Larry Echo Hawk urged Tribes to move to an Intergovernment relationship with...STATES.
This title should bug anybody. Tribes are sovereign entities as far as they practice sovereignty. Tribes made treaties with the Federal Government. That is the Intergovernmental Relationship that should continue. States are not on the same level (for lack of a better word) as Tribes. Our intergovernmental relationship is governed by Treaties with the United States Federal Government, Treaties being the supreme law of the land. That means that if the Federal Government takes an action contrary to a Treaty between the Federal Government and Tribes, the Treaty Trumps it.
States are sovereign and subordinate to the Federal Government. Why would tribes feel any necessity for dealing with a subordinate government that had nothing to do with our relationship with the United States Federal Government?
More to the point here, why would Larry Echo Hawk urge Tribes to begin dealing with States? Has he no notion for what sovereignty really means to Tribes? As reported in the Journal Record (Nancy Raiden Titus. "Echohawk Urges Indian Tribes to Work with State Governments." The Journal Record. Dolan Media Company MN. 1992. HighBeam Research. 26 Jan. 2009
Was he serious?
He went on further to say it was "possible to solve problems within the state system of government. In fact, I believe it is the way of the future." How did he equate solving Indian Problems with the State System of Government? Are we to believe that his "future" when he said he believed it was the way of the future is now, today, and that he honestly wants tribes to deal with States instead of the Federal Government? The problems that most Tribes have with States are because the states stepped in when they had no standing. Then it falls on the Federal Government to protect Indian Interests, I'm not saying they do all the time-just that it's their responsibility. Since when did it occur to Larry Echo Hawk that we should now deal with a subordinate government that has, in Idaho's case, a far younger relationship by several generations with tribes? Did we sign treaties with states? If we did, I think they were not fully recognized as legal to the Federal Government, and a review of some Native Issues in New York will back that up.
I cannot see Larry Echo Hawk as an option for fulfilling the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, when a principle duty is to ensure that the Trust Relationship and Fiduciary Duty of the United States Federal Government to Native Americans is being met.
24 comments:
I am glad to see you and Scott Crowell speaking up on this issue. Larry and those pushing for him call to mind all the nepotism and favoritism that corrupts too many tribal governments.
Unfortunately, I think his appointment is a done deal. He will work hard to diminish our sovereignty and put us further under the thumb of the states.
I'm sure good contracts and fees will go to his friends the "washington redskins" so this business as usual will continue
Friends: Having just returned from President Obama's inauguration, I find all this anonymous smearing with this blog really disturbing. If you are going to make accusations, at least have the nerve and backbone to own them as Mr. Crowell has. I have known both Senator Ken Salazar and Larry Echohawk for many years and I think they will be positive influences with forward thinking policies for Indian Country. Wouldn't that be nice for a CHANGE? I have great HOPE for Indian Country that we won't be on the backburner for the next four years. I'm sure President Obama, Senator Salazar and Mr. Echohawk all realize the importance of gaming to Indian Country. No, I'm not saying this because I think I'm going to be the recipient of a big contract nor do I have any Tribal clients with casinos.
As for inter-governmental agreements: Tribes working cooperatively with States and reaching state-tribal agreements as opposed to litigating is a great way to solve problems without accumulating huge amounts of billable hours. Of course, there are times when litigation is necessary but not everything has to be resolved this way.
The more appropriate time to raise questions of how Larry might conduct himself and question his integrity is at a confirmation hearing when he is able to face his accusers. Isn't that the Constitutionally protected and democratic way?
Sincerely,
Kimberly Craven, J.D., L.L.M. (Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate)
Boulder, CO
Larry Echo Hawk hand-picked by his own brother? Why does this not surprise me? While the rest of this planet was celebrating the great changes to come with Obama's administration, it was rather depressing to know that Indian Country continues to conduct business as usual. It will even be more depressing if Wizi, a large land-based tribal member, co-signed this bullshit.
Simmer down sugar (Kimberly). Have you read what is posted here? Did you read the articles? They were here a long time ago before this came out on this blog.
It's published fact, not smearing.
You keep "thinking." Thatll get you the same thing we always get: screwed!
As for the questions during the confirmation hearings, are you going to be there asking questions? Is it an open forum? Can anybody step up to that microphone and ask Larry questions? There a a lot more questions I'm sure I'd ask if I thought I could just waltz in there and talk with everybody.
Still hiding behind Anonymous, eh? The Tribes I've worked with know how to engage their Senators about how to get the right questions asked and answered.
I choose not to wait for a confirmation hearing where Larry will tell us how he will conduct himself. By then it will already too late, and besides his very own track record speaks for itself, especially at a time when Larry seems to have very little to say in his own defense. If Larry has any hope of being seen as a positive influence for Indian Country he needs to speak now, or he can let the anonymous bloggers fill the void in the absence of his own words.
OIC. We're not worthy. Us plain ole reservation Indians who have never met or engaged with Senators should not have an opinion on this matter. Thanks.
All this talk of Tribal sovereignty, protecting Tribal sovereignty, but it seems you are afraid to let the Tribes speak for themselves. They certainly know how to and have done since contact. You can't have sovereignty without the Tribal governments or did you not know that?
Kim from Boulder supporting Larry Echohawk is no big surprise. This whole Boulder crew sticks together, giving each other grants and contracts. This whole group likes to act as spokespeople for natives but they don't have much experience growing up in our communities. Now it looks like another one of their crew is going to be put in by his relatives and friends. Same ol story
You're not aware that half of Indian Country lives in urban areas? I suppose you've never heard that at one time there were relocation or termination policies, either, eh? And, by the way, sometimes there are not very many jobs in Indian Country or houses.You certainly are a nondiscriminating bigot and can hurl insults at anyone. I get the feeling that you're not really an Indian but a nonIndian hiding behind Anonymous. Chicken.
I see nothing wrong with being an Urban Indian. What I disagree with is appointing a non-large-land-based tribal member to oversee the very same. I can see by all the comments today that for some this is a sore spot, likewise for myself. That's why I put just what I had seen, and what we all had experienced here in the Northwest.
BTW, is this Kimberly Craven the same one who was supposed to seek a State accord with the Yakama Nation regarding their own alcohol tax ON THEIR OWN SOVEREIGN LAND? The right of which was stipulated in their own Treaty with the....FEDERAL GOVERNMENT I believe? Is this the same right-hand-Indian of Governor Gary Locke? If it is, how did it go with trying to gain that accord with the Sovereign Nation of the Yakamas?
Urban Indian says
Like ndn writer, I don't have anything against Urban Indians as I live in the city myself.
Before moving to the city, I spent most of my life on our rez. The indian people I meet here are nice enough but I don't know that they are the most qualified to be deciding what is best for people who actually live on the reservations.
It would be easy for me to issue decisions here because they really have no impact on me. I can agree to negotiations with the state, feds etc on behalf of all native people and others will deal with the fallout, not I.
Would us urban indians like it if someone from the rez was put in charge of policies that mostly affected us here in the cities? Let's say someone on the rez could decide that any native business or non profit in the city had to have the consent of every city council member in our particular city before they could act.
I wouldn't like that and I can understand why those still living on the reservations would feel the way they do.
Well put Urban Indian. I'm a reservation Indian. Through the democratic process I voted for Obama, I voted for change. However, politics being what it is, democracy stops there. I am not amongst the politically elite, the Indian hob-nobbers whose voices diminish my own in the matters of political appointments and such. I am just your average Indian living the rez life, but a nobody in political circles. My best bet is to cross my fingers, dust off my lucky charms, and hold my breath in hopes that Obama's promise of change will be strong enough to break down the old-school policy of political appointments that have strangled Indian Country for over a century leaving our reservations in ruins. After all, isn't that what the election was all about?
Here's something for your short list of qualifications for assistant secretary: Must not ever have committed treason against any tribes or tribal people in their official capacity.
Just when I had the audacity to hope. Different president - same disappointments.
Please don't post without citation and don't post in entirety without permission.
the statement from Senator Daniel K. Inouye can be found at:
http://216.109.157.86/press_release/Senator%20Daniel%20K%20Inouye%20Before%20The%20January%2024%202009%20Tribal%20Leaders%20Forum%20012609.htm
If this doesn't post a link you'll have to cut and paste this into your browser.
The difference between Inouye's history and Echo Hawk's is that Inouye actually honored our sovereignty. Echo Hawk could have resigned rather than turn on his people. He could have urged the state of Idaho to recognize Tribal Sovereignty. Not only did he not honor the principle of sovereignty, he went out of his way to give the state a loop hole to come back and object to (Tribal) Casino Gambling. Yes, it is a duty of the Attorney General, and that is where I, being a fan of sovereignty would have "regretfully resigned," and today I'd be a hero among tribes. Yeah, well, if things go south, let's hope Echo Hawk learned a valuable lesson. I agree with the other person, that a personal statement from Echo Hawk explaining his position would go a long way to converting me or anyone else. I would tell my kids that Echo Hawk did a good thing if he came out and admitted that he made a mistake in Idaho. I would tell my kids an honorable man can admit to a mistake and like the rest of us, can do better things, if Echo Hawk issued a statement outlining what he intends to do in his role as Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs. Otherwise, I am not converted, and I will be advocating against this until the time is past.
ndn writer, Are you aware that the Idaho tribes are supporting echohawk? They are the ones in the best position to know his record and commitment to Indian country. While I think your opinion of him is based on an inaccurate understanding of the facts about his role as attorney general, I appreciate that you indicate a willingness to reconsider your opinion once he makes a statement about these things. Of course it would be inappropriate for him to be making public statements before the time when his "possible" appointment is announced.
I am aware that "CERTAIN PEOPLE" are supporting Larry Echo Hawk using Tribal Council Letterhead. That does not mean the entire tribe is. There has been very little time to actually get the opinion of any tribe, so a few buddies are doing their buddy a favor. So what? My Tribal Council does not represent me on everything, and Tribal Council members change with the wind direction.
I will express my opinion on how well my council members supported the entire tribe when I vote in my next tribal election.
A "fellow insider" I see is amongst us. Must be pretty deep because the address for at least one of those letters is echelons above Larry Echo Hawk.
And read all those "Letters of Support" very carefully, some might be veiled "Letters of Expectation."
"Some of those letters" might have raised the expected result from his appointment higher than most realized.
As an enrolled "Sho-Ban", the issue is about Larry Echohawk's conscience and beliefs as an Indian. . .there is more to his decision in the 90's to use his legal prowess against the Idaho tribes.
Let it stand that the Sho-Ban tribal council back then rose up and struck legal blows as a tribal sovereign into the Idaho legal and legislative negative attacks. Let it stand that the whiteman clouded the gaming issues coupled with a token Indian who used his legal might and provided the mechanism that clearly benefitted only Idaho. The fact is Idaho tried to circumvent its laws to weaken tribal sovereignty -- all tribes would have suffered the consequences if their efforts were successful!
It is no secret that Idaho does this time after time and more recently made some legal and legislative threats regarding fuels taxation. We all have a decision to make and Larry Echohawk made his -- so let him face his conscience and let history stand on its own merits.
As for Chairman Coby's letter, it is obvious to our people that the letter was crafted by the Echohawk law firm and signed without a vote of the tribal Council. Probable misuse of political office and political favoritism rises its serpent like head again and again.
Mr. Crowell, who is a respected attorney in his own right, has every right to speak the truth. Alot of Sho-Bans respected, and still respect, his legal advice as it was he and our previous tribal leadership who positively shaped the best gaming economic future for our Indian people. His thoughts are those of our tribal elders and previous tribal leadership who had the insight to fight the fight. I believe his statements and his intent provides Indian country with the needed valuation for an educated decision.
Echohawk? We know all to well of Larry's true intent. Mr. Echohawk is L.D.S. first and a shadow of Indian second. If you look at all of the key positions in Interior today are they not a high % of BYU grads. We who are aware and who have been impacted by this corporation (church?) can only see the appointment of Larry Echohawk as a means of further eroding the sovereignty of Indian Tribe's to gain access to our natural resources and real property's off individual land owners and other significant assets tribe's hold. Be fooled again Indian County, "people never learn". The Chairman of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe's did not write the letter that was run in article throughout the U.S. but the son of Echohawk for works for the Sho-Bans but never goes out on the rez to rub shoulders with the Indian Brothers and Sisters, only to "butter their bread". Wise Elder
In one post you lament that with a Larry Echohawk appointment there will still not be anyone that "understands us." Then in the following post you assert that Tribes should not have to deal with the subordinate governments of the individual states. The entire concept of state government is that the local officials can truly understand the issues facing the people in that region. If Tribes and state governments share the same geographical region, and their cultures interact and flow with no visible borders, who better can understand the issues facing the tribes? This is not a matter of pride or subjugation, its a matter of achieving better results. Another post spoke of the troubles on the reservations that result from bad BIA policy- so why not work with state governments where Native Americans are more likely to have elected positions and greater influence than with the Federal Government? Do not be blinded by the concept of sovereignty for the sake of sovereignty. Look for the best solutions to your problems. The Federal Government is corrupt, it is aloof, it is distant, and it is ineffective. State governments hold much more promise in working with tribal leaders and advancing the interests of all involved. I think Larry Echohawk understands this. I think he will work for what he believes is in the interest of the tribes.
Post a Comment