Jackie Johnson Pata said [Kim Teehee's] job was really going to hone in on those [domestic] policy issues. Pata also said, Kim's job was like the No. 1 position in Indian Country.
Well that was before Larry Echohawk's second [or were there more?] swearing in ceremony, after which Larry issued his first editorial declaring that "The historical Cherokee Nation as it existed in 1934 no longer exists as a distinct political entity."
Echo Hawk declared a new nation, a new government, a new-tribe-that-will-have-to-negotiate-a-treaty-because-they-didn't-exist-before, until now, when Larry says they do! Larry presented the "New and Improved" Cherokee Nation with two governments for the price of none! A drum roll should have played before he declared the C-N-O! The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the United Keetoowah Band!
Wow! Shiny enit?
So, I'm curious, if Kim Teehee is No.1, what does she do if an "underling" declares her tribe "moot?" If there is no Historical Cherokee Tribe, since he just dissolved it in his own mind, which tribe does Kim Teehee declare herself a part of? And how does Larry handle the real No.1 position in Indian Country from such a long distance from the President's desk?
Now I'm confused, is there a historical Cherokee Tribe and if it did "sunset" doesn't that mean that since it dissolved, they don't have trust status? If it dissolved, they don't have a government-to-government relationship with the Federal Government right? So, if it really did dissolve before our very eyes, Larry Echo Hawk just outran Congress in the race to dissolve a Tribe.....wow.......he's quick.
Didn't a past BIA employee declare plenary decision-making over tribal governments such as the Northern Cheyenne? Are we right back where we were trying to get away from? Wow, he does work quickly.
Have a "nice" day, and thank you for visiting the "historical" Cherokee Tribe formerly known as a sovereign nation, declared "moot" by a second and successive Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, Larry Echo Hawk.
Showing posts with label Sovereign Bones. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sovereign Bones. Show all posts
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Larry Echo Hawk debated on Native America Calling
[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
Native America Calling had a recent interview with attorney Scott Crowell and Shoshone Bannock Tribal Chairman Alonzo Colby on Monday February 16, 2009 regarding Larry Echohawk's possible appointment to Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.
An informative, depending on who you are and what you're willing to accept, pod cast can be found at http://nac.unm.edu/archives/2009/feb/021609.mp3.
excerpts:
"Larry was clearly doing his job"
"I would opt for his brother Walter"
"not simply advising the governor...traveled the state advocating for the change in the constitution"
"You negotiate with Indian tribes in good faith based upon the laws of the book of the time"
Native America Calling had a recent interview with attorney Scott Crowell and Shoshone Bannock Tribal Chairman Alonzo Colby on Monday February 16, 2009 regarding Larry Echohawk's possible appointment to Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.
An informative, depending on who you are and what you're willing to accept, pod cast can be found at http://nac.unm.edu/archives/2009/feb/021609.mp3.
excerpts:
"Larry was clearly doing his job"
"I would opt for his brother Walter"
"not simply advising the governor...traveled the state advocating for the change in the constitution"
"You negotiate with Indian tribes in good faith based upon the laws of the book of the time"
What is sovereignty? The Hualapai Tribe has the correct answer
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?
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
