In tribute to our ancestors, we continue centuries of resistance against colonialism. We recognize the work, courage, dedication and sacrifice of those individuals from Indigenous Nations and from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, India, Japan, the United States, and Vanuatu, who participated in the Summit. We further recognize the invaluable work of those who were honored at the Nuclear-Free Future Awards ceremony on December 1, 2006. And we will continue to support activists worldwide in their nonviolent efforts to stop uranium development.

We are determined to share the knowledge we have gained at this Summit with the world. In the weeks and months ahead, we will summarize and disseminate the testimonies, traditional Indigenous knowledge, and medical and scientific evidence that justify a worldwide ban on uranium development. We will enunciate specific plans of action at the tribal, local, national and international levels to support Native resistance to the nuclear fuel chain. And we will pursue legal and political redress for all past, current and future impacts of the nuclear fuel chain on Indigenous Peoples and their resources.

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+==+=+=+=+=+=+=+