This is a case regarding the Hualapai Tribe's inherent assertion of sovereignty over its own airspace.
The Arizona Daily Sun has reported about an issue that is pertinent to the discussion about the current appointments to key Indian positions in the government. The story in the Feb 18 issue of the Arizona Daily Sun, Hualapai, pilot at stalemate is a prime example of what sovereignty should mean. This is where our key appointed officials work with the Federal Government to spell out what sovereignty means.
In this case a pilot flew through Hualapai Tribal airspace and was subsequently detained so he could be cited for trespassing.
Cyndy Cole reports that the FAA said that the FAA has not given the [Hualapai] tribe any airspace rights.
In 1871 the U.S. stopped making treaties. In 1874 they moved the Hualapai (one could argue illegally) for the benefit of the Santa Fe Railroad. In 1883 they created the Hualapai Reservation by Executive Order. The FAA has never been given rights from the Hualapai Tribe. If the Hualapai had not stipulated what rights the United States had by 1871, then basically the United States cannot come in and say what they "think" the Hualapai Tribe meant to bestow on the States. And since the U.S. Government gave up making treaties in 1871, we should assume that the United States were never given rights from the Hualapai Tribe.
Treaties between the United States and Indian Tribes, are stipulations for what rights the Tribes gave up, and what the United States gave to the Tribes in exchange. I seriously doubt that the Hualapai gave up the right to govern their airspace. In other words they have a reserved right to everything that they didn't give up. Right? Right? There are a few ways to express that concept but for purposes of this conversation, we'll keep it simple.
Bravo to the Hualapai Tribe for exercising Sovereignty. Let's hope the Federal Officials learn about sovereignty from the Hualapai action.
Just so it's clear, THE FAA has no airspace rights to give to anyone over the Hualapai Reservation because the Hualapai Tribe never gave up that right.
hmmmm......what's Spectrum?
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
President Obama's American Indian adviser on tribal policy
Any suggestions? There is still hope that despite whoever takes the BIA helm or the OST helm and is still subject to Federal Oversight and Federal Program Managers, we might still have a chance at an appointment who will be our voice. I believe that tribes would do well to assemble a top-to-bottom consensus for who we think might be a good choice.
A nationally elected representative might be a good place to start. Those scholars who have visited our tribes preaching the gospel of sovereignty from our Universities might be a good choice. Some people who have the ground-level view of how Federal policies have affected us might be a good looking place.
The venerated warriors who have suffered through the indignities of our struggles to retain hunting and fishing rights may yield some cheers from throughout Indian Country. In the end, the person who has a personal stake in assuring Indian Country has a voice in how the Federal Government Policy is affecting us, who can both speak with and hear from the general Native American Populace is a good sure bet.
Some of our warriors who are elders may be the ones to listen and speak for us. Afterall, this position is an advisor. They are there to tell our side. In any population, the best ones to do that are the Elders who speak from several generations of experience. The re-hashing of an old trick will do no one well. The voice of experience has the most valid argument, not from what is thought to be happening, but from the trenches where sovereignty's dignified warriors presented themselves as obstacles to those who would have taken everything from Native Americans nation-wide.
In a cultural-reawakening it would be appropriate that the People begin to ask which elders among us can sit in the position best suited to mentor a government in its task to honor the treaties made by our ancestors.
A nationally elected representative might be a good place to start. Those scholars who have visited our tribes preaching the gospel of sovereignty from our Universities might be a good choice. Some people who have the ground-level view of how Federal policies have affected us might be a good looking place.
The venerated warriors who have suffered through the indignities of our struggles to retain hunting and fishing rights may yield some cheers from throughout Indian Country. In the end, the person who has a personal stake in assuring Indian Country has a voice in how the Federal Government Policy is affecting us, who can both speak with and hear from the general Native American Populace is a good sure bet.
Some of our warriors who are elders may be the ones to listen and speak for us. Afterall, this position is an advisor. They are there to tell our side. In any population, the best ones to do that are the Elders who speak from several generations of experience. The re-hashing of an old trick will do no one well. The voice of experience has the most valid argument, not from what is thought to be happening, but from the trenches where sovereignty's dignified warriors presented themselves as obstacles to those who would have taken everything from Native Americans nation-wide.
In a cultural-reawakening it would be appropriate that the People begin to ask which elders among us can sit in the position best suited to mentor a government in its task to honor the treaties made by our ancestors.
Friday, January 30, 2009
The Politics of Larry Echo Hawk's vetting (7th in a series)
[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
We are indeed hearing that there are letters going out supporting Larry Echo Hawk. That fact remains obvious. What is not obvious are the urgent conversations on the part of Larry Echo Hawk's team to "select friends" from back in the day. Do you think that any subsequent letters coming out from those select friends represents the whole tribe? I would think that is just "business as usual." Just because a Tribal Council signs a letter does not mean the entire Tribe supports what they say. Does a conversation and a hand-shake take into consideration the damaging history of Mr. Echo Hawk's actions against Tribal Sovereignty? It really isn't about gaming, it's about his interpretation of Tribes' Sovereignty, afterall.
And what is the content of those desperate conversations? Why can't he just issue a press release? If you want good word spread, then let every Indian know what is being said. If Larry Echo Hawk were to apologize to tribal leaders in private, shouldn't he do it publicly? Take this to Tribal people to vote on and you will find that many Tribal council members may turn red-faced when the people they are supposed to be representing express another opinion when given all the facts. Isn't the concept of the treaty-signers and non-signers a part of our history that just can't seem to be put to rest? What about coal deals, oil deals, coal bed methane deals, tribal membership, disenrollment? You see, just because you got the support of a tiny fraction of a minority of the people does not warrant an acceptance of that support as truth that all the people agree. I cannot recall any referendums being passed around any tribes in the last week to assess the entire population's decision on whether to support Larry or not.
So again, what does Larry Echo Hawk have to say besides "no comment?" If there is an apology, he would do well to remember that Indian people are notorious for being forgiving. Maybe that's half the battle, just being honest.
We are indeed hearing that there are letters going out supporting Larry Echo Hawk. That fact remains obvious. What is not obvious are the urgent conversations on the part of Larry Echo Hawk's team to "select friends" from back in the day. Do you think that any subsequent letters coming out from those select friends represents the whole tribe? I would think that is just "business as usual." Just because a Tribal Council signs a letter does not mean the entire Tribe supports what they say. Does a conversation and a hand-shake take into consideration the damaging history of Mr. Echo Hawk's actions against Tribal Sovereignty? It really isn't about gaming, it's about his interpretation of Tribes' Sovereignty, afterall.
And what is the content of those desperate conversations? Why can't he just issue a press release? If you want good word spread, then let every Indian know what is being said. If Larry Echo Hawk were to apologize to tribal leaders in private, shouldn't he do it publicly? Take this to Tribal people to vote on and you will find that many Tribal council members may turn red-faced when the people they are supposed to be representing express another opinion when given all the facts. Isn't the concept of the treaty-signers and non-signers a part of our history that just can't seem to be put to rest? What about coal deals, oil deals, coal bed methane deals, tribal membership, disenrollment? You see, just because you got the support of a tiny fraction of a minority of the people does not warrant an acceptance of that support as truth that all the people agree. I cannot recall any referendums being passed around any tribes in the last week to assess the entire population's decision on whether to support Larry or not.
So again, what does Larry Echo Hawk have to say besides "no comment?" If there is an apology, he would do well to remember that Indian people are notorious for being forgiving. Maybe that's half the battle, just being honest.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
A further review of Larry Echo Hawk's reactions to State-Tribal Sovereignty disputes (6th In a Series)
[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
Who said this?
"State-law compliance is in fact a characteristic circumstance of most cases maintained under Young, see, e. g., Edelman, 415 U. S., at 655, which are brought not because the defendant officials are mavericks under state law but because the state law is claimed to violate federal law made controlling by the Supremacy Clause." (http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/19962673)
Souter, David H. souter, Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter.
And this is why I question whether Larry Echo Hawk is on the Sovereignty Team Roster, given his history which was widely reported in the New York times, the Desert News, and on the mouths of those so easily betrayed.
He wanted us to start dealing with States. Does this mean when there are boundary disputes (and buildings have already been built on the disputed land) that we turn to the State, County, or City surveyor's opinions? Are we, according to Larry Echo Hawk, to politely ask the State to remove their citizen from our land, and tear down his massive buildings? This is only one of a vast multitude of state-tribal issues that occur on a daily basis. For instance fishing was guaranteed in treaties. Mr. Echo Hawk again used legal wrangling to force Southern Idaho Tribes to stop fishing, and can anybody tell me if that was when the recreation fishing was still open?
The words of Justice Souter from above still ring true, just as they did during the Lake Coeur d'Alene Case. Can anybody tell me who has jurisdiction over the lake today? And who was the State Attorney General at the time, when a state was asserting that a tribe did not have jurisdiction over Treaty-guaranteed land and a lake of which Idaho, in it's own constitution establishing statehood, vowed never to touch? The history is there, it's not that Larry Echo Hawk was a bad person or even is today. The issue is that circumstances would suggest that he did not understand how Tribal Sovereignty applies in relation to States and has not given chance to show that anything has changed since then. That is all that should be developing from all of this. That he does not necessarily believe that he had effects detrimental to Tribal Sovereignty, does not excuse the fact that he did have detrimental effects; so he should come forward and tell us if he still believes that States are who the Tribes should be dealing with. Larry Echo Hawk should explain why he helped Idaho State; what went through his mind as he openly pushed the cart forward over the Tribes' Sovereignty to establish gaming on their own reservations.
I'm not converted yet and neither are some other Indians, despite what their own councils say. If it didn't come from a people-generated-vote, you can bet that not everybody agreed to what any Council said. One of my hopes is that any other council who may decide to support him, any other Indian Organization which may take the bitter pill, get something in writing from Larry Echo Hawk before you sign away any chance to hold the office of Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs accountable.
Otherwise, one of us will be saying "I told you so." (If he gets confirmed, I sincerely hope all his supporters can come back here and say "I told you so" after a year or two into his position, otherwise, we'll all be waiting "again" for someone to take the BIA helm who really understands us.)
Who said this?
"State-law compliance is in fact a characteristic circumstance of most cases maintained under Young, see, e. g., Edelman, 415 U. S., at 655, which are brought not because the defendant officials are mavericks under state law but because the state law is claimed to violate federal law made controlling by the Supremacy Clause." (http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/19962673)
Souter, David H. souter, Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter.
And this is why I question whether Larry Echo Hawk is on the Sovereignty Team Roster, given his history which was widely reported in the New York times, the Desert News, and on the mouths of those so easily betrayed.
He wanted us to start dealing with States. Does this mean when there are boundary disputes (and buildings have already been built on the disputed land) that we turn to the State, County, or City surveyor's opinions? Are we, according to Larry Echo Hawk, to politely ask the State to remove their citizen from our land, and tear down his massive buildings? This is only one of a vast multitude of state-tribal issues that occur on a daily basis. For instance fishing was guaranteed in treaties. Mr. Echo Hawk again used legal wrangling to force Southern Idaho Tribes to stop fishing, and can anybody tell me if that was when the recreation fishing was still open?
The words of Justice Souter from above still ring true, just as they did during the Lake Coeur d'Alene Case. Can anybody tell me who has jurisdiction over the lake today? And who was the State Attorney General at the time, when a state was asserting that a tribe did not have jurisdiction over Treaty-guaranteed land and a lake of which Idaho, in it's own constitution establishing statehood, vowed never to touch? The history is there, it's not that Larry Echo Hawk was a bad person or even is today. The issue is that circumstances would suggest that he did not understand how Tribal Sovereignty applies in relation to States and has not given chance to show that anything has changed since then. That is all that should be developing from all of this. That he does not necessarily believe that he had effects detrimental to Tribal Sovereignty, does not excuse the fact that he did have detrimental effects; so he should come forward and tell us if he still believes that States are who the Tribes should be dealing with. Larry Echo Hawk should explain why he helped Idaho State; what went through his mind as he openly pushed the cart forward over the Tribes' Sovereignty to establish gaming on their own reservations.
I'm not converted yet and neither are some other Indians, despite what their own councils say. If it didn't come from a people-generated-vote, you can bet that not everybody agreed to what any Council said. One of my hopes is that any other council who may decide to support him, any other Indian Organization which may take the bitter pill, get something in writing from Larry Echo Hawk before you sign away any chance to hold the office of Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs accountable.
Otherwise, one of us will be saying "I told you so." (If he gets confirmed, I sincerely hope all his supporters can come back here and say "I told you so" after a year or two into his position, otherwise, we'll all be waiting "again" for someone to take the BIA helm who really understands us.)
Monday, January 26, 2009
Larry Echo Hawk urged Tribes toward an Intergovernment relationship with...STATES (fifth in a series)
[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
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 ) Larry Echo Hawk told a Sovereignty Symposium (of all places!) that "Future intergovernmental agreements by Indian tribes will be conducted with individual states."
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.
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.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Qualifications for Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs
There may always be a disputed argument about what Tribal members are looking for in a Secretary for Bureau of Indian Affairs. There are how many hundreds of languages between us? It is no wonder then that we all have specific issues. We all have different ways of saying things, and that is why it is believeable that a culturally-based, land-based tribal member is more capable of understanding what all the needs of tribal members are.
A large-land-based tribal member will advocate for issues which will exceed the needs and expectations of a non-large-land-based tribal member. A non-land based tribal member will advocate (generally) far short of what land-based tribal members need and expect.
In a local language here in the Northwest, the word for "Sunday" for a particular tribe directly translates to the "day when the flag is flown on the staff." Our language comes from our culture, and we continue that relationship from living on the land. The less assimilated a leader is, the more willing the entire tribal population will be to accept them. It is extremely hard to lie when you speak a Tribal Language because our words are so specific for each language. That attribute is what is needed in a leader who will stand before the Federal Government as the Federal Government itself attempts (or fails) to fulfill the promises made to each of our ancestors so long ago.
The short and dirty list of what may be a starting point for selecting an Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs:
A large-land-based tribal member will advocate for issues which will exceed the needs and expectations of a non-large-land-based tribal member. A non-land based tribal member will advocate (generally) far short of what land-based tribal members need and expect.
In a local language here in the Northwest, the word for "Sunday" for a particular tribe directly translates to the "day when the flag is flown on the staff." Our language comes from our culture, and we continue that relationship from living on the land. The less assimilated a leader is, the more willing the entire tribal population will be to accept them. It is extremely hard to lie when you speak a Tribal Language because our words are so specific for each language. That attribute is what is needed in a leader who will stand before the Federal Government as the Federal Government itself attempts (or fails) to fulfill the promises made to each of our ancestors so long ago.
The short and dirty list of what may be a starting point for selecting an Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs:
- from a large-land based tribe
- proven track record of actually taking action in advocacy for all tribes (if they have been derided in OST/BIA circles, then it's a sure bet they're in)
- Have experience or can clearly demonstrate a knowledge of the problems tribes have in the land areas of contracted trust services, (surveys, appraisals, wills, probate training)
- Can clearly demonstrate ethics characteristics which will aid in restoring the current lack of trust in the Office of Special Trustee
- Ability to address the needs of a budget which has clearly been lacking in actually providing trust responsibility services
- Is able to make a statement about what sovereignty really means, to which a majority of Indians who still practice it can agree
- Can take the hard stance on the part of Native Americans in restoring the land base, by signing the pending Land-Into Trust packets (including those which have been waiting for 20 years)
- Can work through a quagmire of Federal inefficiency and clear all pending probates which are several years old
- Will agree that all federal documents related to Tribes, are jointly owned by the Tribes and the Federal Government. The current policy regarding documents in the Interior makes no such stipulation. The Federal government may have legal title to those documents, but the Tribes have Beneficiary Title which must be honored. We have agreements in black and white, so let's all take a look at them. I believe that even President Barack Obama could agree to some more transparency from the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Office of Special Trustee.
Larry Echo Hawk's Record on Indian Casinos (4th in a Series)
[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
The confusion over the recent letter issued by the (current) Shoshone Bannock Tribes cannot be allowed to continue. The stance taken by Larry Echo Hawk is well-documented. Larry Echo Hawk has opposed mechanisms to allow Indian Casinos. Larry Echo Hawk's opposition to Indian Casinos has opposed Tribes' sovereign processes to allow gambling on their reservations.
The following excerpts from the (current) Shoshone Bannock Tribal Council were taken from http://216.109.157.86/press_release/Statement%20in%20Support%20of%20Larry%20EchoHawk%20as%20Assistant%20Secretary%20of%20Indian%20Affairs%20012309.htm
This apparently was not obvious to the casual observer. A search for the specific minutes of the Idaho Legislature from 1992 cannot be accessed online simply because they have not been put online; they are probably available at any local library. In their absence, the general public should read Timothy Egan's article linked in an earlier BLOG entry here, and then take a glance at the following article Idaho House Reaffirms Anti-Gambling Stance, published on July 28, 1992, in the Deseret News (http://archive.deseretnews.com/archive/239375/IDAHO-HOUSE-REAFFIRMS-ANTI-GAMBLING-STANCE.html accessed at 12:52 a.m. January 25, 2009), where once again it is reported that Larry Echo Hawk personally opposed Indian Casino Gambling, although it was specifically as an opposition to Casino Gambling. The entire issue; however, was about the Tribes of Idaho attempting to negotiate gambling compacts. The issue was linked to a 1988 amendment allowing creation of a state lottery [which] also cleared the way for casino gambling on the state's Indian reservations. (Deseret News, Andrus Favors Holding Special Session on Casino Issue, June 5, 1992, accessed online at 1:02 a.m. 1-25-09)
And while the Current Shoshone Bannock Tribal Council members "may" have forgotton all that happened during this time, they would do well to note that in that same article:
"Earlier, Attorney General Larry EchoHawk urged the Legislature to pass the amendment, predicting that without it, Idaho probably couldn't avoid statewide casino gambling."
Larry Echo Hawk did indeed personally support the legislation which would in effect ban Indian Casinos.
Larry Echo Hawk did indeed advocate against allowing Indian Casinos to operate on Indian Reservations.
I stand behind the reports issued by Deseret News which is a for-profit business holdings company owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (colloquially known as the Mormon or LDS Church). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_News accessed at 12: 55 a.m. 1-25-09.
I stand behind the report by Timothy Egan in the New York Times on Sept 5, 1994. I stand behind the Tribes and Tribal members here in the Pacific Northwest who do remember Larry Echo Hawk as an obstacle to Sovereign Indian Intent to operate Casinos on Indian Reservations.
I would hope that as this possible appointment of Larry Echo Hawk to Assistant Secretary for Bureau of Indian affairs is discussed, Department of the Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, would take note of history, and like Scott Crowell intends for all of us to do, avoid revising it.
The confusion over the recent letter issued by the (current) Shoshone Bannock Tribes cannot be allowed to continue. The stance taken by Larry Echo Hawk is well-documented. Larry Echo Hawk has opposed mechanisms to allow Indian Casinos. Larry Echo Hawk's opposition to Indian Casinos has opposed Tribes' sovereign processes to allow gambling on their reservations.
The following excerpts from the (current) Shoshone Bannock Tribal Council were taken from http://216.109.157.86/press_release/Statement%20in%20Support%20of%20Larry%20EchoHawk%20as%20Assistant%20Secretary%20of%20Indian%20Affairs%20012309.htm
- ..."Crowell’s statement also is misleading in that it suggests that Larry personally supported restricting Indian gaming or had a policy-making role in the matter."
- ..."EchoHawk clearly has a long and proven track record of advancing tribal sovereignty, his legal and ethical duty as Idaho’s attorney general was to provide legal advice to the governor and legislature. He did this according to his oath of office, and he did not advocate against Indian gaming specifically at any time."
This apparently was not obvious to the casual observer. A search for the specific minutes of the Idaho Legislature from 1992 cannot be accessed online simply because they have not been put online; they are probably available at any local library. In their absence, the general public should read Timothy Egan's article linked in an earlier BLOG entry here, and then take a glance at the following article Idaho House Reaffirms Anti-Gambling Stance, published on July 28, 1992, in the Deseret News (http://archive.deseretnews.com/archive/239375/IDAHO-HOUSE-REAFFIRMS-ANTI-GAMBLING-STANCE.html accessed at 12:52 a.m. January 25, 2009), where once again it is reported that Larry Echo Hawk personally opposed Indian Casino Gambling, although it was specifically as an opposition to Casino Gambling. The entire issue; however, was about the Tribes of Idaho attempting to negotiate gambling compacts. The issue was linked to a 1988 amendment allowing creation of a state lottery [which] also cleared the way for casino gambling on the state's Indian reservations. (Deseret News, Andrus Favors Holding Special Session on Casino Issue, June 5, 1992, accessed online at 1:02 a.m. 1-25-09)
And while the Current Shoshone Bannock Tribal Council members "may" have forgotton all that happened during this time, they would do well to note that in that same article:
"Shoshone-Bannock Gaming Enterprises Manager Nathan Small reacted quickly to the governor's statements, contending a special session would undermine any good-faith negotiations on a gaming compact.
"We feel it is an end run on Indian gaming," Small said in a statement. He also disputed Tribal Chairman Kesley Edmo's statement to Andrus that the tribes want to pursue "all types of gaming.""
And is there anything to show Larry Echo Hawk personally opposed the idea of Indian Casinos, that he was opposed allowing the mechanism for Tribal Casinos on Indian Reservations?
If you look at the July 28 1992 article in the Deseret news, and look at the 11th paragraph you see:"Earlier, Attorney General Larry EchoHawk urged the Legislature to pass the amendment, predicting that without it, Idaho probably couldn't avoid statewide casino gambling."
Larry Echo Hawk did indeed personally support the legislation which would in effect ban Indian Casinos.
Larry Echo Hawk did indeed advocate against allowing Indian Casinos to operate on Indian Reservations.
I stand behind the reports issued by Deseret News which is a for-profit business holdings company owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (colloquially known as the Mormon or LDS Church). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_News accessed at 12: 55 a.m. 1-25-09.
I stand behind the report by Timothy Egan in the New York Times on Sept 5, 1994. I stand behind the Tribes and Tribal members here in the Pacific Northwest who do remember Larry Echo Hawk as an obstacle to Sovereign Indian Intent to operate Casinos on Indian Reservations.
I would hope that as this possible appointment of Larry Echo Hawk to Assistant Secretary for Bureau of Indian affairs is discussed, Department of the Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, would take note of history, and like Scott Crowell intends for all of us to do, avoid revising it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
