Showing posts with label UN declaration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UN declaration. Show all posts

February 16, 2013

Natives criticize NCAI's annual address

Jefferson Keel's State of the Indian Nations AddressThe following is National Congress of American Indians President Jefferson Keel’s 11th Annual State of the Indian Nations Address from this morning in Washington, D.C.:

Members of the National Congress of American Indians, members of the Administration and the 113th Congress, tribal leaders, tribal citizens, my fellow Americans.

As President of the National Congress of American Indians, and as one of more than 5 million American Indian and Alaska Natives of the 566 federally-recognized tribal nations and many state-recognized governments of Indian country, it’s an honor to speak to you today.

Native Americans are as diverse as America itself—an array of cultures, each with its own rich heritage, its own proud history.

And all of our vibrant threads, our stories and traditions, our struggles and triumphs, are woven into the fabric of America.

Every day, we are reminded of how far we’ve come, and the great journey we have ahead of us. And though we’ve walked dark roads, and overcome great challenges and tragedies, our future holds great promise.

Today, Indian country is strong.
Keel repeated the "look how far we've come" theme several times. He offered a series of glowing success stories, then reluctantly backtracked a bit to admit there were still problems. It was definitely a "cup half full" kind of speech.

It seemed like a typical political speech to me. You don't expect any political leader, whether it's Obama or Keel, to dwell on the negative. But this time Natives are speaking up against the whitewashing of Indian country's problems.

Who Does NCAI Represent?

By Ruth HopkinsThis past Thursday, Jefferson Keel, President of the National Congress of American Indians, delivered the 11th Annual State of the Indian Nations Address.

Mr. Keel gave a standard political speech. I’m sure it appeased wealthy tribes and mainstreamed Natives. However, I found myself asking what Indian country the NCAI represents, because I hardly recognized the one he described.

Yes, Indian Country is strong--thanks to the tenacity and fortitude of our people. Still, that strength should not mitigate the dire straits some Tribes still find themselves in, nor is it an excuse not to posit real solutions for the most serious issues we face.

In the Northern Plains, there was a blizzard last week. Reservation schools closed, but reopened their doors as soon as possible. When discussing the reasoning behind opening schools despite bad weather, an administrator said a major motivation for keeping their doors open is because they know that for some of the children, the meals they get at school will be the only nutritious food they get all day.

That is the reality for many Native families, especially those living on reservations. While it’s terrific that Mr. Keel’s tribe contributes billions of dollars to their local economy, there are thousands of Natives in this country who are struggling just to survive--and it’s not that they aren’t trying to do better. There are still a lot of barriers preventing Natives from escaping poverty. Unemployment remains to be a major factor, and those who are able to find work often do so for pennies.
And:NCAI was established to fight the federal government’s assimilation and termination policies, but I thought the tone of Mr. Keel’s speech didn’t reflect that. Most disturbing to me was Mr. Keel’s take on energy.

He said, “Our nations have enormous potential. Tribal lands boast almost 25 percent of America’s on-shore oil and gas resources, and one-third of the West’s low-sulfur coal. And yet, they represent less than 5 percent of current national energy production. Why? Because of leasing restrictions.”

While I realize that not every Native person practices their cultural values, I can assure the NCAI that hundreds of thousands of Natives in Indian country still do, and turning the lands where are ancestors lie in eternal repose into a toxic desert just to extract oil and gas in order to inflate Tribal leaders’ bottom lines flies in the face of every traditional teaching our grandparents instilled in us.

As a Native woman, I’m proud of Indian country’s success stories, but if we continue to ignore the harsh realities many Tribes face, we won’t last. Further, it’s a mistake to emulate the western class system, where the rich individual fails to acknowledge the struggles of their poorer brothers and sisters.
On Jefferson Keel's State of Indian Nations Address

By Charles KaderThe prevailing focus on securing our reservation communities falls in lockstep with the contemporary federal "keep you from yourself" big government mindset. While I agree with the stated concern about violence against women, I would go at the cause of the negatively expressed self-esteem issues that lead to the violence against Native women, not just the symptom of domestic violence itself. A nearly-broken people and its own battered collective will is attributable to both colonialism and federal pedanticism of how to live the American dream.

The focus on non-native prosecution in domestic violence cases via tribal court is again a good start but the exercise also shows the current and continued impotence of these same tribal courts as more of a novelty than an effective institution. The United States Congress reluctance to empower the tribal courts in specific ways shows the underlying fear that eventually an arrest warrant will be issued for American political figures involved in graft within Indian country, and then the real sovereign thumb-wrestling match will be on. Even as we hear “nation to nation” expressed throughout this address.

Mr. Keel also whitewashes the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples signatories’ list affiliation by the United States. This American participation occurs at the minimum level of commitment for the U.N. Declaration, and only when doing so does not undermine the existing United States remedy for Native issues, i.e. the American legal system, among other presuppositions. The NCAI President seems to express that the United States acceptance of the U.N. Declaration alone is enough to do some of this political lifting, including amazingly enough, in the realm of border tribes and American immigration policies that directly affect these tribes. I have to see how that will work for sure, especially pertaining to the border spanning Akwesasne Territory as a community that I am familiar with.
Elephants in Indian Country’s Living Room: Responding to NCAI’s State of Native Nations Address

By Dina Gilio-WhitakerTo be in a position of leadership—at least for NCAI’s president Jefferson Keel—is to be in the role of a politician, and that means taking predictably centrist positions (at least publically) to appease as wide an audience as possible. In this case it means articulating problems that still remain in Indian country while simultaneously not appearing to bite the hand that feeds you ($8.4 billion flows through Indian country every year in the form of grants, contracts and services). This is the fine line Mr. Keel was walking in his recent State of Native Nations address. I can appreciate the precarious nature of the job; however, not risking a brutally critical stance inevitably means glossing over some pretty crucial issues. These are the elephants in Indian country’s living room that few public leaders—Indian or federal government—care to address.

Mr. Keel characterizes Indian country as “strong” but strong is a relative term. Compared to a hundred years ago when our nations were at their weakest, yes, we are stronger. But compared to two or three hundred years ago when many tribal nations were still well intact and some didn’t even have contact with Europeans yet, we are still reeling from the catastrophic affects of colonization.

Nations struggling to revive moribund languages, have Eurocentric governmental structures based on values that are contradictory to traditional tribal values, are forced to pay taxes on resources from their own lands or have no land bases at all—to say nothing about rampant social disorders like teenage suicide and drug and alcohol addiction—are not in positions of strength.

At best, they can be said to be in the process of regaining strength. It somehow seems okay for tribal leaders to publically talk about problems related to cultural breakdown, but when it comes to calling out the ways the U.S. asserts domination over our nations without permission, they predictably stop short. What are they afraid of?
NCAI President Jefferson Keel Falls Into Traps

By Peter d'ErricoWhen President Jefferson Keel referred to the "trust relationship" in his State of Indian Nations address to the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), he fell into a common trap: he presumed several things that are not true.

The first and biggest presumption is that the so-called "trust relationship" is a two-way street. President Keel said the "unique nation-to-nation relationship tribes enjoy with the United States" is "a relationship of mutual respect, mutual obligation and mutual trust." Unfortunately, both history and law show that this statement is false.

The "unique" aspect of the relationship between Indians and the U.S. is that the U.S. considers itself inherently superior to Indian nations. Inherently—by definition—according to the U.S. Supreme Court, Indian nations cannot be equal to the U.S. because the U.S. assumes the role of the Christian "discoverer," empowered by the Popes to take and subdue all non-Christian lands and peoples.

That principle—if you can call religious supremacy a "principle"—was laid down in 1823, in the case of Johnson v. McIntosh. The court ruled that the U.S. had "a right to take possession" of Indian lands "notwithstanding the occupancy of the natives, who were heathens"!

When the Cherokee Nation went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1831 to challenge the state of Georgia for its assault on Cherokee people and lands, the court referred to the uniqueness of the relationship between the U.S. and the Indians. It said, "The condition of the Indians in relation to the United States is perhaps unlike that of any other two people in existence." How so? "They occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will…."

So much for the "unique relationship." It's not something an NCAI president ought to celebrate.
Comment:  I believe this is the seventh State of the Indian Nations address. I'm not sure I've ever seen someone criticize or even react to the speech before.

I wonder if this is a reflection of the increased activism reflected in Idle No More and other Native protests. Perhaps younger Natives are tired of waiting around for the elders to address the problems in Indian country.

For more on the subject, see Women March on Valentine's Day and Young People Lead Idle No More.

Below:  Jefferson Keel.

August 22, 2012

Pe' Sla auction canceled

Auction cancelled for SD land considered sacred

The planned auction of nearly 2,000 acres of land in South Dakota's picturesque Black Hills that is considered sacred by American Indian tribes has been cancelled, though it wasn't immediately clear why.

By Kristi Eaton
The planned auction of nearly 2,000 acres of land in South Dakota's picturesque Black Hills that is considered sacred by American Indian tribes has been cancelled, though it wasn't immediately clear why.

Brock Auction Company planned to auction five tracts of land owned by local residents Leonard and Margaret Reynolds on Saturday. But a message on the auction house's website Thursday said it has been cancelled at the land owners' direction.

The auction house and Margaret Reynolds declined comment, and tribal officials were left wondering what had happened.

"There are a lot of things we don't know at this point," Rosebud Sioux Tribe spokesman Alfred Walking Bull said. "If there was a change of heart, we're definitely thankful for that. We're hoping for the best. We can take a breath right now."
An update on all the efforts to save Pe' Sla, which still may be sold:

Fight for Lakota's Sacred Pe' Sla Brings Miracles

By Georgianne NienaberTwo weeks ago, the sale of Pe'Sla seemed inevitable, but 4,991 people on the fundraising site and 2,100 people on Facebook are saying "no," that this sale is not morally or spiritually correct. Good people from around the world are standing up and saying that the robbery of native sacred land must stop. The moral line has been drawn in the sand because of the idea that good people can stop this and return the land to the Lakota.

Sarah Jumping Eagle, a pediatrician and member of Lastrealindians, wrote about the importance of the public campaign to raise $1,000,000. The total now stands at $234,000. Some of that was raised on reservations. The Turns Around Wacipi (pow-wow) Blanket Dance held at the home of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes in Poplar, Montana, raised $150--money from the poorest of the poor, trying to buy back what was stolen from them.Our Pe' Sla Campaign team goal of $1 million is intended to supplement the contributions of the 7 Council Fires of the Great Sioux Nation. Yet, we also know that most of the bands of the Great Sioux Nation are made up of communities that are currently living in the poorest counties in the nation. What if your church was for sale? What if Bethlehem or Jerusalem or your Mosque was threatened by destruction or an auction? What would you do? Help us save our sacred lands!! Pe' Sla! The Center--The Heart of All That Is!The Wakpala of South Dakota, on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, raised $300.03 with a blanket dance during their traditional Wakpala Wacipi. "The elders in the community, the Uncis and Lalas (Grandmas and Grandpas) were brought to tears to see their children and grandchildren working to get our sacred lands back," reports Chase Iron Eyes of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.

International media is beginning to pick up on this story. You can read about it in the Guardian, the Associated Press, and on CBS and ABC news. In addition, the Lakota have gained a powerful ally in the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR), which issued a statement from Geneva yesterday.


The UN expert's position:

UN human rights expert calls on US to consult with indigenous people over land saleA United Nations independent expert today called on the United States Government and authorities in the state of South Dakota to start consultations with indigenous people on a land sale that will affect a site of spiritual significance to them.

Five tracts of land in the Black Hills area in South Dakota are scheduled to be auctioned on Saturday. The tracts lie within a site sacred to the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota peoples, known as Pe’ Sla, said the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya, in a news release issued by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

According to Mr. Anaya, the indigenous communities are concerned that the sale of the land will result in restrictions to their access and the use of Pe’ Sla for ceremonial purposes. They are also concerned that it may lead to a road development project that would diminish the cultural and spiritual integrity of their sacred site.

“I call on all concerned parties to engage in a process of consultation to find ways in which to resolve these concerns,” Mr. Anaya said. “I believe such dialogue is necessary in order to help heal the historical injustices endured by the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota peoples and to allow them to maintain their cultures and traditional practices for future generations.”
People don't know why the Reynolds halted the sale, but they have their suspicions:

Sale of the Sacred: How Pe’ Sla May Test Uncharted Waters of UNDRIP

By Lise Balk KingThe highly publicized auction of 1,940 acres in the Black Hills of South Dakota known to the Oceti Sakowin as Pe’ Sla, The Heart of Everything that Is, has been cancelled. The Reynolds family, “owners” of this property for the last 136 years (since the Gold Rush of 1876 pushed the Great Sioux Nation out of the Black Hills) has decided to make the land sale a private matter.

Neither the family nor the auction company has given a reason for the change, but one can offer a guess. Perhaps it was the thousands of tweets, the scores of news stories, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars raised in an unprecedented fundraising campaign to buy the land back for the tribes by LastRealIndians.com. Or the threat of sale day becoming a major media draw, complete with prayer circles and protesters both near and far.

But the final straw may have been yesterday’s announcement by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, strongly suggesting consultation with tribes on the impending sale.

On December 16, 2010, President Obama announced the United States’ support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the UNDRIP), an aspirational document adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007. And in May of this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Prof. James Anaya, made his first official visits to Indian Country–the first of any UN special rapporteur. His tour included consultations in Arizona, Alaska, Oklahoma, Oregon, and South Dakota, where he visited the Black Hills and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. His official analysis and recommendations included restoring some land to Native American tribes, and he specifically suggested returning portions of the Black Hills. It was a prescient statement.

The UNDRIP has not yet been tested here in the United States, and the fight for Pe’ Sla may provide the first such opportunity. While it is true that US property laws make legal the land grab that created this country (aka Manifest Destiny), international human rights regimes recognize the inherent moral and legal obligations to the indigenous inhabitants.
Comment:  A good guess is that the Reynolds family is feeling the heat. We'll see how this story plays out.

For more on the subject, see Online Fundraising to Save Pe' Sla.

August 18, 2012

Indian chief bust at White Faux Taxidermy

Stuffed, Mounted, and WhitewashedWe can barely express our horror with this "product" from "White Faux Taxidermy."

That's right, we said TAXIDERMY.

Here's how they presented this "product" to their hipster audience:

"We are EXTREMELY excited to add to our shop a brand new product. Meet, The Viho, our Native American Indian Chief Wall Bust.

Visit him here:

https://www.etsy.com/listing/107069188/faux-taxidermy-the-viho-indian-chief

We adore him and think that you all will, too! Happy (almost) Friday!"

AND this from their website: "White Faux Taxidermy brings you the best quality and lowest priced white resin animal heads. We specialize in white deer heads, moose, and more..."

http://www.whitefauxtaxidermy.com/

Aside from being incredibly culturally insensitive--this is in violation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Article 31:

"1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions."

Contact them, and demand that they remove this "product" and issue an apology:

http://www.whitefauxtaxidermy.com/contact

Email:

info@whitefauxtaxidermy.com

Mailing Address:
White Faux Taxidermy
105 S. State Street Suite 409
Orem, UT 84058

We're grateful to member Kerry Edwards, for bringing this to our attention.
Comment:  The Etsy link says the item is no longer available. The White Faux Taxidermy link doesn't show any Indians or other human heads. Apparently the protest worked.

The Indian chief is, as usual, stereotypical. The implications of grouping an Indian with a bunch of animals as trophies are obvious. You'd have to be pretty dense not to see the problem immediately.

But I doubt anyone could bring a case under the UN Declaration. This is a generic chief like a million other such stereotypes in our culture. It doesn't belong to any one particular tribe. It probably doesn't qualify as intellectual property.

This bust reminds me of wooden Indians and Indian mascots. I've compared these and other stereotypical chiefs to trophies before. They're all about remembering the past--in particular, America's God-blessed conquest of the Indians.

Now White Faux Taxidermy has made it explicit. Collect and own your own Indian chief. "Honor" the past by ignoring the present. The Indians put up a worthy fight, thus proving their our valor. Since we've beaten them, we can appreciate their noble qualities while they hang on a wall.

For more on that subject, see Smashing People:  The "Honor" of Being an Athlete.

May 04, 2012

UN official recommends land restoration

UN fact finder on indigenous rights to recommend land restoration for some Native AmericansA United Nations fact finder surveying the lives of Native Americans and Alaska Natives said Friday he’ll recommend in an upcoming report that some of the tribes’ lands be restored, including the Black Hills of South Dakota.

James Anaya, a U.N. special rapporteur, has been meeting with tribal leaders, the administration and Senate members over 12 days to assess U.S. implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. He plans several suggestions in his report, which he said he likely will deliver to the U.N.’s Human Rights Council in September.

Anaya said land restoration would help bring about reconciliation. He named the Black Hills as an example. He said restoring to indigenous people what they have a legitimate claim to can be done in a way that is not divisive “so that the Black Hills, for example, isn’t just a reminder of the subordination and domination of indigenous peoples in that country.”

The Black Hills, home to Mount Rushmore, are public land but are considered sacred by the Sioux tribes. The Sioux have refused to accept money awarded in a 1980 U.S. Supreme Court decision and have sought return of the land. The Black Hills and other lands were set aside for the Sioux in an 1868 treaty. But Congress passed a law in 1877 taking the land.
UN expert urges US to take more robust measures to tackle indigenous issuesMr. Anaya drew special attention to the need for measures of reconciliation to overcome “the legacies of a history of oppression” in the country, according to a news release issued by the UN human rights office.

“In all my consultations with indigenous peoples in the places I visited it was impressed upon me that the sense of loss, alienation and indignity is pervasive throughout Indian country,” he said.

“I heard almost universal calls from indigenous nations and tribes across the country that the Government respect tribal sovereignty, that indigenous peoples’ ability to control their own affairs be strengthened, and that the many existing barriers to the effective exercise of self-determination be removed,” Mr. Anaya added.

During his 12-day visit, Mr. Anaya met with indigenous peoples in the capital, Washington D.C., as well as in the states of Arizona, Alaska, Oregon, Washington, South Dakota and Oklahoma, in addition to government officials.

He said that during his mission he learned that many tribes across the country already have capable institutions of self-governance and tribal courts in place, as well as self-administered social and economic development programmes that have had significant successes and which also help to promote and consolidate indigenous cultures and values.

The expert noted that he had collected enough information to assess how the standards of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are reflected in US law, policy and programmes at both the state and federal levels, and to identify needed reforms.
No more Mt. Rushmore?

As you may recall, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples generated some conservative scaremongering last year:

Colbert satirizes UN declaration scare
Countdown covers UN declaration scare
Liberals mock UN declaration scare
Obama's UN "coup" is "chilling"

Needless to say, no land giveaways happened in the last year. But Anaya's report may lead to more conservative scaremongering. Here's the first hint of that:

Mt. Rushmore Site Should Be Returned To Indigenous Native American Tribes, U.N. Official SaysSouth Dakota's Black Hills, home to the granite faces carved into Mt. Rushmore, should be restored as Native American tribal lands, a United Nations official recently said.

James Anaya, a U.N. special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people, completed a fact-finding mission on Friday that included meetings with a number of Native American tribal leaders as well as White House officials. His investigation led him to suggest that the United States take additional steps to repair the nation's legacy of oppression against Native Americans. He'll officially propose the plan in an upcoming report.
Oh, no! It's just as conservatives feared when the US "supported" UNDRIP! Obama's gonna give the country back to the Indians!

Actually, it's unlikely any US president will give back the Black Hills. Conservatives would see it as admitting America's guilt and caving in to a "special interest" group, so it's politically untenable.

If a Black Hills measure somehow got passed without a political firestorm, it probably would carve out an exception for Mt. Rushmore. So an article talking about giving back Mt. Rushmore, complete with photos, is a implicit scare tactic.

Even if the US gave back Mt. Rushmore...so what? It would become a tribally-run national park with no significant differences. The average visitor probably wouldn't notice the change in administration.

The real issue would be giving back the portion of the Black Hills with natural resources to exploit. You can bet the mining and ranching interests would oppose that with angry protests, if not guns and bombs. That's why a give-back probably won't happen.

For more on the UN declaration, see UN Declaration's First Anniversary and Red Corn Testifies at Senate Hearing.

Below:  Special Rapporteur James Anaya. (UN Photo/Jean-Marc Ferré)

December 12, 2011

UN declaration's first anniversary

UN Declaration’s One-Year Anniversary:  ‘Much to Celebrate, Much More to Be Done’

By Gale Courey ToensingThis month marks the one-year anniversary of the United States formally reversing its opposition to the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. While some involved in the indigenous rights struggle say little has changed since then, others say there’s a lot to celebrate—mostly because indigenous people are working hard to make sure that declaration is implemented in all interactions with nation-states.What the UN declaration has done in the last year:Carmen played an important role in the international forums that developed the Declaration and over the past year she has led and participated in dozens of workshops and presentation in front of tribal governments and organizations such as the National Congress of American Indians, educating Indigenous Peoples on the Declaration and how to use it as a tool in every interaction with federal, state and local governments. “The recognition of rights is the basis for peace. The denial of rights is the cause of conflict,” Carmen said. “The interactions of the past – we can’t forget them because there’s redress and restitution, which is also included in the Declaration. But the discussion can start on a new level based on recognition, upholding and defending the rights of Indigenous Peoples in this Declaration that the U.S. is now a party to. It’s an amazing step forward.”

The implementation of the Declaration is beginning both in the international arena and the U.S. A good example of progress in the international arena took place last January during the continuing negotiations in the drafting of the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is being created under the auspices of the Organization of American States “When there was a challenge to the proposed language, the chair said, ‘We need to fall back on the language in the U.N. Declaration on this issue.’ That may not sound like much but it was the first time that happened. And previously the U.S. and Canada always opposed using the Declaration as the minimum standards for the discussion on the American level. But they didn’t say a word in opposition this time--they couldn’t because they support the Declaration now,” Carmen said.

The Declaration was instrumental in the U.S. in another important issue this year--the protection of a sacred shell mound at Sogorea Te in Glen Cove, California, said Mark Anquoe (Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma), IITC’s administrative and communications coordinator. “There was a 109-day spiritual encampment at the site, so it was huge and it was special because it was the first time the Bay area Indian community rallied around the Declaration,” Anquoe said.

Not everyone working in the arena of indigenous rights sees that kind of progress over the past year. Steve Newcomb, (Lenni/Lenape), a columnist for Indian Country Today Media Network, says the U.S. State Department distorted the Declaration’s meaning of Indigenous Peoples’ right to self determination and needs to rectify its error before progress can be made. Article 3 of the Declaration says, “Indigenous Peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Newcomb says the State Department “did not tell the truth” about Article 3 in its 15-page white paper issued December 16, 2010. “In its statement, the State Department said it was ‘pleased to support the Declaration’s call to promote the development of a new and distinct international concept of self-determination specific to indigenous Peoples. (emphasis added)

“The State Department expanded on this falsehood by saying that the ‘Declaration’s call is to promote the development of a concept of self-determination for Indigenous Peoples that is different from the existing right of self-determination in international law.” This is patently and blatantly false! This was never the understanding of the process that led to the adoption of Article 3 and its relationship to the international human right of self-determination found in the International Human Rights Covenants. By its statements of bad faith—statements it has not disavowed in the past year—the United States destroyed the very basis for implementing the key provision in the UN Declaration that Indigenous Peoples were working toward in their efforts to create positive reforms in the area of Indigenous Peoples’ human rights. This needs to be rectified as a first step in talking meaningfully about ‘implementing’ the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

Michael Leroy Oberg, Professor of History Co-coordinator of Native American Studies at the State University of New York, Geneseo, and author of Native America: A History, said Obama’s “lending of support” to the Declaration was a “nice gesture,” but he doesn’t think it will turn out to be more than that. The problems are both in the executive branch and the judiciary, Oberg said. “The meaning of ‘self-determination’ in the Declaration, is much more literal than that which has developed in the United States over the past half-century, and much less constrained by some of the long-standing and, I would argue, colonial assumptions built into American Indian policy.”
Comment:  So the UN declaration inspired some Indians to protest? And its language served as a model for another declaration? I don't consider those major accomplishments. A major accomplishment would be overturning a piece of legislation, court ruling, or government policy because it violated UNDRIP.

On the bright side, at least Obama hasn't given the US back to the Indians. The gap between what conservative lunatics expected and what actually happened is as wide as I thought it would be.

For more on the UN declaration, see Red Corn Testifies at Senate Hearing and Colbert Satirizes UN Declaration Scare.

Below:  "The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was used successfully this year as the basis for protecting what is left of the ancient ceremonial and burial site Sogorea Te, located at Glen Cove, in Vallejo, California. Indigenous Peoples from the area participated in a 109-day encampment on the site from April until July."

June 12, 2011

Red Corn testifies at Senate hearing

US Senate Committee holds controversial hearing on UN Indigenous Declaration

By Brenda NorrellAn excellent video proclaiming that Geronimo was not killed in Pakistan was shown during the hearing. Referring to the code-name Geronimo used during the Osama bin Laden attack, the film included faces from throughout Indian country, including Ponca Casey Camp, Navajos and others. It was produced by filmmaker Ryan Red Corn, Osage from Oklahoma, and Dallas Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environmental Network.

During his testimony, Red Corn described how Indian women are being pressured to become sterilized. Describing land jurisdictions and crime which makes lives difficult, Red Corn said he wants to live during an era of human rights. He also described how film and media are increasingly beneficial to American Indians.

Red Corn offered hope for implementation of the Declaration. "I would like to see teeth put into it, so I can feel the effects of it at home."

Sen. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, chair of the Senate Committee, began the hearing, with a reference to Red Corn’s film “Smiling Indians" and discussed images which portray Indigenous Peoples. “As Native people it is important to tell our own stories." He spoke of Indigenous rights and “holding ourselves and the world accountable.”


Comment:  I reported on the Smiling Indians video before. The Geronimo video is a follow-up of sorts. It uses the same model of Indians looking into the camera to convey their humanity.

I'm not sure the speakers at the hearing said anything new. Anything that thousands of activists haven't said many times. What's interesting to me here is how Red Corn got to this place. He produced a couple of videos...they were talked about and shared throughout Indian country...and suddenly he's invited to speak before the Senate. It's a powerful testimony to the power of new media.

For more on the subject, see Curtis Photos vs. Smiling Indians and "Geronimo" Codename Story Goes International.

April 01, 2011

Happy April Fools' Day 2011!

News flash: President Obama announces that from now on, every US policy regarding Native Americans must follow the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

News flash: Dan Snyder has an epiphany that "Redskins" is akin to a Jewish slur, will change his football team's name.

Poll results: Indians admit sovereignty, reservations, and ceremonies are "kind of lame," wish they could be middle-class whites like on TV.

News flash: Conservatives announce it's time to stop playing games with veiled threats and codewords. Henceforth, terminating Indian tribes will be an official part of their anti-government agenda.

News flash: In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court said it had misinterpreted federal Indian law for the last 30 years. "We didn't realize treaties were the supreme law of the land," said a chastised John Roberts.

Ha ha ha...April Fools!

March 09, 2011

Native examples of Intangible Cultural Heritage

Forty-six new elements added to Representative List of the Intangible Cultural HeritageThe Aalst Carnival in Belgium, the Peking Opera, Spanish Flamenco, the Wayuu normative system in Colombia, the traditional skills of carpet weaving in Kashan in Iran, and falconry, presented by 11 countries, are among the 46 elements inscribed today on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. A UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee, chaired by Jacob Ole Miaron from Kenya and meeting in Nairobi until 19 November, examined and inscribed 46 of the 47 nominations presented.The long list of "elements" includes:Colombia--The Wayuu normative system, applied by the Pütchipü’üi (palabrero): The Wayuu community inhabits the Guajira Peninsula straddling Colombia and Venezuela. Its legislative system comprises a body of principles, procedures and rites that govern the social and spiritual conduct of the community.

Mexico--Pirekua, traditional song of the P’urhépecha: Pirekua is a traditional music of the indigenous P’urhépecha communities of the State of Michoacán, Mexico, sung by both men and women. Its diverse mix of styles draws on African, European and indigenous American origins, with regional variations identified in 30 of the 165 P’urhépecha communities.

Mexico--Traditional Mexican cuisine--ancestral, ongoing community culture, the Michoacán paradigm: Traditional Mexican cuisine is a comprehensive cultural model comprising farming, ritual practices, age-old skills, culinary techniques and ancestral community customs and manners.

Peru--Huaconada, ritual dance of Mito: Huaconada is a ritual dance performed in the village of Mito in the province of Concepción in the central Peruvian Andes. Every year, on the first three days of January, masked men known as huacones perform a choreographed series of dances in the centre of the town.

Peru--The scissors dance: The scissors dance is performed by inhabitants of Quechua villages and communities in the south-central Andes of Peru, and now in urban settings. This competitive ritual dance is performed during dry months coinciding with the main phases of the agricultural calendar.
Comment:  Nothing from the United States or Canada? What's up with that? Is this a case of the UN's bias against the US and its neighbor? Has UNESCO already added hundreds of practices from these countries' indigenous cultures? With 5% of the world's population, the US and Canada should've had a couple of items on the list.

Looking at the Intangible Cultural Heritage website, it appears the US and Canada aren't members of this group. That may explain why none of their practices made it onto the list. The next question is why they aren't members of this seemingly well-meaning group.

Australia and New Zealand aren't members either. I wonder if this has something to do with these four countries' refusal to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The US still hasn't signed it, I believe; the Obama administration merely agreed to "lend support" to it.

January 04, 2011

Colbert satirizes UN declaration scare

Stephen Colbert exposes Obama's latest takeover plan on the Comedy Channel's Colbert Report, 1/4/11:


Comment:  I thought this bit was cute but also stereotypical at the end. It was a good subject to satirize, but in Colbert's final speech, it wasn't clear who or what he was satirizing.

A comment on Facebook:He is playing the part of a Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly. That is the point of his character. He is the modern-day Archie Bunker.Yes, we understand that. The question is whether Colbert is satirizing white men or Indians at the end. I'd say he crossed the line from one to the other.

True, it's similar to an Archie Bunker rant. But Mike Stivic or someone usually contradicted Archie's racist remarks and made him look stupid. Nothing like that happened to punctuate Colbert's remarks, which makes them a problem.

Colbert's bit really annoyed someone else:Shame on Comedy Central for choosing to take that story in the direction they did. I know that they are in the business of being funny and making light of serious topics--but the shame of it is that what could and should have been an opportunity to finally get the topic of the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights in front of the general public and mass of uninformed Americans was turned into a farce---and worse, a farce that went right into the usual stereotyping and racism. Me heapum pissed off.Yeah, how are audiences supposed to take Colbert's Tonto talk? Is he talking like an ignorant Indian? Or like an ignorant white man's impression of an ignorant Indian?

Since he's supposedly directing his comments at Indians, the correct answer is the former, or both. That is, he's talking in a style intended to communicate successfully with Indians. If he's portraying himself as ignorant, he's also portraying Indians as ignorant. That's stereotypical.

If Sherman Alexie or someone came on and mocked Colbert's "ignorance" the way the Jeffersons used to mock Archie, that would be different. But nothing like that happened. Nothing told viewers that Indians are really educated and speak perfect English like everyone else.

In short, the bit was a nice try, but it failed in the end. Better luck next time, Comedy Central.

For more on the UN Declaration, see Modoc Nation Rips UN Declaration and Countdown Covers UN Declaration Scare. For more on how humor and satire work, see The Dudesons, Polish Jokes, and Minstrel Shows and Okay to Stereotype in "Satires"?

January 01, 2011

Modoc Nation rips UN declaration

Recently conservatives have had fun concocting a new racist smear campaign against Obama and liberals have had fun mocking them. Now let's return to the actual UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and see how harmless it really is. Here's part of a press release from the Modoc Nation:

State Department White Paper Contradicts Obama’s Statements at Tribal Nations Conference

Shows U.S. Endorsement of UNDRIP Really Means Politics and Business as UsualU.S. State Department position: UNDRIP unnecessary to protect rights of Native Americans

The white paper issued by the State Department fleshing out the details of the U.S. endorsement of UNDRIP is really quite disappointing. Largely a laundry list of everything the federal government has done for the indigenous people of this country over the last two years, its primary message can be boiled down to: “We’re already doing all these wonderful things to help out the native peoples that live in our country, so U.S. endorsement of UNDRIP is unnecessary. But since we want to continue in our role as the leader of the free world, and the United States always stands up for what is right, we’ll go ahead and endorse it anyway.” This conclusion is all but confirmed when one reads the fine print of the article and finds that the United States government’s application and implementation of UNDRIP will be limited largely to already existing federally recognized tribes and be carried out within the framework of existing US and state law. In other words, even though the United States is “endorsing” UNDRIP, it sees no need to alter any of its laws or policies pertaining to the indigenous peoples within its national boundaries and jurisdiction. In fact, the State Department says the United States should serve as a “model” to the rest of the world in this regard.
And:US endorsement ignores UNDRIP’s obligation of nation-states to honor their treaties with indigenous peoples

Article 37

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded with States or their successors and to have States honour and respect such treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.

2. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as diminishing or eliminating the rights of indigenous peoples contained in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.


Incredibly, this critical issue is not even discussed in the State Department’s white paper. In fact the word “treaties” appears only twice, both times in the same paragraph, in which the State Department lauds the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for consulting with “Northwest treaty tribes” regarding the designation of critical habitat and with four other unnamed tribes regarding their “ocean treaty fishing rights for groundfish in conjunction with the Pacific Fishery Management Council process.” While we all are grateful for the rare occasions in which the U.S. government “consults” with us, it is laughable that the Obama Administration has announced its “support” of UNDRIP without even addressing the issue of honoring treaties, one of the bedrock elements of UNDRIP. Apparently, this Administration, like its predecessors, continues to view treaties with native nations, tribes and bands as documents that have no real force of law and, therefore, are subject to being breached or abrogated whenever it is convenient for the U.S. government to do so. In fact, the Supreme Court enshrined this practice and made it “legal” when it invented by interpretation the “plenary powers of Congress” doctrine (see Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 23. S. Ct. 216, 47 L. Ed. 299 (1903)). So, we now see that this Administration plans to make no change with respect to its recognition, observance or enforcement of treaties it has struck with indigenous peoples. Rather than come right out and say that, however, the State Department has just ignored the issue entirely.
Comment:  As Wikipedia notes about the Modoc:The Modoc are a Native American people who originally lived in the area which is now northeastern California and central Southern Oregon. They are currently divided between Oregon and Oklahoma. The latter are a federally recognized tribe, the Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma. The Oregon Modoc are enrolled in the federally recognized Klamath Tribes.So the Modoc Nation is an unrecognized tribe, which is why it spends time bemoaning the administration's focus on recognized tribes. But still, this is a great critique.

I think the second point is the telling one. How do you "endorse" or "support" indigenous rights without explicitly stating you'll honor the treaties you signed?

That's why I have to shake my head at those who think this "aspirational" document will move Natives closer to a just world. One, it has zero legal force; it's not binding on the US, future administrations, or Obama himself. Two, the white paper offers no significant discussions of tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, or government-to-government relations. So tribes are "aspiring" to nothing except the status quo.

For more on the subject, see UN Declaration = Status Quo and What Supporting the UN Declaration Means.

December 31, 2010

Countdown covers UN declaration scare



A columnist describes the Obama Hate Machine:

Can POTUS Beat Back the Obama Hate Machine in 2011?

By David CornIn the epilogue to the new paperback version of his book on President Obama, "The Promise," Jonathan Alter notes that one of the president's major challenges for 2012 will be combating the "Obama Hate Machine." That's an appropriate name for the right-wing attack network that will throw any charge it can concoct--regardless of the facts--at the president. Alter has a point, but this task is a never-ending, 24/7 job that is unconnected to Obama's re-election campaign. It is crucial to Obama's overall mission of governing the nation well.

The OHM--led by a wide-ranging collection of conservative media outfits, right-wing bloggers, and GOP partisans--has already effectively undermined Obama's presidency by propagating lies about his administration's major accomplishments. It tarred Obama's health care reform initiative by falsely claiming it would establish "death panels." It pushed the falsehood that his $787 stimulus package created no new jobs. (The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that legislation created or saved up to 3.5 million jobs.) And don't forget the birthers, who are still yapping that Obama wasn't born in the United States. One recent poll found that 23 percent of Americans believe this (and 20 percent said they didn't know).
And how it's using the UN declaration to tar and feather the president:[T]he Obama-giving-land-back-to-the-Indians tall tale has been spreading within conservative circles. It's another sign that the OHM will use any cockamamie charge it can unearth or generate to undercut Obama. Facts don't matter. What counts is keeping the fire hose turned on and aimed at the fellow in the White House. If the born-in-Kenya-secret-Muslim-socialist thing doesn't pan out, there's always the disarm-American-and-go-native option. Who knows what this crazy guy is going to do next? As Special Guests said in that e-mail, "Elect a radical President, expect radical policy." Like backing a treaty approved by James Baker or cutting a compromise with Republicans that extends the Bush tax cut bonuses for the rich. Real radical.

The Obama Hate Machine is never slowed by the absurdities it manufactures. It just keeps spewing crap. The accusations don't have to be proved. The game plan is obvious: Even if he sidesteps the individual charges, Obama will somehow be dirtied by the ceaseless flow of mud. Meanwhile, the OHM professionals will reap profits, as they feed the irrational paranoia of their believe-anything anti-Obama audience.
Comment:  For more on the UN declaration, see Liberals Mock UN Declaration Scare and Obama's UN "Coup" Is "Chilling." For more on hating Obama, see Any Excuse to Hate Obama and Hate Abounds in "Post-Racial" America.

December 30, 2010

Liberals mock UN declaration scare

The liberal media is starting to notice the right-wing freak-out over the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Here are some of their reactions:

Shocker:  Obama to give America back to IndiansCongratulations, 2010, for fitting in one more completely insane made-up right-wing scandal: Barack Obama is going to give Manhattan back to the Indians! Also the U.N. will help, because grrrr, the U.N.!The new "birtherism":  Obama ceding America back to Native AmericansThis is only slightly less kooky than good ol' Colorado governor candidate Dan Maes' great UN-taking-over-American-cities-with-bicycles conspiracy theory, but mark my words, it's going to get traction. Pretty soon we're going to be seeing it on Beck and then Limbaugh and before you know it, Michele Bachmann will be introducing resolutions on the House floor about it.Well I for One Welcome Our New Tribal OverlordsBonus for the wingers, an all-new (all old) group of people to hate in Native Americans. Combine the specter of "Oh noes, reparations!" with the fever dreams of "He's not really one of us," add a layer of "One World UN Gubment!" and stir in a big sticky glob of good ol' racism and you get "Obama is gonna give Manhattan back to them!"When Obama Gives NYC to Indians, Will They Plow Streets?Problematically, the Lenni Lenapes in New Jersey and Pennsylvania are not officially recognized as tribes by the federal government. But once Obama establishes a Muslim caliphate in Washington, that will hardly matter.Native Americans:  'Our New Overlords'

Comment:  These bloggers have summed up the problem succinctly. This nascent movement is the new birtherism. It gives right-wingers another group to hate, another way to smear Obama as a Muslim Kenyan anti-American traitor. It's the umpteenth conservative attempt to gain votes by lying and fearmongering. It's racist.

For more on the UN declaration, see Obama's UN "Coup" Is "Chilling" and Farah Wants Manhattan Back. For more on hating Obama, see Any Excuse to Hate Obama and Hate Abounds in "Post-Racial" America.

Below:  Obama embraces his tribal side as he prepares to give America to the world's "mud people"--i.e., people like himself.

December 28, 2010

Obama's UN "coup" is "chilling"

The right-wing craziness continues. Now the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review takes up the cudgel against Obama:

Shaky groundPresident Obama reaffirms his intolerable belief in all things Turtle Bay by agreeing to sign the United Nations' Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This "coup" supported by representatives from more than 300 American Indian tribes extends the presumptions of those outside the U.S. government on what plainly is America's own business. Oh, it's all "nonbinding," the State Department assures. But Mr. Obama is quick to point out that more important than words are actions.

The ramifications of which are chilling.

This U.N. declaration--which doesn't define exactly what's meant by "indigenous peoples"--supports any tribal claims on lands occupied centuries ago. A representative of the Mohawk Nation of Kahnawake in Canada tells The Washington Times that doesn't mean a land grab. But reparations? Well, that's a different matter.
Comment:  The phrase you're looking for is "Turtle Island," not "Turtle Bay," idiots.

Consider all the insinuations in this editorial. Obama shares beliefs with "Turtle Bay"--meaning his beliefs are foreign and un-American. The signing is a "coup"--meaning an attack on the US and its values. Actions count more than words--meaning Obama the Kenyan tribesman may try to circumvent the Constitution. The ramifications are "chilling"--meaning Obama threatens American lives and liberty. "Indigenous peoples" is undefined--meaning every minority may try to take what rightly belongs to white Christian Americans. "Reparations"--meaning unjustified handouts and welfare payments to undeserving brown-skins.

There's no serious attempt to represent the UN declaration and its ramifications accurately. It's all veiled racism and xenophobia against Obama and his fellow minorities. The message is: Get ready, real (white) Americans, because the brown-skins are coming to take back what you took from them.

Or as Sarah Palin put it: "Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!" If necessary, you may have to shoot and kill the savage subhumans--blacks, Latinos, Muslims, Indians, et al.--who are out to get you.

For more on the UN declaration, see Farah Wants Manhattan Back and Right Fright Over UN Declaration. For more conservative attacks on minorities, see Racist Rhetoric Fuels Hate Crimes and Palin:  Racism Is a Ploy.

Below:  What supporting the UN declaration means to conservatives.

December 27, 2010

Farah wants Manhattan back

The conservative carping over the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is starting to gain attention in the mainstream media. A mainstream blog, at least. In other words, it's starting to become a meme:

Latest Right-Wing Freak-Out:  Obama Wants To Give Manhattan Back To Native Americans

By Jillian RayfieldThe good news is that the right-wing isn't talking about President Obama being a secret Muslim right now. The bad news is that they're now concerned that he's going to use his honorary status as a Crow Tribe Indian to return the United States to Native Americans.The article summarizes the previous criticism:Obama was adopted as an honorary member of the Crow tribe during the 2008 campaign, and was even given the name "One who helps people throughout the land." Most of the outrage lobbed at the President in the wake of the announcement, naturally, references that fact.

Last week, the "Director of Issues Analysis" for the Christian conservative American Family Association, Bryan Fischer, wrote a blog post claiming that "President Obama wants to give the entire land mass of the United States of America back to the Indians. He wants Indian tribes to be our new overlords."

"Perhaps he figures that, as an adopted Crow Indian, he will be the new chief over this revived Indian empire," Fischer wrote. "But for the other 312 million of us, I think we'll settle for our constitutional 'We the people' form of government, thank you very much."

Yesterday, the right-wing blog World Net Daily took it a step further in a post called "Obama to give Manhattan back to Native Americans? President believes nation can spare some sovereignty." The article describes how "President Obama is voicing support for a U.N. resolution that could accomplish something as radical as relinquishing some U.S. sovereignty and opening a path for the return of ancient tribal lands to American Indians, including even parts of Manhattan."

The article continues: "Obama's interest is personal. He noted during the 2008 presidential campaign he was officially adopted by the Crow Nation, an Indian tribe in Montana, and he was given an Indian name."
Finally, the article refers to a new example of the right-wing freak-out:

I'll take Manhattan

By Joseph FarahMaybe you missed it, but Obama has endorsed a United Nations resolution declaring the rights of indigenous people that could mean large swaths of the U.S. will be returned to native Americans like me.

I'm hereby staking my claim to Manhattan.

Maybe you didn't know I have native American blood coursing through my veins. I'm more well-known for my Lebanese and Syrian ancestry. But, truth be told, I have a fair amount of Indian heritage on my mother's side. So this proposed redistribution of wealth is welcome news for me.

Where do I apply? I want to return wampum for Manhattan.
Comment:  Note how Farah doesn't capitalize "native." Like other conservatives, he doesn't want to acknowledge the Natives' claims of being here first.

In the first paragraph, Rayfield correctly links this attempt to smear Obama to previous attempts to link him to Muslims, Kenyans, terrorists, and other "tribal" people. Having failed to prove Obama is a Muslim or a Kenyan, they're now claiming he's joined another group of brown-skins who don't share America's values. Indians have refused every "opportunity" to assimilate and become white Christian Americans, so they're suspect by definition.

That conservatives keep pointing out Obama's tribal adoption isn't a coincidence. Rather, it's a key part of their smear tactics. They're telling people he'll put his "tribal" identity ahead of his national identity. Because to "those (brown-skinned) people," blood is thicker than water.

Clearly conservatives plan to keep smearing Obama until they replace him with the usual white Christian stooge of the military-industrial complex. And these Nazi-style Big Lies are working with the misinformed boobs who watch Fox News. These idiots are much more likely to believe Obama is a Muslim and a foreigner than the average American.

Farah the Indian wannabe

Anyway, Farah gets a Stereotype of the Month entry for his bogus claim that having some Indian blood makes him an Indian. It doesn't. He's not a member of a federally recognized tribe, which is a political entity, not a biological one. He could be a full-blooded Indian and he wouldn't be eligible to get land back.

Obviously he doesn't meet the other criteria for being an actual Indian. And he doesn't let on that his claim is false and spurious. Ignorant readers will assume that fake "Indians" like him will come out of the woodwork to claim places like Manhattan.

For more on the UN declaration, see Right Fright Over UN Declaration and Conservatives Criticize UN Declaration. For more attempts to smear Obama, see Limbaugh Lies About Thanksgiving and Obama Attacked Over Sitting Bull.

December 26, 2010

Limited gushing at tribal summit

Tribal leaders pushed Obama for proactive agenda

By Rob CapricciosoGushing was kept to a limit this year, although tribal leaders were more than willing to applaud for positive steps they think the administration has made, including settling the Cobell and Keepseagle cases, signing the Tribal Law and Order Act, and reauthorizing the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

Their applause was especially loud when Obama told them his intention to have the U.S. begin supporting the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, although many immediately began wondering what that would mean in terms of specific policy dealings and changes to federal-tribal relations.

They were also more than willing to be critical. In break-out sessions, some asked why the administration hadn’t done more to get Congress to pass a fix to the Supreme Court’s 2009 Carcieri decision, which limited Interior’s ability to take land into trust for tribes. Administration officials insisted they pushed hard on that matter, and promised to continue to do so–with tribal leaders promising to keep up the pressure.

Seneca Nation President Robert Odawi Porter bluntly told Obama in a policy paper that he believed the president “has not put forward a strategic plan” to achieve goals to making tribal nations “full partners in America’s economy”–words Obama himself had used at his first tribal nations summit.

“Instead, he has set forth 26 proposed action items on multiple subjects that reflect a scattershot approach that undermines his commitment to any meaningful or lasting change,” the paper said.

Porter added in an interview that the Obama administration should be praised for the accomplishments it has made on Indian issues, but he cautioned that too much of the perceived progress has been focused on settling past injustices, like the Cobell case, rather than moving forward with proactive, visionary plans.

Porter said that if the president fails to embrace an aggressive Indian country legislative agenda, he runs the risk of focusing solely on administrative policy changes and legislative appropriation that “only promotes cosmetic changes to the status quo.”

In other words, lasting change will not be made.
Comment:  Excellent points. This article mirrors what I've been saying. Settling old cases and increasing program funding is nice, but it doesn't change the fundamental relationship between the tribes and the government. Adhering to the UN declaration might do that, but the declaration is non-binding and few think it will cause a significant shift.

Obama is doing better than previous presidents. But his accomplishments may be closer to the minimum than the maximum tribes expect. We're still waiting for "proactive, visionary plans" that go beyond the clichés and buzzwords.

For more on the subject, see US Praises Itself on Native Rights and How to Consult with 564 Tribes.

Right fright over UN declaration

WND Exclusive THIS LAND WAS YOUR LAND

Obama to give Manhattan back to Native Americans?
President believes nation can spare some sovereignty

By Eugene J. Koprowski
President Obama is voicing support for a U.N. resolution that could accomplish something as radical as relinquishing some U.S. sovereignty and opening a path for the return of ancient tribal lands to American Indians, including even parts of Manhattan.

The issue is causing alarm among legal experts.

In recent remarks at the White House during a "tribal nations conference," Obama endorsed the "United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People," which includes a sweeping declaration that "indigenous peoples have a right to lands and resources they traditionally occupied or otherwise used" but that later were acquired by occupying forces.
And:The international agreement is very serious business, one legal expert tells WND, and could cause problems for the U.S. long after Obama is gone from the White House, if made part of U.S. law.

"One can anticipate that some tribes will seek to use this resolution to re-litigate centuries-old land disputes that courts have already rejected," said Frank at the Manhattan Institute.
Comment:  The radical-right World Net Daily joins the growing conservative drumbeat against the UN declaration. I suspect it's only a matter of time until this breaks into the Limbaugh/Beck/talk-radio echo chamber.

These people aren't raising legitimate concerns. They're couching their complaints in imaginary terms: if the UN declaration becomes US law, if activist judges overturn 200 years of precedents. In reality, there are probably thousands of UN declarations and international treaties that conflict with US law...and we ignore them all. We'll ignore this UN declaration the same way.

And we didn't sign or endorse the UN declaration as a nation. All Obama did was "lend his support" to it. It's not official US policy and future US governments will be free to ignore it.

In short, conservatives are using the UN declaration as the umpteenth way to bash Obama as a Luo tribesman--as a foreign/socialist/Kenyan/one worlder. As with Obama's birth certificate and "death panels," they don't care about the merits of the issue. All they want to do is demonize the first black president.

For more on the subject, see Conservatives Criticize UN Declaration and Obama Will Give US to Indians?

December 25, 2010

Conservatives criticize UN declaration

I knew conservatives wouldn't like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Now they're starting to come out of the woodwork.

Obama's Reversal on 'Indigenous Peoples' Rights Stirs Concern Over Legal Claims

By Judson BergerJohn Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the "abstract" document--which in several sections discusses the "right to redress"--will probably be used to fuel new legal claims. And he predicted the issue would complicate those cases more than it would help either side actually resolve them.

"It's a kind of feel-good document that has so many unclear phrases in it that nobody's really sure what it means when you agree to it," Bolton told FoxNews.com. "It's wrong and potentially dangerous to sign onto a document that you don't fully understand the implications of."
And:Bolton said plaintiffs will surely try to use this document in court, though it's not supposed to carry the weight of law.

"Hopefully most judges will say it's not binding," he said. "But there are enough judges who couldn't care less about strictly applying the law."
Yes, and many of those judges are conservative activists like the ones who dominate the Supreme Court.

More carping conservatives:Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who has been particularly critical of the Pigford claims process, expressed concern about the potential implications of the U.N. document on indigenous peoples. He said he's curious what "special rights" the document could convey.

Carl Horowitz, a project manager with the National Legal and Policy Center who follows discrimination cases against the federal government, used the r-word--reparations--to describe those implications.

"It reflects a global egalitarianism," he said. "It's a shakedown."
Comment:  "Global egalitarianism" is the opposite of the status quo, I presume: a plutocracy maintained by free-market fundamentalists to enrich themselves and their cronies.

I expect Limbaugh, Beck, et al. to latch onto this issue eventually. I imagine they haven't yet because they haven't heard about the declaration yet.

For more on the subject, see UN Declaration "Could Wreak Havoc" and UN Declaration = Status Quo.

December 24, 2010

UN declaration "could wreak havoc"

The Rights of Indigenous Peoples

By Shoshena BryenApplied to American Indian tribes, before which the president made his announcement, this may take the form of reparations and mineral rights. The Executive Director of the Indian Law Resource Center said, "International human rights law now recognizes...rights of self-determination, property and culture." It is unlikely to involve having Indian tribes secede from the Union.

But applied to Palestinians and Kurds, not to mention minorities from Azeris in Iran to Uighurs in China to Armenians, Hmong tribesmen and Guatemalan Indians, it could wreak havoc.

The Kurds form a tribal/national grouping that spans Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria. They are unquestionably an "indigenous people" with a distinct language and culture. Is the United States prepared to support border changes to allow them the right of self-determination? American lives were expended in the quest for a unitary Iraq, and we supported Turkey's determination not to allow Kurds to secede during the PKK war. But how can we deny the Kurds while supporting a Palestinian "right to self determination"?
Comment:  Bryen is grossly overestimating the UN declaration's effect. As I said to someone, I'll doubt it'll affect a single decision in Congress or the courts.

The answer to Bryen's question about the Kurds is: We can't deny the Kurds, morally speaking. They, the Palestinians, and the other indigenous groups all deserve more freedom.

What kind of freedom? At a minimum they should have a quasi-sovereign status like America's Indian nations. Even better would be to have quasi-independent states with the option to leave the country by a popular vote. Canada has done this with Quebec and it hasn't destroyed the country.

For more on Palestinians, see No Right of Return for Palestinians, Indians? and Palestinians = Na'vi. For more on the UN declaration, see UN Declaration = Status Quo and Obama Will Give US to Indians?!

December 23, 2010

UN declaration = status quo

No real change in US position on Declaration

By Steven NewcombSpecifically, Article 1 of those two human rights Covenants reads: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Article 3 of the Declaration reads: “All Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” They are in perfect alignment.

However, in 2007, the United States claimed that the collective rights expressed in the Declaration (e.g., Article 3) are not the same as Article 1 rights expressed in the Human Rights Covenants in international law. The U.S. also claimed that the U.N. Working Group had been given a “mandate,” specifically, “to articulate a new concept, i.e., self-government within the nation-state.” Yet, the U.S. government provided no document to support this claim, nor could it because the Working Group was never given such a mandate.
And:The U.S. position seems well designed to maintain the status quo of federal Indian law and policy. The United States seems determined to maintain the bedrock categories and concepts found within the symbolic universe of U.S. law and policy constructed by the United States for the reduction, control and containment of originally free and independent Indian nations.

“Christian discovery,” “conquest,” and the idea of “diminished” Indian sovereignty are some of the foundational categories of the status quo, being actively used by the U.S. court to the detriment of Indian nations. The Declaration does not do away with a dominating framework that is in violation of our inherent sacred birth rights and our fundamental human rights as indigenous nations and peoples.
Tribal recognition

By Marc DadiganWhile Obama endorsed the document (the U.S. is one of the last U.N. member states to do so), he also endorsed the government’s right to apply it only to federally recognized tribes.

“For the United States, the Declaration’s concept of self-determination is consistent with the United States’ existing recognition of, and relationship with, federally recognized tribes . . .” the paper says.

The problem here is that the system of federal tribal acknowledgment is incredibly inefficient and plagued with corruption, politics and an utter lack of transparency. I doubt there are any experts on this issue who would agree the federal recognition process would jive with the U.N.'s idea of self-determination.

So to paraphrase, the Obama administration says the U.S. government will respect the rights of this country’s indigenous people, but the government maintains the ability to decide who’s indigenous.

And it’s been well documented that the government is very bad at making these decisions.
Obama's so-called endorsement

Another of my discussions of the UN declaration:

Help me out, legal scholars. Obama says the US will "lend its support" to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. What makes this anything other than his personal, temporary, and reversible position? What happens if the next president says the US doesn't support the UN declaration?Nothing, legally speaking. The disapproval of the international community is the only consequence.That's why I want more: another UN vote, an executive order, a signing ceremony, or something. Something other than Obama's arbitrary wish or hope that the US will follow the declaration.

Obama's personal feelings about "aspiring" to the declaration don't mean anything to me. They don't have the force of law or even the illusion of it. In the long term, they're irrelevant.

Given the right-wing cheering of Bush's preemptive war and violation of the Geneva Conventions, who thinks a conservative president will ever bow to world opinion on indigenous rights? Not me.Even if we "signed" it, the consequences would be no different.Probably so, but I'd like to make it as official and irrevocable as possible. It seems strange to beg the US to sign it and then be satisfied when Obama merely "lends his support."I think it will be up to the tribes to make that happen. They should invoke it frequently; do annual reviews of compliance; analyze existing US laws for conformity to Declaration, etc. If we take it seriously, others will, too. May take a while, though.For more on the subject, see Obama Will Give US to Indians?! and US May Acknowledge Indians' Existence.