[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
There may be some confusion, now, although for multiple tribes in Idaho, there was no confusion at the time. A check of other tribal resolutions at the time will disclose that others, from other tribes, passed resolutions condemning Larry Echo Hawk's actions in 1992.
There was no confusion at the time as to the actions of Larry Echo Hawk. And if there is now confusion, err on the side of caution and seek an alternate choice to sit on the BIA hot seat. At least some of us haven't forgotten what happened. Timothy Egan from the New York Times, a Tribal Outsider, reported in 1994, "Idaho has a constitutional amendment against casino-style gambling, a law written in part, and defended in court, by Attorney General EchoHawk." (Click on any blue letters in this BLOG to follow a link to all the pertinent documents)
The Initial Scott Crowell Letter
(opposing Larry Echo Hawk initially)
The (current) Shoshone Bannock Council Letter in response to Scott Crowell
(suggesting that Larry Echo Hawk had nothing to do with the Idaho Constitutional Amendment in the 5th quarter enabling them to oppose Idaho Indian Gaming)
The Scott Crowell Response to the Shoshone Banock Council.
(Clarifying his position as correct the first time and reiterating that Larry Echo Hawk had a part in opposing Idaho Indian Gaming in the early 1990s)
Saturday, January 24, 2009
More on Larry Echo Hawk
[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
This is a second entry on Opposition to Larry Echo Hawk being appointed to Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.
What could happen if Larry Echo Hawk becomes appointed? He has shown a particular interest in opposing Indian Gambling. So does this spell a conflict of Interest for making decisions about Indian Gambling as the BIA Secretary?
Doesn't this sound familiar? Anybody else smell barbecue wafting through the halls of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or is it just me?
"Famous" Dave Anderson, excused himself from making any decision about gambling for ethical reasons. Will Larry Echo Hawk excuse himself as well? Or will he plod on, and with the stroke of an un-watched pen, will he strike down any more tribes' right to conduct gambling on their reservations. Will he oppose Sovereign Tribal Councils' decisions regarding gambling? Does he even belong in the appointment process?
Well when Dave Anderson stepped down, afterwards Julie Pelletier said "maybe he was ethically correct in removing himself." Then she said, "...then perhaps he was not the correct person for that position, since he had such a close tie to Indian gaming."
Wow. What will we do if Larry Echo Hawk, a Semi-Slayer of Indian Gambling, gains access to the highest Indian Office in the Land?
More importantly what do we do before it happens?
I think the staff at these offices will listen to our suggestions:
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.Washington DC 20240
Phone: 202-208-3100
E-Mail: webteam@ios.doi.gov
Committee on Indian Affairs
United States Senate
838 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2251
comments@indian.senate.gov
This is a second entry on Opposition to Larry Echo Hawk being appointed to Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.
What could happen if Larry Echo Hawk becomes appointed? He has shown a particular interest in opposing Indian Gambling. So does this spell a conflict of Interest for making decisions about Indian Gambling as the BIA Secretary?
Doesn't this sound familiar? Anybody else smell barbecue wafting through the halls of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or is it just me?
"Famous" Dave Anderson, excused himself from making any decision about gambling for ethical reasons. Will Larry Echo Hawk excuse himself as well? Or will he plod on, and with the stroke of an un-watched pen, will he strike down any more tribes' right to conduct gambling on their reservations. Will he oppose Sovereign Tribal Councils' decisions regarding gambling? Does he even belong in the appointment process?
Well when Dave Anderson stepped down, afterwards Julie Pelletier said "maybe he was ethically correct in removing himself." Then she said, "...then perhaps he was not the correct person for that position, since he had such a close tie to Indian gaming."
Wow. What will we do if Larry Echo Hawk, a Semi-Slayer of Indian Gambling, gains access to the highest Indian Office in the Land?
More importantly what do we do before it happens?
I think the staff at these offices will listen to our suggestions:
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.Washington DC 20240
Phone: 202-208-3100
E-Mail: webteam@ios.doi.gov
Committee on Indian Affairs
United States Senate
838 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2251
comments@indian.senate.gov
Larry Echo Hawk A Poor Choice Among Many Great Ones
[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
Well, it was a surprise when the news bounced around the inauguration balls that Department of the Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar was considering Larry Echo Hawk for Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Bureau of Indian Affairs. It was an upleasant surprise.
It was once said Larry Echo Hawk had three strikes against him: He's Indian, He's Democrat, He's Morman. They had two out of three correct anyway.
There are a multitude of casinos out there. There are just as many tribes exercising sovereignty and managing casinos.
Larry Echo Hawk is Pawnee from Oklahoma. Now here's an interesting fact: There are Pawnee Indian-owned casinos...That's strange. Why wasn't Larry Echo Hawk openly opposing those casinos? Why wasn't Larry helping Oklahoma raise a legal battle against the Pawnee Indians?
He did it before in Idaho. He openly opposed casinos in Idaho. It was rumored that he had made promises to remain neutral, which to date are unsubstantiated. When he was elected to Idaho State Attorney General, he did not remain neutral on the subject of Indian Casinos. He did not openly support the Tribes. Instead, he openly opposed Indian Gambling in Idaho. Then when the Federal Government (Department of the Interior) had determined that Idaho could not legally oppose Tribal Gambling, Larry Echo Hawk helped the state negotiate a loophole that would create a state statute to oppose Tribal Gaming. This occured as Idaho was itself conducting it's own gambling.
Larry is Pawnee from Oklahoma. That is significant. They have what around 600-800 acres of land? Not Thousands of Acres, not hundreds of thousands of acres, not millions of acres. They have less than a thousand acres. They probably have approximately five 160-acre allotments. Wow! And now Larry is supposed to act like he knows what our issues are on reservations with over Three hundred thousand acres, over Seven hundred thousand acres, over a million acres? He has no cultural imprint from which to draw personal experience. He has probably never personally managed land leases on reservations on a daily, or yearly basis. He is probably not familiar with what it is to account for land held in trust. Has he ever personally had an interest in having land transferred into Trust Status. He couldn't have had land waiting 19 years to be transferred into trust? Could he? If not, how could he manage an agency that is supposed to be doing that and to date, is frought with mistakes, misinformation, and misguided principles? How does Larry Echo Hawk know what it means to have a Tribe's appraisals done by a third or fourth party contractor? How does Larry Echo Hawk know what it means to have surveys done by contractors who for all their efforts want all their survey information to be public knowledge; to have state elected officials performing cadastral surveys for reservations because the Federal survey certification is open to virtually every surveyor breathing?
So what does Larry Echo Hawk know? He knows he's a Morman. He knows he opposed Idaho Tribes gambling options. In his formative years, Larry Echo Hawk heard Robert Kennedy say: 'Some men see things as they are and say, 'Why?'
I see things as they could be and say, 'Why not?' "
Maybe this explains why, in a region where Indians have always had gambling as part of their culture, before Mormons arrived here, Larry Echo Hawk looked and thought this state could oppose Indian gambling with a bit of legal wrangling so "why not?"
I am in admiration for his bit of legal wrangling, what I fail to understand is why he could not simply resign if his "religious" beliefs were in opposition to any Tribe's Sovereign Right to continue our gambling tradition. Yes it is a tradition. (stick games, horse races, foot races, and myraid other gambling opportunites dot our history) We are conducting the gambling ON OUR RESERVATIONS, and if Larry Echo Hawk didn't like it, he should never have set foot on the reservation.
But now, he will oversee many many gambling issues. Does he turn a blind eye yet again to every tribe who proposes to start gambling? Does he come down with the wrath of Joey Smith? What is an Indian to do? When an Oil Industry Surveyor's Son is faced with the truth behind how detrimental contractual surveying is to Tribes (conducted by Bureau of Land Management), does he turn away from the truth, or does he turn his back on the Tribes who are all suffering at the hands of so many Contracted Surveyors? Does Larry Echo Hawk understand the connection between lack of Trust Responsibility and forcing Tribes to pay for trust services like surveying, or appraising, or gathering records, or contracting for land leases, or oil leases?
It is doubtful that a landless-tribal member can enter this ring with any sense of what is expected of him. It is embarrassing that a "tribal member" who stood with a State Authority against multiple tribes, in direct opposition to their sovereignty, is now being considered for appointment to Bureau of Indian Affairs Secretary. We made treaties with the United States, NEVER WITH THE STATE OF IDAHO. Does Larry Echo Hawk's blatant lack of understanding of Tribes' sovereignty, of Tribes' land issues finally become obvious?
I think there should be much support for Scott Crowell and his statement in opposition to Appointment of Larry Echo Hawk to Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.
I agree with Scott Crowell that there may be wide-ranging support for Larry Echo Hawk, but just as in 1994, it may come from "Outside Idaho, [where] Mr. EchoHawk's candidacy has energized Indians throughout the West and become a cause," because very rarely does every tribe hear of every transgression and those who commit them against us. Maybe Ken Salazar has no idea what Larry Echo Hawk did either.
Today, it would not be hard to find tribal members from the Pacific Northwest, tribal members from large land-based reservations, that don't want Larry Echo Hawk in office messing up Tribal Sovereignty from a non-traditional, foreign religion's view of oppression.
No Indians should support the appointment of "an Indian" who will just as easily turn on their sovereignty at the National Level. He cannot be our voice. All of Indian Country should be hoping that Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar will look into more than the fluff and see the core issues of our problem with Larry Echo Hawk. If they don't they could find themselves on the receiving end of Larry's rebuke against Indian Gambling. Indian Country should be hoping members of the Senate Committe on Indian Affairs will consider another candidate for this post because Larry has shown he can put a State on his back while he runs haphazardly over Tribal Sovereignty.
Well, it was a surprise when the news bounced around the inauguration balls that Department of the Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar was considering Larry Echo Hawk for Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Bureau of Indian Affairs. It was an upleasant surprise.
It was once said Larry Echo Hawk had three strikes against him: He's Indian, He's Democrat, He's Morman. They had two out of three correct anyway.
There are a multitude of casinos out there. There are just as many tribes exercising sovereignty and managing casinos.
Larry Echo Hawk is Pawnee from Oklahoma. Now here's an interesting fact: There are Pawnee Indian-owned casinos...That's strange. Why wasn't Larry Echo Hawk openly opposing those casinos? Why wasn't Larry helping Oklahoma raise a legal battle against the Pawnee Indians?
He did it before in Idaho. He openly opposed casinos in Idaho. It was rumored that he had made promises to remain neutral, which to date are unsubstantiated. When he was elected to Idaho State Attorney General, he did not remain neutral on the subject of Indian Casinos. He did not openly support the Tribes. Instead, he openly opposed Indian Gambling in Idaho. Then when the Federal Government (Department of the Interior) had determined that Idaho could not legally oppose Tribal Gambling, Larry Echo Hawk helped the state negotiate a loophole that would create a state statute to oppose Tribal Gaming. This occured as Idaho was itself conducting it's own gambling.
Larry is Pawnee from Oklahoma. That is significant. They have what around 600-800 acres of land? Not Thousands of Acres, not hundreds of thousands of acres, not millions of acres. They have less than a thousand acres. They probably have approximately five 160-acre allotments. Wow! And now Larry is supposed to act like he knows what our issues are on reservations with over Three hundred thousand acres, over Seven hundred thousand acres, over a million acres? He has no cultural imprint from which to draw personal experience. He has probably never personally managed land leases on reservations on a daily, or yearly basis. He is probably not familiar with what it is to account for land held in trust. Has he ever personally had an interest in having land transferred into Trust Status. He couldn't have had land waiting 19 years to be transferred into trust? Could he? If not, how could he manage an agency that is supposed to be doing that and to date, is frought with mistakes, misinformation, and misguided principles? How does Larry Echo Hawk know what it means to have a Tribe's appraisals done by a third or fourth party contractor? How does Larry Echo Hawk know what it means to have surveys done by contractors who for all their efforts want all their survey information to be public knowledge; to have state elected officials performing cadastral surveys for reservations because the Federal survey certification is open to virtually every surveyor breathing?
So what does Larry Echo Hawk know? He knows he's a Morman. He knows he opposed Idaho Tribes gambling options. In his formative years, Larry Echo Hawk heard Robert Kennedy say: 'Some men see things as they are and say, 'Why?'
I see things as they could be and say, 'Why not?' "
Maybe this explains why, in a region where Indians have always had gambling as part of their culture, before Mormons arrived here, Larry Echo Hawk looked and thought this state could oppose Indian gambling with a bit of legal wrangling so "why not?"
I am in admiration for his bit of legal wrangling, what I fail to understand is why he could not simply resign if his "religious" beliefs were in opposition to any Tribe's Sovereign Right to continue our gambling tradition. Yes it is a tradition. (stick games, horse races, foot races, and myraid other gambling opportunites dot our history) We are conducting the gambling ON OUR RESERVATIONS, and if Larry Echo Hawk didn't like it, he should never have set foot on the reservation.
But now, he will oversee many many gambling issues. Does he turn a blind eye yet again to every tribe who proposes to start gambling? Does he come down with the wrath of Joey Smith? What is an Indian to do? When an Oil Industry Surveyor's Son is faced with the truth behind how detrimental contractual surveying is to Tribes (conducted by Bureau of Land Management), does he turn away from the truth, or does he turn his back on the Tribes who are all suffering at the hands of so many Contracted Surveyors? Does Larry Echo Hawk understand the connection between lack of Trust Responsibility and forcing Tribes to pay for trust services like surveying, or appraising, or gathering records, or contracting for land leases, or oil leases?
It is doubtful that a landless-tribal member can enter this ring with any sense of what is expected of him. It is embarrassing that a "tribal member" who stood with a State Authority against multiple tribes, in direct opposition to their sovereignty, is now being considered for appointment to Bureau of Indian Affairs Secretary. We made treaties with the United States, NEVER WITH THE STATE OF IDAHO. Does Larry Echo Hawk's blatant lack of understanding of Tribes' sovereignty, of Tribes' land issues finally become obvious?
I think there should be much support for Scott Crowell and his statement in opposition to Appointment of Larry Echo Hawk to Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.
I agree with Scott Crowell that there may be wide-ranging support for Larry Echo Hawk, but just as in 1994, it may come from "Outside Idaho, [where] Mr. EchoHawk's candidacy has energized Indians throughout the West and become a cause," because very rarely does every tribe hear of every transgression and those who commit them against us. Maybe Ken Salazar has no idea what Larry Echo Hawk did either.
Today, it would not be hard to find tribal members from the Pacific Northwest, tribal members from large land-based reservations, that don't want Larry Echo Hawk in office messing up Tribal Sovereignty from a non-traditional, foreign religion's view of oppression.
No Indians should support the appointment of "an Indian" who will just as easily turn on their sovereignty at the National Level. He cannot be our voice. All of Indian Country should be hoping that Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar will look into more than the fluff and see the core issues of our problem with Larry Echo Hawk. If they don't they could find themselves on the receiving end of Larry's rebuke against Indian Gambling. Indian Country should be hoping members of the Senate Committe on Indian Affairs will consider another candidate for this post because Larry has shown he can put a State on his back while he runs haphazardly over Tribal Sovereignty.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
An Administration's task
I am sitting here wondering who the next Special Trustee will be for the Office of Special Trustee. I'm already wondering who will replace Ross Swimmer. I'm wondering where Donna Erwin will go. I'm wondering where Doug and Jeff Lords will go. I'm hoping that the Carl Artman replacement will stay longer than it takes to confirm him. I'm hoping Majel Russell continues to do good things for Indian Country in any place but the Bureau of Indian Affairs Offices (which by the way are inside of Wash. D.C.). Who will President Elect Barack Obama appoint to replace all of them?
I'm hoping that somebody will finally hear what we've been saying for so long. Heck way back in 1999 even Senator Larry Craig had a good idea. So some of his time was well spent wherever he thought this quote up as reported in '99 on FCW.com by L. Scott Tillett:
"...Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, questioned whether the management of the funds "really belongs within the government."
"There are no excuses. There should be no excuses," said Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho). Many companies manage trust funds without so much as "a dime" out of place, Craig said.
"Why can't we be smart enough to hire the right people to do the job?"
At issue is nearly $2.4 billion in money that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) cannot accurately account for, although Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said it has not been stolen."
Amen to the words from Larry Craig back then. And then I wonder what Bruce Babbitt meant when he said the 2.4 billion wasn't stolen? That must have meant that he knew where it was. If it wasn't accounted for, then how do you know it wasn't stolen? It must have meant that Bruce Babbitt knew it was being "borrowed." It wasn't stolen so what other excuse is there? Borrowed to pay down government debts, which they now say is not a measurable benefit when Eloise Cobell asks where all the unaccounted for funds are at.
And the management of the [trust] funds: didn't belong within the government? Thanks Frank, but the loss from hundreds of years of mismanagement should have been straightened out before the government decided to get out of the trust fund mis-management.
So who does President Elect Obama appoint to Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Bureau of Indian Affairs in 2009? Who does he appoint to replace Ross Swimmer and Donna Erwin at the Office of Special Trustee in 2009? Who does he appoint who can accept the resignation of Doug and Jeff Lords? Who can say?
The only thing I would hope for is that it isn't a self serving Coal Chairman (wonder where Ross will go?) or a golf-happy trio (they need a fourth to tee off) that gets left at Office of Special Trustee. My hope is in Barack Obama to do the right thing when it comes to cleaning office at the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the Special Trustee in 2009.
I would hope like Senator Larry Craig said in 1999, that we're now "smart enough to hire the right people to do the job."
“The soul of Indian Country is at stake”
-Sally Willet from the Missoulian,
Administrative Law Judge
and Indian Land Working Group consultant
I'm hoping that somebody will finally hear what we've been saying for so long. Heck way back in 1999 even Senator Larry Craig had a good idea. So some of his time was well spent wherever he thought this quote up as reported in '99 on FCW.com by L. Scott Tillett:
"...Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, questioned whether the management of the funds "really belongs within the government."
"There are no excuses. There should be no excuses," said Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho). Many companies manage trust funds without so much as "a dime" out of place, Craig said.
"Why can't we be smart enough to hire the right people to do the job?"
At issue is nearly $2.4 billion in money that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) cannot accurately account for, although Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said it has not been stolen."
Amen to the words from Larry Craig back then. And then I wonder what Bruce Babbitt meant when he said the 2.4 billion wasn't stolen? That must have meant that he knew where it was. If it wasn't accounted for, then how do you know it wasn't stolen? It must have meant that Bruce Babbitt knew it was being "borrowed." It wasn't stolen so what other excuse is there? Borrowed to pay down government debts, which they now say is not a measurable benefit when Eloise Cobell asks where all the unaccounted for funds are at.
And the management of the [trust] funds: didn't belong within the government? Thanks Frank, but the loss from hundreds of years of mismanagement should have been straightened out before the government decided to get out of the trust fund mis-management.
So who does President Elect Obama appoint to Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Bureau of Indian Affairs in 2009? Who does he appoint to replace Ross Swimmer and Donna Erwin at the Office of Special Trustee in 2009? Who does he appoint who can accept the resignation of Doug and Jeff Lords? Who can say?
The only thing I would hope for is that it isn't a self serving Coal Chairman (wonder where Ross will go?) or a golf-happy trio (they need a fourth to tee off) that gets left at Office of Special Trustee. My hope is in Barack Obama to do the right thing when it comes to cleaning office at the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the Special Trustee in 2009.
I would hope like Senator Larry Craig said in 1999, that we're now "smart enough to hire the right people to do the job."
“The soul of Indian Country is at stake”
-Sally Willet from the Missoulian,
Administrative Law Judge
and Indian Land Working Group consultant
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Good Indians
The origins of the phrase "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" may never correctly be identified. It may have been a General Sheridan or it may have been a U.S. Representative to Montana, a James M. Cavanaugh.
Who can say who said what? In any case, times have changed. The world is not the same as it was back in 1869. Indian Country times have changed as well. In fact Indians have changed. We have good Indians in 2008 just as the Europeans spoke of in 1869. We have a new creed, they have new motivations. They can't kill us or eat us now because both are illegal. The open season on Indian men, women, and children-is closed. So now what makes a good Indian?
In the interest of protecting the reputation of several big corporate interests, I will not mention Great Bear Consultants, Ursa Major consulting, Peabody Coal, or any other large organizations whose pockets are filled off the sales of Tribal Resources. But they have for purposes of this conversation, helped us actually. They alone have defined what it means to be a good Indian today. No longer does death standardize the requirements of a good Indian. Now, a good Indian is alive and well.
The good Indians are indeed alive and well....and poor. They are kept poor so that when a corporate interest comes along and wants to make money off our resources, we jump at the chance to earn a dirty percapita working at a higher-than-median-wage level in a job that supports their earnings of billions of dollars.
We have to be alive today so that we alone can broker the deals with them without outside interference, because we're on the rez. (This is where our sovereignty is used against us)
We have to be well, so that we can fill the jobs with pay that is more than we could ever make on the reservation. A good strong body means we can fill the truck loads of resources that leave the rez.
We have to be making-less-than-a-million-dollars a week too. In other words we need to be poor; that will motivate us to take a high wage (compared to what we normally make) to serve the corporation as they take home billions off the rez and leave us with holes in the environment.
So, todays discussion will lead us to the new definition of what good Indians are in 2008.
-write that down...
WOUNDED KNEE, SAND CREEK, ETC., ETC.
Who can say who said what? In any case, times have changed. The world is not the same as it was back in 1869. Indian Country times have changed as well. In fact Indians have changed. We have good Indians in 2008 just as the Europeans spoke of in 1869. We have a new creed, they have new motivations. They can't kill us or eat us now because both are illegal. The open season on Indian men, women, and children-is closed. So now what makes a good Indian?
PEABODY COAL, URSA MAJOR/GREAT BEAR CONSULTING, BLACK MESA PROJECT
ROSS SWIMMER?
In the interest of protecting the reputation of several big corporate interests, I will not mention Great Bear Consultants, Ursa Major consulting, Peabody Coal, or any other large organizations whose pockets are filled off the sales of Tribal Resources. But they have for purposes of this conversation, helped us actually. They alone have defined what it means to be a good Indian today. No longer does death standardize the requirements of a good Indian. Now, a good Indian is alive and well.
The good Indians are indeed alive and well....and poor. They are kept poor so that when a corporate interest comes along and wants to make money off our resources, we jump at the chance to earn a dirty percapita working at a higher-than-median-wage level in a job that supports their earnings of billions of dollars.
We have to be alive today so that we alone can broker the deals with them without outside interference, because we're on the rez. (This is where our sovereignty is used against us)
We have to be well, so that we can fill the jobs with pay that is more than we could ever make on the reservation. A good strong body means we can fill the truck loads of resources that leave the rez.
We have to be making-less-than-a-million-dollars a week too. In other words we need to be poor; that will motivate us to take a high wage (compared to what we normally make) to serve the corporation as they take home billions off the rez and leave us with holes in the environment.
So, todays discussion will lead us to the new definition of what good Indians are in 2008.
"The only good Indian is a POOR Indian."
-write that down...
Sunday, November 2, 2008
The Sovereign masses
In part of his introduction to the book Sovereign Bones titled Rolling Those Sovereign Bones, Eric Gansworth wrote:
those people from indigenous communities who have chosen the artist's life understand that theirs is a gamble for survival. Their subversive acts, keeping their cultures alive, by necessity, use the tools of the oppressors: the English language, written forms of communication, Western publishing models, digital technology, film, the blog, installation, and myriad other forms of current information transmission. The risk inherent in learning to use the oppressors' tools so fluently and naturally...is that often our own people become suspicious of our motivations.
And I believe it. There is a point where if you argue with Native Americans in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, you're seen as the rabble-rouser. There is a point where if you say a person in a position who just happens to be an Elder did something wrong, you are the person who is wrong. Let me tell you there are Elders who were not doing good things when they were young, so what is the difference if they do that now?
There are always people who will say that people just point their fingers just to be pointing fingers. If you are pointing at a Tribal member in the Bureau of Indian Affairs who is really doing something disastrous to Tribal members' rights, are you really the bad guy?
When realty staff tell tribal members "just sign the lease, stop being so difficult," I have an issue with that. When OST staff misquote 25 CFR (their guiding bible) I have an issue with that. When the Regional Directors of Bureau of Indian Affairs do not budget for a superintendent for every reservation, I have an issue with that. When tribes are submitted to a process with obvious blind spots such as the Cadastral Surveyor process which would put people with political conflicts of interest on our reservation surveying and acquiring sensitive information, I have an issue with that. When the Office of Appraisal Services neglects to protect tribes' appraisal contracts from being sub-contracted to two levels away from the contractor, I have an issue with that. When the same appraisal office neglects to identify how an appraisal firm came to a appraisal decision in a State of non-discolsure I have an issue with that. When tribes everywhere are not included on appraisal contracts as clients, I have an issue with that.
When the Federal Government loses all original surveys for three reservations, a Trust duty, and then require Tribes to pay for re-surveys, I have an issue with that.
When the Federal Government requires the Tribes to gain comments on Fee to Trust from local lower governments (mainly states and counties and towns) I have a problem with that because nobody asked us the impact that moving from Trust to Fee would have on us when they took our land.
When they continually put people into the office of the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs who have never worked at the ground level I have an issue with that.
These are Native Issues. If you are on the government side of the Native Issues, you had better be prepared to actually defend your stance with a proper citation of Title 25 the Code of Federal Regulations. If you are the realty specialist who told a land owner to just sign an agricultural lease without being difficult, the shame should be on you. If you are the person who could change the surveying scheme, and you don't do anything about it, you are the problem.
In the Army Drill sergeants tell new privates, "if you see a piece of garbage on the ground, it is now your garbage." In Native issues if you see something and don't do anything about it, it is your fault.
If you are a land owner who will sign a lease and then later complain because of what is in the lease, you need to start reading your lease. If you are not going to read your lease, then don't point a finger at the people who would warn you when your farmer takes full advantage of you on the lease you signed.
Am I confrontational? You had best bet that I am just as confrontational as the obstacle to change is toward me.
The risk in learning to use the oppresors' tools so fluently and naturally...is that often our own people become suspicious of our motivations.
Well know this, we should all be confrontational to the processes undertaken by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Office of Special Trustee with the right balance of confrontation just to sway the effect to justice.
I would hope that the Native Issues that are problems would be addressed. I would hope that if you are part of the problem in a Native Issue, you would read your bible, 25 CFR whether you're a land owner, or a Federal employee in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or Office of Special Trustee or any of their supposedly beneficial Contractors.
Do you want to know the quickest way to shut up a "finger-pointer?" Give them the responsibility. They'll either take the responsibility with the thought that their name is on it or they will fail miserably and then they won't complain.
Well, it would seem....ready for this?....that the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of Special Trustee have stopped complaining....because they are failing miserably. Understand, there are a multitude of people who are trying and looking out for their fellow tribal people. But the people who need to admit that many of the tasks carried out by Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Special Trustee are not beneficial, are not working, and are failing miserably, have stopped complaining.
Even if it was to complain that there is too much work to be done, those leaders need to be complaining and stop labeling. Quite to the opposite, your whining and labeling come back to you in the way of medicine, self administered. It is good to advocate for Native Issues. It is not good to fail to admit that the Native Issues exist.
The truth just keeps coming back to you no matter how many times you deny it.
If it wasn't true, you should just say so.
those people from indigenous communities who have chosen the artist's life understand that theirs is a gamble for survival. Their subversive acts, keeping their cultures alive, by necessity, use the tools of the oppressors: the English language, written forms of communication, Western publishing models, digital technology, film, the blog, installation, and myriad other forms of current information transmission. The risk inherent in learning to use the oppressors' tools so fluently and naturally...is that often our own people become suspicious of our motivations.
And I believe it. There is a point where if you argue with Native Americans in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, you're seen as the rabble-rouser. There is a point where if you say a person in a position who just happens to be an Elder did something wrong, you are the person who is wrong. Let me tell you there are Elders who were not doing good things when they were young, so what is the difference if they do that now?
There are always people who will say that people just point their fingers just to be pointing fingers. If you are pointing at a Tribal member in the Bureau of Indian Affairs who is really doing something disastrous to Tribal members' rights, are you really the bad guy?
When realty staff tell tribal members "just sign the lease, stop being so difficult," I have an issue with that. When OST staff misquote 25 CFR (their guiding bible) I have an issue with that. When the Regional Directors of Bureau of Indian Affairs do not budget for a superintendent for every reservation, I have an issue with that. When tribes are submitted to a process with obvious blind spots such as the Cadastral Surveyor process which would put people with political conflicts of interest on our reservation surveying and acquiring sensitive information, I have an issue with that. When the Office of Appraisal Services neglects to protect tribes' appraisal contracts from being sub-contracted to two levels away from the contractor, I have an issue with that. When the same appraisal office neglects to identify how an appraisal firm came to a appraisal decision in a State of non-discolsure I have an issue with that. When tribes everywhere are not included on appraisal contracts as clients, I have an issue with that.
When the Federal Government loses all original surveys for three reservations, a Trust duty, and then require Tribes to pay for re-surveys, I have an issue with that.
When the Federal Government requires the Tribes to gain comments on Fee to Trust from local lower governments (mainly states and counties and towns) I have a problem with that because nobody asked us the impact that moving from Trust to Fee would have on us when they took our land.
When they continually put people into the office of the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs who have never worked at the ground level I have an issue with that.
These are Native Issues. If you are on the government side of the Native Issues, you had better be prepared to actually defend your stance with a proper citation of Title 25 the Code of Federal Regulations. If you are the realty specialist who told a land owner to just sign an agricultural lease without being difficult, the shame should be on you. If you are the person who could change the surveying scheme, and you don't do anything about it, you are the problem.
In the Army Drill sergeants tell new privates, "if you see a piece of garbage on the ground, it is now your garbage." In Native issues if you see something and don't do anything about it, it is your fault.
If you are a land owner who will sign a lease and then later complain because of what is in the lease, you need to start reading your lease. If you are not going to read your lease, then don't point a finger at the people who would warn you when your farmer takes full advantage of you on the lease you signed.
Am I confrontational? You had best bet that I am just as confrontational as the obstacle to change is toward me.
The risk in learning to use the oppresors' tools so fluently and naturally...is that often our own people become suspicious of our motivations.
Well know this, we should all be confrontational to the processes undertaken by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Office of Special Trustee with the right balance of confrontation just to sway the effect to justice.
I would hope that the Native Issues that are problems would be addressed. I would hope that if you are part of the problem in a Native Issue, you would read your bible, 25 CFR whether you're a land owner, or a Federal employee in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or Office of Special Trustee or any of their supposedly beneficial Contractors.
Do you want to know the quickest way to shut up a "finger-pointer?" Give them the responsibility. They'll either take the responsibility with the thought that their name is on it or they will fail miserably and then they won't complain.
Well, it would seem....ready for this?....that the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of Special Trustee have stopped complaining....because they are failing miserably. Understand, there are a multitude of people who are trying and looking out for their fellow tribal people. But the people who need to admit that many of the tasks carried out by Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Special Trustee are not beneficial, are not working, and are failing miserably, have stopped complaining.
Even if it was to complain that there is too much work to be done, those leaders need to be complaining and stop labeling. Quite to the opposite, your whining and labeling come back to you in the way of medicine, self administered. It is good to advocate for Native Issues. It is not good to fail to admit that the Native Issues exist.
The truth just keeps coming back to you no matter how many times you deny it.
If it wasn't true, you should just say so.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Another American Indian Tribal Chairman Arrested by Police?
Another arrest warrant for a sitting American Indian Tribal Chairman?
First Eugene Little Coyote was arrested (December 28, 2007) when he resumed duties as Tribal President of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe after his Tribe's Constitutional Court ruled that he was indeed still President after a failed attempt to oust him from office. It was a contentious issue and the Council appears to have been divided for what some have called jealousy and others may believe that it is over the Natural Resource over which the Tribe's land sits: Coal Bed Methane. The largest untapped CBM reserve in the United States.
Now, in October 2008, we have Ben Nuvamsa of the Hopi Tribe who is under threat of arrest for apparently resuming his daily legal duty as Chairman of the Hopi Tribe. What Tribal Court would arrest the Chairman? I'm of the opinion that they might impeach him, they might rule against his decisions, but arrest him? Eugene Little Coyote and Ben Nuvamsa despite being from opposite north and south ends of the United States of America might share crib notes and come up with the same conclusion. It isn't easy being on top, so whatever your reason, stick to it.
It is unfortunate though--unfortunate that the environment is what is most likely to take the hit for all the misgivings of our activities.
It's unfortunate that the Dirty Percaps have raised their head again as well. You know my concept of dirty percaps is where you keep the Native American populations poor enough so that they'll jump at the opportunity to make relatively little money off of what you want to mine, to exploit, to become rich over.
Mining jobs. Yes they make money. The economic multiplier from every dollar spent from those paychecks is a boost for the entire regional economy.
You will do well to note the previous statements and consider their implications. I said that Natives could make "relatively little money" and "every dollar spent from those paychecks is a boost for the entire regional economy." The money made is relatively little COMPARED to the money that Peabody Coal is making by feeding a really minor fraction of what is made toward the paychecks. "Every Dollar spent from those paychecks" means that the rest of the money, the big money, the money paid by foreign companies ends up in the corporate accounts and is spent wherever the corporate leaders happen to live. How much money? Well on their own site they quote a figure of $4.6 billion in revenues, and that their coal products fuel approximately 10 percent of all U.S. electricity generation and 2 percent of worldwide electricity. Wow! Say, uh, where did they get that much coal?
They don't get rich by making others rich, who does? But they'll get by on the Hopi Reservation by providing a decent paying job to a few people. Is that really all they should give? Understandably, they provide the means to the market, but I tend to agree with Carl Venne of the Crow Tribe and Ben Nuvamsa, that the days of leasing are over. Carl Venne is making headway toward owning the mining process up north. "Equity Ownership is what we want," said Ben Nuvamsa in the October 29 issue of Indian Country today article 'Black Mesa Project Controversey Rises.' I hope that the eyes of all Indian Country see what that means.
I am not a big fan of destroying the water table anywhere, with polluting the entire railway (it does happen and then later has to be capped to be used and to prevent further pollution from whatever was on the trains), with coal and what it does to the environment. I guess it has to happen, but at what cost? If the case is to be made that it should be utilized then don't take what amounts to pennies on the dollar. It isn't that I encourage people to get rich off coal, but in the absence of any alternative efforts at providing subsistence to your people, own the process. Do not lease it because the longer you lease the resource right, the more the leasee makes, and like a well-fed stray dog, they do get more comfortable with coming back for more helpings year after year after year.
Do companies need to mine resources? Of course. Do they need to do it on a reservation? Of course they do--if you ask them. Do Natives need to LEASE the resource right off the rez? No.
If this is going to cost the health of the land, make all the money you can so you can repair it. Now this Peabody coal is making enough to apparently "restore" mining sites in Indiana, so they obviously have a lot of money. Where are they getting it? I'll bet from all the mines they extract from. How much is really going back into the reservations where they operate? When the mine is gone, what is left? What is really sustainable that the mine is leaving behind? And how much are they making off the resource extracted from Indian Land?
I would hope that in the interest of the environment, the greatest thinkers in Indian Country would come up with alternatives to these people who tear up the earth and leave it like an open scab and then walk away.
Then again, Eugene Little Coyote and Ben Nuvamsa and Carl Venne may be those great thinkers each with a different solution. Ultimately, the solution should come from their tribes. So for now we'll hope that Ben Nuvamsa doesn't fall victim to the same hand cuffs that bound Eugene Little Coyote. None of us can say what the best solution for them is. Only their respective tribes can.
Just keep your eyes open on your reservation when the corporate interests come knocking on your door. Don't let the $20 dollar-an-hour paycheck (dirty percaps) sway your opinion from what you and your heritage originally stood for before somebody put a dollar sign on your environment.
First Eugene Little Coyote was arrested (December 28, 2007) when he resumed duties as Tribal President of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe after his Tribe's Constitutional Court ruled that he was indeed still President after a failed attempt to oust him from office. It was a contentious issue and the Council appears to have been divided for what some have called jealousy and others may believe that it is over the Natural Resource over which the Tribe's land sits: Coal Bed Methane. The largest untapped CBM reserve in the United States.
Now, in October 2008, we have Ben Nuvamsa of the Hopi Tribe who is under threat of arrest for apparently resuming his daily legal duty as Chairman of the Hopi Tribe. What Tribal Court would arrest the Chairman? I'm of the opinion that they might impeach him, they might rule against his decisions, but arrest him? Eugene Little Coyote and Ben Nuvamsa despite being from opposite north and south ends of the United States of America might share crib notes and come up with the same conclusion. It isn't easy being on top, so whatever your reason, stick to it.
It is unfortunate though--unfortunate that the environment is what is most likely to take the hit for all the misgivings of our activities.
It's unfortunate that the Dirty Percaps have raised their head again as well. You know my concept of dirty percaps is where you keep the Native American populations poor enough so that they'll jump at the opportunity to make relatively little money off of what you want to mine, to exploit, to become rich over.
Mining jobs. Yes they make money. The economic multiplier from every dollar spent from those paychecks is a boost for the entire regional economy.
You will do well to note the previous statements and consider their implications. I said that Natives could make "relatively little money" and "every dollar spent from those paychecks is a boost for the entire regional economy." The money made is relatively little COMPARED to the money that Peabody Coal is making by feeding a really minor fraction of what is made toward the paychecks. "Every Dollar spent from those paychecks" means that the rest of the money, the big money, the money paid by foreign companies ends up in the corporate accounts and is spent wherever the corporate leaders happen to live. How much money? Well on their own site they quote a figure of $4.6 billion in revenues, and that their coal products fuel approximately 10 percent of all U.S. electricity generation and 2 percent of worldwide electricity. Wow! Say, uh, where did they get that much coal?
They don't get rich by making others rich, who does? But they'll get by on the Hopi Reservation by providing a decent paying job to a few people. Is that really all they should give? Understandably, they provide the means to the market, but I tend to agree with Carl Venne of the Crow Tribe and Ben Nuvamsa, that the days of leasing are over. Carl Venne is making headway toward owning the mining process up north. "Equity Ownership is what we want," said Ben Nuvamsa in the October 29 issue of Indian Country today article 'Black Mesa Project Controversey Rises.' I hope that the eyes of all Indian Country see what that means.
I am not a big fan of destroying the water table anywhere, with polluting the entire railway (it does happen and then later has to be capped to be used and to prevent further pollution from whatever was on the trains), with coal and what it does to the environment. I guess it has to happen, but at what cost? If the case is to be made that it should be utilized then don't take what amounts to pennies on the dollar. It isn't that I encourage people to get rich off coal, but in the absence of any alternative efforts at providing subsistence to your people, own the process. Do not lease it because the longer you lease the resource right, the more the leasee makes, and like a well-fed stray dog, they do get more comfortable with coming back for more helpings year after year after year.
Do companies need to mine resources? Of course. Do they need to do it on a reservation? Of course they do--if you ask them. Do Natives need to LEASE the resource right off the rez? No.
If this is going to cost the health of the land, make all the money you can so you can repair it. Now this Peabody coal is making enough to apparently "restore" mining sites in Indiana, so they obviously have a lot of money. Where are they getting it? I'll bet from all the mines they extract from. How much is really going back into the reservations where they operate? When the mine is gone, what is left? What is really sustainable that the mine is leaving behind? And how much are they making off the resource extracted from Indian Land?
I would hope that in the interest of the environment, the greatest thinkers in Indian Country would come up with alternatives to these people who tear up the earth and leave it like an open scab and then walk away.
Then again, Eugene Little Coyote and Ben Nuvamsa and Carl Venne may be those great thinkers each with a different solution. Ultimately, the solution should come from their tribes. So for now we'll hope that Ben Nuvamsa doesn't fall victim to the same hand cuffs that bound Eugene Little Coyote. None of us can say what the best solution for them is. Only their respective tribes can.
Just keep your eyes open on your reservation when the corporate interests come knocking on your door. Don't let the $20 dollar-an-hour paycheck (dirty percaps) sway your opinion from what you and your heritage originally stood for before somebody put a dollar sign on your environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
