Bill In Hawaii Ignites Chatter Across West

[blackcrowheart]

Bill In Hawaii Ignites Chatter Across West
Is Native Sovereignty A Step Toward Secession?
By Todd Wilkinson, 6-01-06

Ever since the European colonization of North America began, it is an
irrefutable fact that native tribes have suffered from both usurpation
and painful displacement. Some were left uprooted by war waged upon
them, others left scattered by introduced diseases and strife, and still
others had tribal identities frayed through forced assimilation
programs, often carried out in distant cities.

And, of course, some tribal members, by their own choice, became part of
the broader melting pot that is this country.

Can the jigsaw puzzle that was human indigenous America ever be
reassembled?

During the latter half of the 20th century, Congress passed a series of
laws aimed at formally recognizing tribal affiliations in an attempt to
salvage rapidly fading cultures, preserve language and customs, and,
perhaps most importantly, to provide economic and legal resources that
would enable such fractured bands to persist. Invoking treaty rights
that legally affirm their sovereignty as nations separate and apart from
the federal government--yet still existing inside U.S. borders--tribes
are wrestling with what they were and what they might still become.

Some recognized tribes have used the process of legally formalizing
their unique existence to regain portions of ancestral homelands. A
sizeable number have used their land and federal funding to construct
casinos which can serve as powerful economic engines in communities
struggling against unspeakable hardship.

Here, in an essay that follows, Californian Jim Marino, an attorney from
Santa Barbara, offers a provocative commentary on a bill introduced by
U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii. Mr. Akaka is the first senator of
Native Hawaiian ancestry and the only Chinese American member in the
U.S. Senate.

Akaka's bill, called "The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization
Act", would more forcefully recognize native sovereignty within the
Hawaiian archipelago and create a new governing body to serve people who
formally qualify as Native Hawaiians. It would grant Native Hawaiians
the same kind of self-governing authority already exercised by Native
Americans in the lower 48 and Alaska.

Testifying in favor of the legislation before the Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs, Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle, a Republican, said: "This
bill is vital to the survival of the Native Hawaiian people, it is vital
to providing parity in federal policy for all native peoples in America,
and it is vital to the continued character of the State of Hawai'i."

However, reporter Duncan Currie of the politically-conservative Weekly
Standard raises the specter, in an opinion piece [read it by clicking
HERE] that some believe the bill, if passed and signed into law by
President Bush, would create two separate divisive cultures and grease
the skids for a possible independence movement leading to secession down
the road.

Proponents of Akaka's bill dismiss those assertions as racially
motivated fear mongering. They accuse the critics of being holdover
colonialists whose rampage of conquest across the New World denied the
human rights of people who were already here.

But Lamar Alexander, the senator from Tennesee, told Currie: "What this
bill does is deny equal protection. We're gradually eroding what it
means to be an American."

In calling attention to what he believes are its misguided broader
implications, Mr. Marino suggests the Akaka bill does little to address
the multitude of real-life challenges facing modern native people. His
piece is sure to stir a response from Westerners who know that the
divide over reconciling cultural, political, economic and racial
conflicts in Indian Country still looms large. He also ponders a
question: What does it take to have a tribe? —Todd Wilkinson

The Rise of Tribal Opportunism In America


By Jim Marino

Given the fact that liberal politicians are stepping all over themselves
to tout cultural diversity we cannot be surprised at the rise of groups,
tribes, bands or communities looking for an advantage over others. These
folks see an opportunity in asserting cultural diversity particularly if
it can be based on sympathy and playing the victim of some historical
injustices to remote cultural ancestors.

In California, we have Indian tribes of 1, 2 and 3 people. One of the
three person "tribes" is the Valley Miwoks. As a recognized non-casino
tribe they receive $1 million a year from the fund paid for by the other
casino gambling tribes. That's not all. They then received over $400,000
in federal grant monies last year alone for "tribal government", "tribal
economic development", "tribal housing", etc.

So we have three people who get over $1.4 million before they do a
thing. Recently two of them teamed up to kick the third out of the tribe
and cut off his share of the pot of gold, and yes, they are trying to
find a backer and a site to build another gambling casino. (We already
have 61 here in California now).

So if the Akaka Bill should pass then it won't be just the Aztlan
movement challenging the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. There will be
several "tribes" of Mexican and Latino peoples laying claim to vast
areas of the Southwest including California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas
even part of Utah and Colorado. (The Arapaho Indians have recently
claimed the northern half of the State of Colorado but they are willing
to give up that claim if they can get 500 acres near Denver
International Airport for a casino).

I can hear it now: "the Guadalajara band of Mixtec Indians" or "the
Sonora Band of Toltecs" etc.

How long before we see a bill in Congress for the Restoration of the
Creole Nation in the Southeastern United States? Can this folly be
limited to Inuit Eskimo and Aleut tribes, Hawaiians and Indians? There
are 600-plus American Indian tribes now. Under current federal
recognition processes the sky is the limit.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the agency charged with making
recognition determinations entitling recognized tribes to federal
welfare and other benefits is heavily dominated by Indian descendant
employees and bureaucrats.

The answer is to stop this absurdity and take away the economic
advantage of claiming some obscure tribal status and eliminate the
current political obsession with "cultural diversity" as if it were an
objective. We are one culture, the AMERICAN CULTURE which is comprised
of dozens of ethnic cultures, who are all free to preserve their
particular cultural traditions and customs amongst their families and
communities.

That is the essence of American culture, a democracy which allows the
freedom to carry on such traditions. It does not permit separatism by
any group that thinks that they can be a "Sovereign Nation" within this
nation, and be immune from the laws and taxes everyone else must abide
by. There are no such sovereign nations, not even Indian Tribes which
are, for the most part, dependent cultural enclaves.

They have maintained separations from the economic, cultural and
political system of this country largely because the tribal governments
of Indian tribes draw their powers from being the conduit of federal
welfare and who control and manage those revenues that the tribes
generate from the lands they control, which now includes casino gambling
income, and these governments do so largely without any checks and
balances.

Tribal governments do not want to give up that power base so to preserve
it they disguise their true motives by speaking of needing "sovereignty"
and sovereign immunity for the preservation of Native culture and
tradition, as if anyone in modern America would, or for that matter has
any desire to, take that away from them.

Thus the only thing Native American tribes have become under flawed
federal Indian policies are dependent enclaves supported by non-Indian
taxpayers, and ruled in many cases by dynasties and families that
control their enrolled members, often ruthlessly, and those members have
no legal rights nor any effective means to oust these governments.

Under current federal law, the determination of who is or is not a
member of any tribe is exclusively the prerogative of THE TRIBAL
GOVERNMENT with no recourse in any such dispute except to that same
government. Sovereign immunity has allowed these systems to persevere.

Do we need more "tribes" of this nature? Do the residents of Hawaii want
a separate "Nation of Hawaiians" above the laws and taxes that every
other resident of Hawaii must abide by? One percent Hawaiian blood is
enough under the Akaka Bill even though the other 99 percent could be
Russian, Chinese ancestry or, ironically, American (at least for two or
three generations).

The time to put an end to this absurd tribal renaissance in America has
long since past because it is clearly not being utilized to preserve
historic"cultural traditions" as often claimed, but rather it is no more
than an attempt to evade the many laws which apply to everyone
indiscriminately and the taxes that we are all obligated to pay for the
public services and infrastructure we all use.

Mr. Marino is an attorney living in Santa Barbara, California.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story incorrectly attributed a
quote to Sen. Mitch McConnell. It has been changed to correctly
attribute the quote to Sen. Lamar Alexander.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.

Want to help us improve? Take our reader survey.
By Todd Wilkinson, 6-01-06 | comments (27) | add comment | email this
story | print this story


Comments
By Craig Moore, 6-01-06
Todd, I believe you have added some vinegar and baking soda to the
societal melting pot. I can almost see the witches of Macbeth chanting,
"Bubble, bubble, toil, and trouble..." as they give it a vigorous stir.
;?) Perhaps Canda has the right approach of calling the original
inhabitants First Nations.
By Ryan Griffin, 6-01-06
Obviously, this idiot has never lived on any "Indian" reservation. He's
lumping everyone in with his views of the 1-2-3 person tribes. Give him
a month living on commodity food and driving a rez rocket and I bet his
opinion would change pretty d**n quick!
By Todd Wilkinson, 6-01-06
Craig: Thanks for the Shakespearean metaphor. Alas, words have meaning
but they are hollow if there is no substantive underpinning beneath
their appropriation in the name of political correctness. Until this
country has an open, honest, angry, emotional and wholly-encompassing
discussion about what happened to Native people in America (and in
fairly recent times, all things considered), the descriptions that apply
to their sense of ownership to the continent will continue to mean
nothing. Among all of the reporting I've done in the West, the stories
from Indian Country have been the most rewardingly human on a personal
level. I don't see it so much as tribal leaders being unwilling to move
on with the making of new history; rather it is a matter of having the
government acknowledge and take stock of the involuntary divestiture
that has affected tribes on many levels. Most Native Americans I've met
are proud to be American. The Cobell case dealing with Indian trust fund
money is one example of trying to re-balance the ledger. Elouise Cobell
has brought forth not just the experience of being a Blackfeet; she's a
smart banker.
I think South Africa had it partially right after Mandella was let out
of prison and codified Apartheid was in its final throes. The country
held national televised reconciliation hearings that maybe didn't make
the pain go away but it was a catharsis the nation shared together. Has
that ever happened here? Having a Ken Burns documentary aired on PBS
doesn't cut it. Nor does passing a bill that sets Native Hawaiians down
the same failed path of Nepotism-driven tribal governments as those that
already exist in the Lower 48. There needs to be a better way to native
governance than the paternalistic, broken down, 19th century approach
practiced by the BIA. I think most people on all sides of the issue
would just as soon move on from the past. Imagine having a Congress and
a President that, for starters, initiated a national discussion and
brought televised hearings on the tragedy and problems of Indian Country
into every living room. That would be an American experience everyone
could share in. Would it "fix" things? Probably not. But it wouldn't be
a bad start.
By Craig Moore, 6-01-06
Todd, I'll take this opportunity to relate a recent experience of mine.
Apart from avoiding pink and purple houses in Cut Bank and doing a
little fishing I took my parents to the Lighthouse at Valier for Mothers
Day dinner. What a beautiful day. On the return drive to Cut Bank as we
headed for the Two Medicine bridge I spied a fellow waving a jacket and
in distress on a side road to the highway. I told my folks we needed to
go and see what was needed. We drove up to the gentlemen, a Blood Indian
from Alberta. His wife was at a nearby farmhouse and cornered in a
garage by a large dog. We picked him up and went to get his wife. Their
pickup had run out of gas on the bridge below. Faulty gas gauge and they
had gone to this farmhouse to get help. Noone was home. We took the
couple to another farmhouse and got a gallon of gas and returned to
their vehicle. My father knows a little Blackfeet and conversed with the
gentelmen. They noticed that my father wasn't in the best health and
asked what was wrong. Parkinsons. They were so thankful for the help
that the gentlemen took my father's hand, bowed his head and for about 5
minutes said a blessing and prayer in Blackfeet for his health. The
woman said, " This won't cure him but it will make him feel better." We
shook hands, hugged, and said goodbye.

Too often we focus on our points of friction rather than build on
everyday opportunities to change things just a little.
By sally ryan, 6-01-06
being a journalist, one hopes, means balancing an informative article,
presenting both sides of any debate, and leaving the reader able to form
an informed opinion.
this was a poorly presented article, very clearly pushing a bias
opinion.
one extreme case of a tribe, used to negate the well documented
struggles of most native communities.
native nations,who are "fortunate" enough to be given back small rural
area's as their reservations, are geographically disadvantaged
economically, and if some of them have managed to provide for their
communitites by erecting casino's,then one can only hope it provides
enough to sustain future generations who can focus on reclaiming their
heritage, one of proud,dynamic nations. where are the statisitcs of
those native nations who live below the poverty line? little employment,
and shatterred hopes for the future...lets keep this article real.your
job is to educate the public.
By Todd Wilkinson, 6-01-06
Sally Ryan: Thanks for your thoughts. The whole intent of presenting Jim
Marino's essay was not to do it under some false guise of achieving, as
you say, "balance". You ask: "Where are the statistics of those native
nations who live below the poverty line? little employement, and
shattered hopes for the future....let's keep this article real. your job
is to educate the public." I would assert that most, if not all, New
West readers are well aware of the problems facing Native communities in
the West and beyond. Far from being a secret, it is instead the glaring
exception to the American dream and challenges the myth of prosperity
reaching all. With Marino's piece, we are not pushing a bias. It's
pretty clear that he has a strong point of view and the great thing
about this kind of medium is that people like you, who disagree, can
challenge it. Both sides of the debate were pretty well highlighted in
the set-up piece to Marino's essay. We knew his point of view would
cause New West readers to react. That's a good thing. Tell us, and him,
where you think that he got it wrong.
By Todd Wilkinson, 6-01-06
One more note for Sally Ryan: You have an Australian email address. If
you are writing from Australia, perhaps you could share your
observations on the current state of affairs regarding the Australian
government and aboriginals? I'm sure readers would be interested to hear
your thoughts.
By mike, 6-01-06
This topic, the articles, and comments are interesting. I have been
thinking about the broader topic of "original rights" for a long time,
been troubled by it, but from a different perspective. I tend to be very
conscious of the concept of "equal rights" and of its sister concept of
equitable application of justice and of the underlying concept of
consistency in morals, ethics, and principles. I tend to be very
bothered by the "dark sides" of these concepts, which are
prejudice/discrimination, selfishness, and hypocrisy.

With that said, let me propose that, if this topic were only about
"tribes" seeking to form some greater level of self-governance, it would
not only not be so controversial, but would actually be welcomed by
"entrepreneurs" as possibly opening the door to more exploitation of
"tribal" people and their resources with less outside oversight. The
reason that these trends/efforts draw attention is, of course, that it
is feared that they could lead to "tribes" reclaiming lands and
properties to which they had "original rights" that were taken from them
or that they lost through some questionable set of circumstances. To use
a simpler, less politically correct, perhaps borderline insulting, and
only roughly accurate metaphor, people who now have a legal/financial
stake in American real estate and property are afraid that the Kiowa are
eventually going to try to reclaim Kansas. There may be some foggy
concern about "secession down the road;" but, most of the heartburn
about secession really boils down to fear of losing control over
property and assets.

Now, with the question framed in this way, I have little or no interest
in arguing whether the Kiowa have a right to Kansas in absolute terms.
My interest is in whether morals, ethics, and principles are being
applied consistently, whether justice is being meted out equitably, and
in the questions of how and on the basis of what criteria do we
determine who has or does not have unrelinquished "original rights" to a
piece of property and how and under what mechanism do we respect, repay,
or reinstate such rights.

In this context, I am, obviously, troubled by the perception that
America has never applied its overtly advertised morals, ethics, and
principles to its dealings with the "tribes" or their "original rights"
to properties that they held at the time of the forming of the country.
More to the point and to my level of confusion, America does not now
treat the question of "original rights" consistently between its current
dealings with the "tribes" and its current position on the international
front.

Let me offer some inflammatory examples, prefaced by the disclaimer that
I am neither supportive nor hostile to any of the peoples, cultures,
nations, or states in these examples. As a first example, America has
poured tremendous treasure, spilled the blood of many of our best, and
embroiled the globe in conflict over the course of our support for the
"original rights" of the "Israelis" to the lands they call "Israel" as
opposed to an equal support of the admittedly more recent rights of the
"Palestinians" to what they call "Palestine." The Israelites, after
taking their homeland from the Canaanites, formed a vibrant and noble
culture prior to their effective eviction by the Romans. The
Palestinians then held the land for nearly two thousand years since and
had made many significant human, cultural, and capital investments of
their own. We support, America supports, the "original rights" of the
present day Israelis and their reclaiming of the lands. The Kiowa held
their original lands for millenia beyond any calculation and formed a
vibrant and noble culture prior to eviction perpetrated through a widely
acknowledged combination of private and governmental banditry. Yet, do
we support their reclaiming of their "original rights" to their original
lands? Why is there a difference and why is the difference so easily
accepted by modern America?

We accept our pundits crying foul over the potential for "secession down
the road" and, in fact, fought a civil war to stop secession. Yet, we
seem to have little trouble with the rebalkanization of admittedly
corrupt Yugoslavia or with activities that encourage the secessionist
impulses of the former Soviet republics.

Again, I am neither attacking Israel nor defending the Palestinians,
Serbs, or Russians. I am expressing my confusion over the seeming
inconsistencies that are accepted in our culture. I am also lamenting
the fact that the rest of the world seems to increasingly take note of
these inconsistencies, that our credibility is subsequently questioned,
and that our credibility is one of the foundations of our strength. I am
troubled by the thought that "We're gradually eroding what it means to
be an American."
By Jim Marino, 6-01-06
I never intended to paint all Native Americans with the same broad
brush. There are tribes that are making genuine efforts to better the
plight of their enrolled members. Contrary to one respondent I am not an
idiot who has never set foot on an Indian reservation". I have been on
many reservations and as a lawyer, have represented many tribal memberrs
badly mistreated by their own tribal government.

The answer to the difficult question of the economic well being of
Native Americans is not to create more so called "sovereign nations".
These California tribes, that are mostly Hispanic in origin, are not
only making hundreds of millions in profits from the losses of
non-Indians in casinos in their respective communties, but they are
often using the court created doctrine of "tribal legal immunity from
lawsuit" as a means to evade legal responsibility for all manner of
misdeeds from negiligence and intentional injuries to customers, breach
of contracts made with these "tribes" by non-Indians and in good faith,
sexual harassent of female employees, lack of workers' compensation
protection and a host of other misdeeds. Tribal governments use this
same doctrine to block any attempts by tribal members trying to get
justice in a bona fide court of law.

These are wrongs that even the United States, all state governments and
all foreign nations could never get away with. The U.S. Supreme Court
recognized the absurdity of allowing Indian tribes and their businesses
to literally get away with all manner of misconduct under the atiquated
anachronism of the doctrine when they made their 1998 decision in the
case of Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma versus Manufacturing Technologies, Inc.
But then after pointing out the absudity of the doctrine, the majority
passed the buck to Congress to correct it by telling them they should
amend the Foreign Commerce Act to Include Indian tribes that do business
with the public and hire non-Indian employees, while claiming they are
"sovereign nations" immune from all the laws protecting employees and
customers and are immune from paying all the taxes needed to provide
public services and infrastructure the tribes and their businesses use
as well as all of the laws protecting the environment, health and
welfare of everyone, Indians included.

What many legitimate Indian tribes do not understand is that these often
ersatz "Indian tribes" that have only some fractional historic claim
(maybe) to any true Native American have teamed up with outside
non-Indian gambling interests to construct highly profitable and
essentially unregulated class III gambling casinos which then make
hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from the losses of
non-Indians and Indian gamblers alike.

[blackcrowheart]

Then, despite making all of this money and negatively impacting the
communities in which they are located, these "tribes" are still
collecting tens of millions of dollars in federal grant and welfare
monies that are badly needed by true Native American still living on
remote reservations in conditions of abject poverty.

Some readers may see this as an unfair bias but to someone who has never
done anything but help true Native Americans these concerns seem to be
not only important, but matters of common sense. The answer is not to
find more ways to create more "tribes" claiming "sovereignty" and
"sovereign immunity" from all of the laws and taxes every one else is
obligated to obey and abide by, which is the essence of the Akaka bill.
By Colonel Bain, 6-01-06
There comes a time when Man must look toward spirit and seek the closest
Soul on Earth to establish a Ethical, moral secular law Hall of Justice.
A Divine Judge that is known throughout the world and would be respected
by the Sovergein Nations of all tribes. This Divine Preist would have
answers and a higher path to Wisdom beyond man.There must be a High
Court that deals with matters such as these. Seek Divine it is written
in scripture..It not all about the money...
By sally ryan, 6-02-06
a note for todd, thankyou for your clarification, in regards to the
people claiming rights in california, my reference was general,and the
article above was specific in using the extreme example of a claim by
three individuals.
i believe there is always room for including the other end of the
spectrum within the paragraph.
I am residing in australia currently, and your question of my knowledge
of the issues facing aborigional pepole here. their story is a familiar
one, where white settlers arrived and delcared the land uninhabited. the
estimated population at the time of invasion here varies from 1 to 3
million, by the 1930's it was between 30 and 60 thousand.native folk
here were clasified under "flora and fauna" and were still being shot by
landowners into the 60's without legal reprisal.their recognition as the
origional land owners was sanctioned by the high court here in 1992,yet
they have not been any steps toward a meaningful reconciliation.
two thirds of native people here live in urban cities, as the law stated
that, if they had left the land they were claiming as their traditional
home, the claim was not valid.
i could go on, but i dont want to stray too far from this particular
subject, that of native folk in america, and their struggle to reclaim
traditional land,and then find a way to provide an income for their
communitites.we cant ignor the range of treaties struck that are still
argued over, at a time when every other form of agreement was considered
binding and to be upheld.
just look at a map of the untied states of origional native ownership,
and compare with the land allocation now,not all was amicably sold.
i would be most interested to hear from the general native community on
this article, but id imagine they are sick of hearing the same old
complaint, "if we go giving them land of their own, where will it end".
it must be like banging your head into a brick wall, and then passing
the pleasure onto your children as their only inheritance.
one can only hope that recognition of tribes is considered on historical
evidence and common sense,taken on a case by case basis.
there are those of every nationality who would seek to bend laws,given
an opportunity to benefit themselves,the very best of these being
attorneys.
i think that while mr marino makes some valid points regarding the
details in hawaii, we must look at this issue overall,and see that in
some area's what constitutes a right to claim,does not make the "claim"
wrong,nor should it invalidate a need to address the issue of self
governing for native people across the globe.
By Robert Hoskins, 6-02-06
Todd

It's about time that this discussion comes to the U. S. When I went to
the Canadian North a decade ago to study wolves and wolf control, I ran
right into the question of First Nations land claims. Wildlife
management was right at the heart of land claims, as was over a century
of mismanagement, culural arrogance, theft of ancestral lands, and
neglect of people once "sovereign" and now abandoned to their fates.
With the support of a couple of Canadian Supreme Court cases that
acknowledged that Aboriginal rights such as aboriginal title to lands
were still intact, thanks to King George III's Proclamation of 1763,
which was never overturned in Canada as it was in the U. S., the
Canadian government suddenly found itself in the position of having to
negotiate late 20th century land claims in order to continue the
development, that is, the destruction, of the northern environment. So,
for a short time, First Nations found themselves in the driver's seat
and much development was put off as First Nations suddenly discovered
their political power to protect themselves and at least part of their
ancestral lands. Now First Nations are struggling to move into the 21st
century, some successfully, some not so successfully. But Land Claims
was and is a great social experiment in Canada, and therefore First
Nations have greater say over their destiny even while Ottawa and
provicial governments are determined to hold them down.

Be that as it may, genocide causes long memories, and we have to face
the fact that deliberate policies of both the U. S. and Canadian
governments, not to mention the Australian government, which has its own
aboriginal land claims isses and problems of a history of genocide on
that great island continent, encouraged the destruction of peoples and
cultures that went back thousands of years and were still evolving when
Europeans showed up to occupy "unoccupied" land and brush away the
natives like they brushed away wildlife and the forests, a process that
is still going on. Yet these days, when native peoples demand justice
and recognition and autonomy, all of a sudden those of the ilk who think
natives never had any rights now talk about the U. S. or Canada or
Australia being one nation under one law, with one set of rights for
everyone, and they claim it's unjust for Natives to have their own
special rights, even though whites have had their own special rights
contra natives for decades and centuries. Native peoples do notice this
kind of hypocrisy and they are determined to forge their own paths to
the future.

In case people haven't noticed, the United States is no longer a nation.
One the one hand globalism infects our lives to an intolerable degree,
while at the same time the so-called nation-state crumbles under
political and economic corruption and incompetence, not to mention
trillion dollar debt. When was the last time Congress solved a problem?

This is why immigration and protecting our borders have become such an
issue; not that they're causing "problems," but because they are forcing
us to acknowledge something that no one wants to admit, that this
country is no longer a country, no longer a nation, but a maelstrom of
change beyond everyone's control, and who knows where it's going? Build
all the fences you want along the Mexican border, deploy all the border
forces and spy technology you want, make English the official language
of the U. S., it won't change what's happening. You might as well order
the sea to recede as tell immigrants not to come north. Time to learn
Spanish, folks.

The American century is over. The 21st century will be the century of
tribal peoples and multinational corporations.

The fact is that First Nations and American Tribes, as tribal peoples
once vanquished by miltary force and the weight of European populations,
are in the best position to understand what the changes now occuring in
North America mean--a changing of the guard that cannot be forestalled.
In such a maelstrom of social change, only people who can think and act
in tribal ways will survive. Native peoples know that and that is why
their pursuit of sovereignty is so important, and I support them in
their efforts. Those of us of European ancestry who actually inhabit the
places where we live, rather than just being here for the time being as
too many are, have a lot to learn from tribal peoples' current and
future experiences with sovereignty.

In closing, secession, which has a tainted definition rooted in the
American Civil War, is not the right word for what's happening with
Tribes or First Nations, or Hispanics, or any other group of people in
North America. What's happening is a kind of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
in society and culture. It's that fundamental, and that unstoppable. The
wise thing will be to ride the wave, rather than try to control it as
King George III did when the American colonies decided in 1776 their
destiny was elsewhere than with England.

Best,
Robert
By Richard Magee, 6-02-06
I wonder if Hitler's folks are trying to make the same claims for
themselves? How about the resurrected rights of Napoleonic's in
Waterloo? Communist Russia over a liberated one? What about those that
have been the victims of Christian salvation! How about all losers
against all winners in a world wide struggle of them? I am just as much
a Native American being born in America! Matters not that my ancestors
weren't just as it matters not that yours were descendants from
Asia/Russia! What matters is the "Boiling up Theory" and that is the
matter of fact of how we exist upon phenomenally huge boiling pot that
doesn't care what race of people eventually will boil in it but that
enough of them do! Consider yourselves lucky that it wasn't Hitler you
were ultimately defeated by! Be thankful that it is a Nation of people
that are merciful enough to allow your cultural preservations and
reservations! As we are allowed ours! This white Native
Irish/German/Italian American is very thankful for that for my
descendants had been defeated by America to! The only difference is we
willingly surrendered ourselves to its defeat! We eagerly assimilated
ourselves into this new culture of free men! We are all brothers
struggling to position ourselves in the place where the greater and more
merciful powers that be shall live and reign upon US! And that at times
we will have great border disputes! And that some tribes have to yield
to other tribes is a fact of every nation and of every people! It was no
different between Cherokee and Iroquois! Your uncontested existence in a
great land of great bounty became your complacency until a more
desperate tribe survived the canoeing onto your shores! Its all about
survival freind! And they proved themselves a greater warrior folk! No
one loves being defeated, they just adapt to it! If it is any
consequence to you I would rather it be like what I have come to learn
of your preserved history! That promise of the ways of your life is what
had drawn us here I am sure! That is why I will vote to keep it. I don't
want to have to be now forced into paddling to and colonizing Mars away
from Native Martians and surrender myself from being an American! I wish
an end to this ever growing madness and a retrenchment back into being
thankful for the bounty our world God allows us now that we agree we
must harmonize our existence with Him once and for all!
By Craig Moore, 6-02-06
Robert writes, "The fact is that First Nations and American Tribes, as
tribal peoples once vanquished by miltary force and the weight of
European populations, are in the best position to understand what the
changes now occuring in North America mean--a changing of the guard that
cannot be forestalled. In such a maelstrom of social change, only people
who can think and act in tribal ways will survive."

I find this statement wholly unsupported by facts. We are all
descendants of tribal people. Nomadic tribal people never burdened
themselves with the legal fiction of sovereignty. They followed the food
source through the changing seasons and either defeated or were defeated
by competitors, animal, nature, or other tribes. When certain tribes
began to master their environments they stopped their treks and created
sustainable communities where food and materials were brought to them.
Interjecting a defeatist bias against our country only clouds those
facts. Propounding that one racially genetic tribal ancestory holds the
key to survival over another is just not supported by the historical
record to date.
By David Lewis, 6-02-06
It is not central to this article, when Todd mentions "introduced
diseases" as part of the tragic fate of native peoples in North America,
but this should not pass without comment or correction. The idea that
the United States government introduced small pox deliberately through
infected blankets was debunked (assuming that this is what Wilkinson is
referring to). The myth was fabricated by the extremist Ward Chruchill,
reportedly, and never had any basis except in his mind. If there is
evidence that disease was in fact spread as "germ warfare" upon native
peoples, it should certainly become part of the historical record. If no
such evidence exists, the falsehood should not be repeated. Nor, of
course, should the historical plight of native peoples be diminished
because of one man's unscrupulous propaganda.
By Rebecca, 6-02-06
Also, I would like to note…
You state “Ever since the European colonization of North America began”,

And I would like to add, we have had nothing but, what you might refer
to as:
“Gradual Encroachments” across Sovereign land.
For instance, The Cobell vs. Norton is the largest class action suit
ever filed against the U.S. government. Ms Cobell is seeking between $40
and $176 billion to be paid to all Native Americans, one-third (1/3) of
whom live in poverty. Unemployment is as high as 80 percent on some
reservations.
www.indiantrust.com/
www.indiantrust.com/_pdfs/IndianTrustBrochure.pdf scroll down to
pg 3
The film/movie is in the works.
This is how the reality is still stands to this day.
By Todd, 6-02-06
Dave Lewis: Whether or not the legendary tale of smallpox-contaminated
blankets being distribted to Native Americans knowingly and deliberately
is true, I don't know. I've never heard it conclusively debunked. The
fact is that exotic diseases were introduced to native peoples here by
having contact with invading Europeans. Similarly, to make a parallel,
it doesn't matter who or how spotted knapweed reached this continent;
the fact is that it and other exotic weeds are having a disasterous
effect on native plant and animal communities. [No, I'm not comparing my
European ancestors who came to this country to spotted knapweed].
Smallbox and other diseases had disasterous effects on natives. Please
don't insult me by trying to make a connection with what I've posted
above and Ward Churchhill. You know better than that. I don't know the
man. I don't know what he has or hasn't said about anything. And I'm not
spouting him here.
As food for thought, here's something that was published a few years ago
by Cecil Adams who wrote a popular syndicated Q and A column distributed
in weekly urban newspapers across the county. Readers may find it
interesting.


Dear Cecil:

As a volunteer worker with PWAs (people with AIDS) I've been solemnly
assured that AIDS was created in a lab by the CIA/KKK/KGB, etc., to kill
off all the commies/blacks/capitalists, etc. Obviously this is just a
modern take on that ancient and dishonorable tradition of blaming
disaster and disease on your least favorite minority, as the Jews were
blamed in the Middle Ages for the Black Death. It did bring to mind,
though, the stories that some Native Americans tell about the deliberate
introduction of smallpox as a form of genocide. One version I've read
has Custer's cavalry handing out infected blankets on the reservations,
and on the Pacific Northwest coast, where I live, some of the First
Nations believe this sort of thing was going on as recently as the
1930s. I'm skeptical, not because I attribute any high morality to the
Europeans, some of whom would have cheerfully infected natives if they
thought they could get away with it, but precisely because of the
boomerang effect. Even today it seems to me the only thing keeping a lid
on biological warfare is the fact that it will potentially kill as many
of your people as of the enemy. Bearing in mind that absence of evidence
is not evidence of absence, is there any "smoking gun" in the form of
documents, eyewitness testimony recorded at the time, or guilt-wracked
confessions, to indicate that whites ever really did attempt such a
germical holocaust? --Philip Torrens, Vancouver

Dear Philip:

A common reaction to this story is that it has to be folklore. Giving
infected blankets to the Indians--why, that's awful! That's disgusting!
That's . . . ethnic cleansing. Hmm. Maybe this story bears a closer
look.

Fact is, on at least one occasion a high-ranking European considered
infecting the Indians with smallpox as a tactic of war. I'm talking
about Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America
during the French and Indian War (1756-'63). Amherst and a subordinate
discussed, apparently seriously, sending infected blankets to hostile
tribes. What's more, we've got the documents to prove it, thanks to the
enterprising research of Peter d'Errico, legal studies professor at the
University of Massachusetts at (fittingly) Amherst. D'Errico slogged
through hundreds of reels of microfilmed correspondence looking for the
smoking gun, and he found it.

The exchange took place during Pontiac's Rebellion, which broke out
after the war, in 1763. Forces led by Pontiac, a chief of the Ottawa who
had been allied with the French, laid siege to the English at Fort Pitt.

According to historian Francis Parkman, Amherst first raised the
possibility of giving the Indians infected blankets in a letter to
Colonel Henry Bouquet, who would lead reinforcements to Fort Pitt. No
copy of this letter has come to light, but we do know that Bouquet
discussed the matter in a postscript to a letter to Amherst on July 13,
1763:

P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may
fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself.
As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use
of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by
Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate
or remove that Vermine.

On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript:

P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of
Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to
Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for
Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great
a Distance to think of that at present.

On July 26 Bouquet wrote back:

I received yesterday your Excellency's letters of 16th with their
Inclosures. The signal for Indian Messengers, and all your directions
will be observed.

We don't know if Bouquet actually put the plan into effect, or if so
with what result. We do know that a supply of smallpox-infected blankets
was available, since the disease had broken out at Fort Pitt some weeks
previously. We also know that the following spring smallpox was reported
to be raging among the Indians in the vicinity.

To modern ears, this talk about infecting the natives with smallpox,
hunting them down with dogs, etc., sounds over the top. But it's easy to
believe Amherst and company were serious. D'Errico provides other quotes
from Amherst's correspondence that suggest he considered Native
Americans subhumans who ought to be exterminated. Check out his research
for yourself at
www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html

He not only includes transcriptions but also reproduces the relevant
parts of the incriminating letters.

[blackcrowheart]

--CECIL ADAMS
By Lisa ********, 6-02-06
Mr. Marino ,

I suppose it makes sence the attitude that you have. Given that you
likely actually want to see Columbus as a hero. Never mind he was a
killer who smiled even as he planed to enslave the Carbo people who were
kind enough to help him and his crew of criminals. That is not even
taking into account the actins that they did to those same peoples.
History tells us that like Columbous they were the trash of Europe. Then
again with few exceptions that is what drifted across to this land. Not
the poor huddled masses yearning to be free that some drunken frenchman
put one a rotting piece of copper and dared call a statue of liberty.
That d**n thing has caused us more headaches then we should have to
endure. While certainly it encouraged europes trash to seek "Free Land:
it never ever said that they would gain their freedom at he expence of
ours. Note this comment is in English. Lets see why is that? Oh yeh I
remeber now. I can barely speak my own language. You see I am one of
those who you think it should not matter to be called "Indian." I will
use that term as it fits in that I am Adopted. Some well meaning idiot
in my home state put caucasain on my birth certificate. I mean it was
better I be labled as "White" and Bright. Believe me I would break their
neck if I knew who did that. I dont care about money or about profits. I
care that I can not go home. I care that when I seek to learn about my
heritige my own look at me with suspision and even fear. It hardly
matters that my face is a mirror image of theirs. I dont have that paper
to say I am Native. So I guess I am simpley "White" Such an honot to be
that. How dare you suggest we have no rights. Treaties are legal
documents. It says you are an attorney. I would think that was covered
in law school?
We did not force the governments to sign anything. If any treaty was
forced it was ussually the Zhoganash holding a gun on women and children
that got the elders to sign. That or the fact that they were hungry
having been driven away from their land be it huinting, fishing or farm
lands. Guess what I would rather be Native and carry papers with that
citizenship then the one I have. I was not asked if I wanted to be
American. I am first last always native. I get highly annoyed when our
concerns are pushed aside. We dont want charity we dont want welfare .
What we need is freedom. The freedom to be the nations we are suposed to
be. Read the constitution an other rather usesless document. It calls
Indian Tribes Nations. If you value one part of that document then all
must have value. If not it is worthless and what else will you toss
away?

600 tribes? Once there were many more. once there were 500 languages and
over a thousand tribes. 20 million people once inhabited this land. They
loved their children and did not make distictions. A child of a tribal
member was still a part of them. It did not matter if that child had
been adopted and had blond hair and blue eyes. They were theirs. So if a
tribe now recognizes a child that has not one drop of blood that is of
their tribe they are still following what is tradtion.

Get over yourself and do not presume to tell us who and what we are. We
have survived and in some cases prospered. Perhaps that is what people
fear? Because All debts come due. Even those 500 plus years and owing.
We never vanished and we will grow strong and whole again even if it
takes an other 500 years.

So kindly refrain from making comments about a thing you have no concept
of.

When you endured what our elders did to preserve our language and
culture then you may speak. Then again I bet you were not beaten or
starved for speaking your native tounge. And I assume you were not
forced to cut your hair or be molested by those that taught you to
become christians? That is what they endured for us. Then many of those
brave souls went to WWII and used that same language to help preserve
this nation. YOu might have heard of them. "Code Talkers" The Navaho in
the Pasific and Commanche in Europe. But I guess it was wrong of them to
be indian. Or maybe they should have just forgotten they spoke a
language that your country neeed.
By Craig Moore, 6-03-06
Lisa, I was deeply moved by your argument. Talking about native peoples
and being adopted into the culture of the land, I feel very "native" to
our continent since I was born here as were many past generations of my
ancestors. They did not arrive during the Ice Age over the land bridge
but they came by wooden ships. From the best scientific evidence we have
it appears that we all came from the craddle of humanity in Ethiopia.
Therefore, we are all native to this earth. Please correct me if I am
wrong but my experience with First Nations people is that they did not
recognize legalistic boundaries but embraced the concept of being
children from Mother Earth under our Great Spirit.
By Todd in Bozeman, 6-03-06
Dear Lisa. I am intriqued by your comment. Remember, it's great if you
vent, but let's try and also keep this discussion civil and respectful.
This should apply to all of us. Mr. Marino's piece was not posted to
turn him into a punching bag. Personally, neither I nor New West, are
saying we agree or disagree with his position. I think his essay and
subsequent comments are articulate and thoughtful. He obviously is
expressing his perspective through his personal experience. Mr. Marino:
If you are reading, please elaborate on your experience.

As for your own experiences, Lisa, I would like you, too, to elaborate.
You wrote, in the comments, above, to Mr. Marino: "Get over yourself and
do not presume to tell us who and what we are. We have survived and in
some cases prospered. Perhaps that is what people fear? Because All
debts come due. Even those 500 plus years and owing. We never vanished
and we will grow strong and whole again even if it takes an other 500
years. So kindly refrain from making comments about a thing you have no
concept of. When you endured what our elders did to preserve our
language and culture then you may speak. Then again I bet you were not
beaten or starved for speaking your native tounge."

Lisa, you suggested that you are Native American but that you were
adopted and listed as caucasian on your birth certificate. Is that
right? Are you Native? Do you know what tribe or tribal ancestry you
have? Do you, and have you, lived in Native communities? Is there
anything you are doing now to correct the error on your birth
certificate and what are you doing to reconnect with your roots? Your
comments were heartfelt.


I am not asking these questions in an accusatory way to make you feel
defensive. But I find your comments interesting and again, would greatly
appreciate some elaboration. Please tell us about YOUR experience and
give us a fuller picture about where you are coming from.
By Jim Marino, 6-03-06
Todd; I currently practice law in a fairly narrow area of law. The
California "casino Indians" (a name I did not coin but which was coined
by a Commanche Indian who recieved his Phd at Yale) are essentially
latinos who trace some fractional connection to early California
Natives.

Since the enactment of the Indian Gaming Act in 1988 many of these tiny
"tribes" first began operating small illegal casinos in California.
After many years of foot-dragging and lawsuits it got to the point that
the federal and state authorities threatened to shut them down and seize
all money, equipment and assets of these illegal casinos. These "tribes"
then presented a public initiative to legalize these casinos. Having
worked as a consultant to a nearby Indian casino, I initially supported
the idea, and actually circulated petitions, because it was presented as
a way to legalize these small rural casinos and make the tribes self
sufficient. The public eventually agreed and when the initiative
appeared on the ballot in March of 2000, the majority of non-Indian
Californians also supported it.

The handful of tribes that had illegal casinos spent millions on
advertising for the Indian gambling initiative and spent millions to
elect Gray Davis Governor. He then promptly negotiated a compact
essentially in secret with these tribes and agreed to what amounts to a
give-away compact by which the state gets nothing, the workers get no
protections, the customers no protections and they now patronize these
casinos and businesses at their own risk. In addition the communities,
which have since been negatively impacted by the casinos, have no rights
or say so in all of the many issues that affect the public safety,
health and welfare (everyone in the community, Indians and non-Indians
alike). None of these groups have any legal rights viz a viz the tribal
governments and their business enterprises because of the doctrine of
tribal "sovereign immunity"

Without going in to too much detail I represent a half a dozen
communities that have had huge new and expanded Indians casino thrust
into their midst against their will. These casinos were financed by
outside non-Indian gambing interests happy to make profitable gambling
inroads into California which previously had no casino gambling. One
developer ran a full page add in the Palm Springs newspaper trolling for
anyone who could claim some tribal heritage or owned land they could
claim was Indian lands,urging them to call a toll free number and he
would provide the backers.

Virtually no Californian understood that when they tried to help these
"tribes" by approving the Constitutional amendment allowing them the
exclusive right to conduct casino gambling on Indian lands, that the
grant came with the antiquated court created doctrtine of tribal legal
immunity from the laws, lawsuits and the taxes that everyone else has to
abide by. They were unknowingly giving up their own legal and
Constitutional rights in any delings with these tribes and Indian
businesses. Neither did Californians understand the flawed federal
processes and bureaucracy that created Indian tribes" and also
determined (often by arbitrary fiat) exactly what they percieved was
"Indian lands".

The result is that huge mega-casinos have disrupted and and negatively
impacted many communities with increased crime, traffic, bankruptcy,
divorce, child neglect and even suicide by those who gamble away money
they cannot afford to lose in these unregulated casinos. They have
created a host of injured patrons, and workers who have no recourse to
any legal system. Then there are those who made contracts in good faith
with tribal governments and their many business enterprises only to be
stiffed for the bill and had the tribes thumb their noses at them and
tell them they could'nt sue them because they have no legal recourse to
speak of. When suits are filed these "tribes" have their lawyers make
motions to dismiss the claims using this immunity and judges (often
apologizing to the victims and shaking their heads) dismiss their
lawsuits.

[blackcrowheart]

In addition, this same outdated doctrine of immunity is used by these
tribal governments to surpress and deny the rights of their own tribal
members who have no court in which to pursue their abuses at the hands
of their own government or to demand accountings of funds and the use of
tribal credit cards and other misappropriations of funds.

The lawyers making all the money work for the gambling "tribes" and
businesses, fat with casino cash from the losses of the non-Indian
gamblers. I represent many of the victims of these unethical and unjust
events. e.g. employees and customers who were injured or cheated and
have no recourse and tribal members seeking some measure of justice.

In one case a contractor I represented was stiffed for work he had done
to the tune of over $500,000 dollars when the tribe thumbed it's nose
and said you can't collect and you can't sue us. In a legal process to
complicated to go into here I was ultimately successful in recovering
his money. It took 7 years and in the interim he lost his home to
creditors.

The most ironic thing about that particular "tribe" is that the members
(151) each recieve over $30,000 every month in per capita profit
distribution, yet the tribe still collects nearly $2,000,000 each year
in federal grant and welfare monies that are monies badly needed by true
Native Americans still living on remote reservations in conditions of
abject poverty. That comes to about
$700 per month per member in welfare payments recieved from the federal
government over and above their per capita.

One tribal member I represent, who was denied membership recognition
because of familial nepotism, even had his health care benefits cut off.
He is elderly, diabetic and in poor health. Meanwhile the tribal
chairman is driving around in a $150,000 Mazerati.

I could write a book about my experiences with the injustice and
arrogance of many of these people in California who call themselves
Indian but who obviously have no concept of true Native values.

In a word, I represent the underdogs, the true victims of the casino
Indians who are both Indian descendants and non-Indians alike and who
are denied justice because of a 150 year old court made doctrine that
the U.S. Supreme court said was created "almost by accident". The entire
court concluded in 1998, that it was an outdated anachronism in need of
elimination in todays business world.

Unfortunately the court then concluded that it was up to Congress to
correct these injustices and suggested Congress could simply amend the
Foreign Commerce Act to include Indian tribes subjecting them to all the
laws, taxes and lawsuits that everyone else is obliged to comply with
including all the states and even the United States government, whenever
they operate or conduct any business with the public or that is open to
the public, employs non-Indians and negatively impacts the surrounding
non-Indian community. [ See Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma versus Manufacturing
Technologies, Inc.]

The problem has only gotten worse in the past 8 years and Congress has
done nothing. Never the less there are those of us working to insure
that there is equal justice for all, and that Indian tribes doing
business are not above all the same laws we all must live by in a
civilized society.

Unfortunately the high paid lobbyists ferrying "contributions" made, [or
profitable consulting jobs offered to politicians and family members]
come from these Indian casino tribes and their non-Indian investors and
are carried to cooperative politicians, for the benefit of casino
Indians. Therefor it is difficult, at best, to limit the scandalous
largesse' that exists today in most Indian casino operations in
California and other states.
By sally ryan, 6-04-06
thanks for the detailed explanation above Jim, i for one appreciate you
clarifying the point of your concerns, would i be considered naive if i
conclude that it is not casino's native sovereignty here that are the
crux of your concerns, but perhaps the way some minority groups claim
native land and the laws that pave the way for them to do so?
By Ahwahnee Jones, 6-04-06
One problem is that Yosemite National Park Service has gone into a 15
year agreement with a non-profit group called the Southern Sierra
Miwuks. The are primiarly made up current and former Indian employees of
Yosemite National Park. A lot of them are Casson Yokuts from Madera
County, Central Miwoks from the bands that chased down the original
Yosemite Indians and Paiutes claiming to be Miwoks. For decades the
Yosemite National Park Service has been giving out the wrong information
regarding the original Indians of Yosemite. They were actually Mono Lake
Paiutes and here is the proof.
esnips.com/web/YosemiteIndiansWebResearch You can see very
quickly that the original Indians were not Miwoks, but Mono Paiutes.
Another odd part is that most of the persons in the Southern Sierra
Miwuks are already enrolled members of Paiute, Yokut, Washo and Miwok
tribes. Tribes that already get services and per capita payments. Some
even get gaming revenue money.
By Stacy Lata, 6-04-06
Disenrollment of Indians in California is undemocratic.
2005-09-26

There is a chill going over Indian country these days. It is called
"Disenrollment". For you people who don't know what it means it is when
an Indian tribe kicks out a member of their nation.
Years ago, when no one wanted to be Indian, California tribes were
looking for members to join. They accepted just about anyone who could
be identified as a member of their tribe.
There have always been two or three factions in most tribes, like the
Democrats and Republicans, mainly families of the tribe fighting over
leadership of the tribe.
Now the big "G" came along and things started to change. "G" or gaming
has been a new factor that has been brought into the fray.
Before families fought over leadership, but nothing was ever done. When
those who lost the election were just left alone and those in power
continued on. Money, BIG money, has now changed the equation. Those who
now speak out, question corruption, or were running against the current
leadership have now been either disenrolled or threatened to be
disenrolled to keep them quiet.
Up and down the state of California, from Pechanga down south to Lake
County up north, Indian people are now facing disenrollment. It has had
a "chilling" effect on free speech. Since tribes are basically nations
within a nation they do not have to abide by the laws of the U.S.
government concerning the 1st amendment.
Money from gaming has now afforded the chances to hire high priced
lawyers to do battle against those who have been disenrolled and find
loops holes to silence their critics. There is no chance that those who
have been disenrolled to take them to court because tribes are sovereign
nations. Most of those who are now disenrolled do not have the money to
afford high priced lawyers.
Even though they are really Indians with direct bloodlines to California
Indians, they are now not. Since those in power have disenrolled them.
That is like one day you’re an American citizen and the next day you are
not.
Disenrollment is undemocratic in the most democratic nation in the
world. It is an ill wind that is gaining strength not only in
California, but across the nation.

Here is an interesting article written by a Native person.
By Craig Moore, 6-04-06
Corruption is not just a California concern. See the following article
from the Missoulian regarding the Blackfeet.
www.missoulian.com/articles/2004/06/16/news/mtregional/news06.txt

I applaud the efforts of Long Standing Bear Chief in starting the
Piikani Sun.
By HL Frazier, 6-04-06
Native American tribal governments representing a sovereign nation can
do the same as the Congress of the United States enact and change the
laws as they deem fit...The Native American Tribal leaders and
governments have learned and follow the political system very well....
By jim Marino, 6-07-06
Sally Ryan; In response to your question there are at least two major
problems. The first is the callous way the federal government creates or
recognizes "Indian tribes" but at the same time allows such tribes to
determine who is a member and in effect who is an "Indian". In the now
infamous case of the Mashantucket Pequote "tribe" a community of
Afro-Americans (the current vernacular) asserted a 1/32nd blood descent
from a Pequote Indian women three or four generations ago. Under the
existing system they were able to parlay that into tribal recognition
then built what is now one of the biggest gambling casinos in the world
in Connecticut, funded by non-Indian gambling investors. This casino
takes in a Billion dollars a year from the losses of New England
gamblers. Yet as I said earlier, true Native Americans, many who are 100
% full blooded descendants, still live on remote reservations in
conditions of abject poverty. Then compare the recent actions of the
Cherokees, one of the largest recognized tribes in America. They are
trying to kick out the part Afro-Americans who became tribal members at
the time of the American Civil War and for years thereafter as freed
slaves. These mixed blood "Freedmen" had intermarried and been tribal
members for over 150 years and have a much greater percentage of Indian
blood than the Mashantucket Pequotes. Make sense out of that.

The second major problem is that over at least a century of trials and
tribulations the states and federal government have enacted numerous
laws which protect customers and consumers of all businesses (and of all
races). There are also many laws created to protect workers from
exploitation, harassment and discrimination in the workplace including
wrongful termination. Similarly there have been numerous laws enacted to
protect the communities, the health and welfare of its citizens and the
quality of life for EVERYONE. These laws include food and health and
drug standards, false advertising, fraud and misrepresentation. There
have been laws passed for anti-corruption in government and regulation
and reporting of political "contributions", anti-bribery and public
hearing laws, as well as laws to create transparency within government,
and to protect the environment and endangered species etc. and
ultimately by all these laws, to protect the integrity of the democratic
system itself.

Finally, in America, everyone that uses all the public services like
police, fire, schools, doctors,nurses, paramedics, social workers,
military forces etc. and who use the infrastructure like roads, schools,
police and fire stations and equipment, libraries, bridges, airports,
sewer and water systems etc. must pay their fair share of the cost of
this infrastructure. Under current law, the court created doctrines of
tribal sovereign immunity, these "tribes" evade all of these laws and
taxes. Most importantly when they elect to open a business to the
public, employ non-Indians and negatively impact their non-Indian
neighbors there is NO sensible reason why they should be exempt from
these laws, taxes and accountability in a real court of law ahould they
violate any of them. If you profit from non-Indian labor and customers,
and utilize these public services and infrastructure and exist in an
integrated community, then any Indian tribe and its business enterprises
should be obligated to obey such laws and pay their fair share of taxes
just as everyone else is.