Commentary on Ward Churchill Reinstatement

From Angelique EagleWoman (posted with her permission):

Ward Churchill has hurt Native American communities, Native American academics and Native American education.  He has claimed to be someone he is not and used that as a platform to fuel his career.  As Native American people, we have the right to say who is a member of our Tribes, our governments, our organizations and our peoples.  He is not, has not been and the most he can claim is that in an act of generosity at one point the United Kootewah Band of Cherokee gave him an award which we call “honorary membership.”  An award that he has used in completely
unexpected and unprecedented ways to claim that he speaks on behalf of the Native American community as a Native American intellectual.

There is no doubt that his 9/11 article spurred on the investigation in Colorado.  However, to many in the Native community this day was a long sought after day.  Often when we raise concerns over those using our identity falsely (a very common phenomenon in this country by non-Indians), we are ignored.  This is evidenced by all those who
contacted CU and complained that Ward Churchill should be investigated prior to the 9/11 speech.

If you choose to view this as only an “academic freedom” issue, do so knowing that you are ignoring Native Americans in the process.  That you would be turning a blind eye to our on-going struggle to be represented in the academy, to our on-going struggle that state educational institutions follow tribal membership standards for counting and reporting Native Americans, to our on-going struggle to represent ourselves accurately in historical respects, political respects and as academics.  His reinstatement would be a further slap in the face to the Native community showing that our concerns are still not legitimized in our own homelands.

Pidamayaye,

Angelique EagleWoman

Barrett v. United States — Tribal Trust Funds Paid to Subject to Federal Income Tax

Here is the opinion from the Tenth Circuit. The lower court materials are here. An excerpt:

John A. Barrett, Jr. (“Barrett”) filed suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) against the United States seeking refund of the federal income taxes, penalties, and interest paid by him pursuant to an Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) assessment for the tax year ending December 31, 2001. Barrett timely appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court’s ruling that the salary paid to Barrett as chairman of the Citizen Potawatomi Tribe (the “Tribe”) was not exempt from federal income tax. We also affirm the district court’s ruling on the accuracy-related penalty.

Tenth Circuit briefs are here:

barrett-appellant-brief

usa-appellee-brief

Indian Country Today: Seeking justice, Latin indigenous leaders come to testify

Originally printed at http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/home/content/42323512.html

WASHINGTON – Indigenous leaders from four Latin American countries came to Washington D.C. last month to assert that their respective governments are criminalizing their right to protest, preventing them from seeking justice.

In what they called an Indigenous Diplomatic Mission, representatives from Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Chile presented testimony and documented evidence at the 134 period of sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. With the assistance of American co-petitioners Indian Law Resource Center, they met with members of Congress, representatives of the Obama administration and the United Nations.

The outreach is part of a related movement toward the passage of an American Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People.

But the main focus for the members of the Andean Coordinating Committee of Indigenous Organizations was getting their message to the IACHR and the international community. They say their protests are being criminalized and their people marginalized, even killed.

“We came here because we are defending our mother, Pachamama” said Miguel Palacin Quispe, chair of the CAOI and president of the National Confederation of Peruvian Communities Affected by Mining at hearings March 20.

“We are the victims of this criminalization and persecution. . for the thousands of instances of human rights violations in our territories we have requested this hearing,” Palacin Quispe said in his testimony before the IACHR, which acts as a consultative body to the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

The Peruvian leader told commissioners about problems with the “extractive model” of business in Peru that has oil and other large companies engaging in “irrational exploitation,” causing “enormous damage and pollution” to indigenous territories.

“These new neighbors, the multinationals, have located their battles in our territories, and they have put us in a position where we have to defend ourselves.”

One of the Peruvian cases he brought before the commission was that of 29 indigenous activists who, after requesting a dialogue with mining company and government representatives who came to their territory without their consultation, were seized, held hostage and then tortured by the Peruvian National Police for three days in July of 2005.

For the most part, his presentation focused on more recent events.

“It is now known,” Palacin Quispe stated, “that 18 Colombian ethnicities are in danger of extinction and for them we mobilize, for them we protest and there is no mechanism for dealing with this. . we have become the objects of assassination, torture and imprisonment.”

“In many areas, they are preventing us from our constitutional right to mobilize and protest; and the strategy of the state is now to change laws. . so they criminalize dissidence, and in Chile, against the Mapuche, they use the anti-terrorist law. They also seek to privatize public land and along with this they are increasing the military presence in our territories.”

For Juan Edgardo Pai, an Awa leader from Colombia and one of the presenters at the hearing, the issue of militarization is very important.

“The militarization of our territory has brought terrible problems,” Pai stated in a phone interview with Indian Country Today after his testimony at the commission. He referred to the recent massacre of 27 Awa by the FARC and to other similar situations. “When there are armed conflicts there are many people displaced and many Awa have been killed by their anti-personnel mines.

“Our people are still trapped by some of those mines. The fumigations have also caused death; many of our children have been killed by the poisoning.”

Pai said the Colombian government has done nothing to help the displaced and suffering members of his community. He pointed to the recent effort to find some of the victims of the latest massacre as an example of Awa frustration with the government.

“I came here not only because of the massacre,” Pai recounted, “but for the politics of [Colombian President] Uribe who doesn’t respond to our needs and we have seen so many violations of our rights. . we told them about the paramilitaries threatening us also and they have done nothing.

“We have been forgotten by the Colombian government.”

While testimony at the hearings was tragic, there were some positive results to the visit, according to ILRC attorney Leonardo Crippa. He asserted that IACHR Commissioner Victor Abramovich, special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, was “quite interested in following up on the testimony. … and for a visit by him to Colombia along with the UN Special Rapporteur.”

“Another request we felt would get follow up was on our request for the commission to do a comparative analysis of the 11 Peruvian decrees adopted by the Peruvian government in 2007, known as the Forest Laws, with the American Convention on Human Rights to determine if this domestic legislation is in accordance with the international standards concerning human rights.”

Crippa pointed out that these same laws are being used to imprison indigenous activists who have lead protests in Peru and that issue, along with one of the situations in Colombia, are reasons that there should be a separate American Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People.

“This regional declaration is needed to reflect the regional particularities of the region, especially those ones that were not reflected in the UN Declaration.”

In his meeting with Department of State officials, Palacin Quispe addressed the same theme.

“In that meeting we stated that if it’s true that the Obama administration signifies a change in U.S. policy, their relevant officials should participate in the next OAS discussion of the Project on the American Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to unblock the process so that this international instrument be finally adopted,” he wrote in a CAOI statement.

In a statement summarizing the hearings, the IACHR urged passage of the American Declaration, as well as decrying the situations that compelled the indigenous leaders to leave their own countries to seek justice.

“The IACHR condemns the murders of indigenous people carried out by private and state agents, and reiterates its concern over the frequency of social conflicts and acts of violence associated with disputes over the lands, territories and natural resources of indigenous peoples. These situations of conflict normally arise because the states do not adequately guarantee the protection of indigenous territories; nor do they guarantee indigenous peoples the right to participate in decisions concerning the activities that affect their rights.”

GTB Revenue Sharing News Coverage

From the Traverse City Record-Eagle:

TRAVERSE CITY — For at least four years, Toni Ferris’ special education students built self-esteem and coordination through regular swimming lessons.

But this year’s lessons nearly didn’t happen: The grant-supported program, designed for students with mild cognitive impairments in Traverse City Area Public Schools, didn’t receive funding by the start of the school year.

So Ferris, their teacher at the former Glenn Loomis Elementary, applied again, and received about $9,500 from the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians shortly before Valentine’s Day.

The funds will help about 50 students with disabilities swim at the Grand Traverse County Civic Center pool from late April through mid-June.

Continue reading

NYTs on Justice Ginsburg’s Participation in the Navajo Nation Oral Argument

From NYTs:

WASHINGTON — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer less than three weeks ago, was back on the Supreme Court bench on Monday, asking crisp and vigorous questions in the two arguments heard by the court.

Justice Ginsburg seemed to take particular interest in a case brought by the Navajo Nation claiming that the federal government had been complicit in a scheme to allow a private company to underpay for coal on tribal lands.

The case, United States v. Navajo Nation, No. 07-1410, was making its second appearance before the court. Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion ruling against the tribe in 2003, and she asked forceful questions suggesting that she saw no reason to revisit her conclusions.

Carter G. Phillips, the tribe’s lawyer, was just starting his argument when Justice Ginsburg asked the first question. Quoting broad language from her original decision, she suggested that it covered the newer case, too.

“Do you think that was just carelessness on the court’s part?” she asked of the expansive language she had used, including the phrase “any relevant statute or regulation.”

“Oh, I would never assume that, Justice Ginsburg,” Mr. Phillips said in a light tone. Justice Ginsburg reacted with a broad smile.

A few minutes later, she quoted a second passage along similar lines, and Mr. Phillips again deferred to her. “Obviously, Justice Ginsburg, you are in a much better position to judge what was intended here,” he said, before going on to say that this case involved a different federal statute than the 2003 one.

Continue reading

Indian Country Provisions in the Economic Stimulus Bill

I’ve compiled a list of the direct-funding items in the latest version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the one that passed the Senate on Tuesday). Keep in mind that there are a number of other appropriations and benefits that are not specific to tribes, but for which tribes may be eligible. I will post an updated version as soon as the Conference Report is released (the final version on which both the House and Senate will soon vote). Here are the Indian Country provisions – totaling more than $2.7 Billion:

$522 million to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for “Construction”

$510 million for the Native American Housing Block Grant – $255 million of this amount must be distributed according to the same funding formula used in FY 2008 (NOTE: Tribes must obligate 100% of funds within one year. 50% of funds must be spent within 2 years, and 100% of funds must be spent within 3 years. Failure to comply may result in Secretary of HUD recapturing unexpended balance.)

$410 million for Indian Health Facilities – Spending caps for the purchase of medical equipment do not apply.

$400 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs schools facilities – $200 million is appropriated in each FY 2009 and FY 2010.

$320 million for the Indian Reservation Roads Program – the Secretary of Interior may use up to 4% of these funds for program administration and oversight.

$300 million for the Office of Justice Programs, Assistance to Tribes – $250 million is dedicated to grants under Title II of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994; $25 million is dedicated to the tribal courts initiative; and, $25 million is dedicated to tribal alcohol and substance abuse drug reduction assistance grants.

$135 million for the Indian Health Service (NOTE: $85 million is dedicated to Health Information Technology and $50 million is dedicated to Contract Health).

$60 million for Tribal Clean Water Grants – The legislation appropriates $4 Billion for State Revolving Funds under the Water Pollution Control Act, of which 1.5% is set aside for tribal grants.

$20 million to Community Development Financial Institutions for financial assistance, technical assistance, training, and outreach programs that benefit tribal communities.

$20 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs Housing Improvement Program.

$5 million for the Department of Agriculture’s Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, for the costs of administrative expenses associated with the program.

The Recovery and Reinvestment Act also appropriates $1.4 Billion to the Bureau of Reclamation for various activities, including participation in fulfilling related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with, State and local governments, federally recognized Indian tribes. It does not specify how much of this funding is directed to tribes.

Frozen River Showing in East Lansing

The East Lansing Film Society presents:

Frozen River

Ray Eddy (brilliantly portrayed by Melissa Leo), a mother of two living in a trailer, is lured into the world of smuggling when she meets a Mohawk woman, Lila, who lives on a reservation that straddles the US-Canadian border. After Ray’s husband takes off with the down payment for their new doublewide, Ray hooks up with Lila to make runs across the frozen St.  Lawrence River carrying illegal immigrants in the trunk of Ray’s Dodge Spirit. Desperation knows no borders.

Nominated for two 2009 ACADEMY AWARDS, including BEST ACTRESS, Melissa Leo, and BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

FRIDAY, SATURDAY, SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 7, 8 — 7:00PM &; 9:15PM

Wells Hall, MSU

GENERAL ADMISSION – $7    SENIORS (65+) – $5    STUDENTS – $3

MichGO v. Kempthorne Cert Petition Update

The Supreme Court granted cert. in four cases today, none of which was the MichGO v. Kempthorne case. We’ll see Monday, perhaps, whether the Court denied cert. There could be a decent chance the Court will put this case on hold under after the Carcieri v. Kempthorne decision is released.

More on Where Margaret Wente

Margaret Wente’s 10-24-08 column in the Globe and Mail espouses that aboriginal American contributions to contemporary society are generally overstated and that there was a vast developmental chasm separating Indian and European cultures at the time of first contact.  She seems enamoured with Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard’s forthcoming text that apparently “knocks the stuffing out of the prevailing mythology that surrounds the history of first peoples.”

That line has stuck with me for the last several days. As an Ojibwe raised in the U.S., I’ve always felt that the Anishinaabek and other first peoples were ignored or at least de-emphasized by the vast majority of North American history texts, especially those most influential in K-12 education. I suppose, for me, the concept of a North American historical mythology congers up a totally different set of ideas that it does for Margaret. I do like the idea of knocking the stuffing out of an historical mythology. I think that is what William Cronon attempted to do with the publication of “Changes in the Land” and Ojibwe historian George Cornell has worked at throughout his career, as with his contribution to “People of the Three Fires”; like Lakota-Ojibwe scholar Patrick Labeau attempts with “Rethinking Michigan Indian History”; and Richard White with “The Middle Ground”.

I haven’t yet read Widdowson and Howard’s book that Wente is so impressed with, but I have a feeling my people are in their piñata. I hope when the piñata busts, there is an outpouring of Aboriginal and non-aboriginal response that sounds nothing like the prose of Margaret Wente. However, I am way ahead of myself; I’ll reserve judgement of the new book until it is published and I can give it a careful read.

I have read Hayden King’s response article to the Wente column. King provides an important counter to the misinformation strewn throughout the original column.

Sherman Alexie on the Colbert Report

Vodpod videos no longer available.