Congressional Apology to Native Americans Is Just Cheap Talk

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 8, 2009

Apology Op-Ed
Robert T. Coulter
Executive Director, Indian Law Resource Center
www.indianlaw.org



‘No Thanks’ to Congressional Apology

This week the U.S. Senate passed a resolution apologizing to Native Americans for the wrongs done by citizens of this country. Robert T. Coulter, Executive Director of the Indian Law Resource Center, says what happened is a failure on the part of Congress to really acknowledge what it has done in the past.

The Senate has just passed a resolution that apologizes to American Indians and other Native Americans for the wrongs done by citizens of this country. But a genuine apology means you won’t do it again, and this resolution does nothing at all to stop or correct the on-going wrongs that the federal government inflicts on Indian and Alaska Native nations. Unfortunately our government still takes Indian land without paying for it, still refuses to account for the Indian money it holds, still violates its treaties with Indian nations without making amends, and still maintains a body of policy and law that is so discriminatory and racist that it should have been discarded generations ago.

To make a real apology, Congress needs to stop doing the things that it is apologizing to Indian nations and other Native peoples for. Americans generally do not know that the federal government continues to treat tribes and Alaska Native nations this way, and the evidence is that the public does not support or condone this mistreatment.

It is astonishing to most Americans that the federal government is still taking Indian land and resources – without due process of law and without fair market compensation, sometimes with no compensation at all. Of course, the Constitution says that Congress may not take anyone’s property except with due process of law and with fair market compensation. But these rules are not applied to most land and resources owned by Indian tribes, and the government takes the land and resources at will. Obviously, this is wrong. Today, the government is trying to drive Western Shoshone Indians off their homelands in Nevada without a semblance of due process and with a payment of about 15 cents per acre. This is gold mining land, but that doesn’t make it alright to take it from its Indian owners. There are other present day cases. A few years ago, Congress confiscated part of the reservation that was shared by the Yurok Nation in California and turned it over to another tribe. Congress gloated at the time that it could do this without paying compensation because of Congress’ so-called “Plenary Power” over Indians and their property.

A few years ago, Congress passed a law that orders a fund of money belonging to nine Western Shoshone tribes to be taken from the tribes and handed out by the Interior Department to some but not all individual tribal members. The bill was passed over the objections of most of the tribes.

The Interior Department still will not fully account for Indian funds that it holds. This national shame is reported regularly in the press. The Department is defying the law, as it has done for generations. The United States still insists that Indian tribes and in some respects Indian individuals, are in a state of permanent, involuntary trusteeship, with the federal government as trustee. No one else in the US is subject to such unaccountable “trusteeship.”

Congress today insists it can put Indian nations and tribes out of existence at any time. Indian nations and tribes still have no real right to exist in US law. The threat of termination is very real. Some small Native tribes in Alaska have recently heard this threat from congressional sources.

Congress also insists that it may freely violate treaties made with Indian nations. Sadly this is not a thing of the past. It does this today – regularly. Treaties are contracts, and the government cannot freely violate its contracts with others, but it does so – often – in the case of Indian treaties.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States, an international legal body that is officially recognized and supported by the United States, recently concluded that US policies regarding Indian lands are discriminatory and constitute a violation of human rights. But the Bush Administration defied the Commission and the present Administration is still refusing to change the discriminatory laws it applies to Indian tribes.

This on-going pattern of lawless and arbitrary congressional power over Indians has resulted in a negative, risky, unpredictable business climate on Indian reservations that inhibits needed economic development.

To be clear, many of the things Congress is considering apologizing for are still being done to Indian and Alaska Native tribes and to Native Hawaiians as well. Sadly, the United States, especially the US Congress, has never given up its insistence on treating Indian and Alaska Native nations with injustice and discrimination. This is not only wrong but very bad public policy and wholly out of keeping with American values.

Congress should conduct hearings and adopt a resolution promising never again to take Indian or tribal property without due process of law and fair market compensation. The resolution should promise that Congress will never again terminate any Native American tribe or its government and never again violate or abrogate a treaty with an Indian nation without making full compensation and correcting all resulting harm to the Indian nation. Congress must examine and change all federal laws, regulations, and courtmade law that deprive Indian nations and tribes of constitutional rights. Congress must pass legislation to assure that the government accounts fully for the Indian money and property it holds.

Without such commitments from Congress, an apology will be just another offense against Native Americans. Until the government changes its ways, things cannot be expected to improve much in Indian country. This is a good time to make the changes.
__________________________________________________________

Source: Indian Law Resource Center

Native Rights News is making this material available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.
____________
Native Rights News (NRN) is published by the Alliance for Indigenous Rights, a nonprofit corporation owned and operated by Temple Beit Shem Tov as part of its Peace and Justice Ministry.

Indian Control of Indian Education

Dizzy Decentering the Center: How?

Opinion and Commentary

By Sharilyn Calliou

Thinking Aloud About Theorizing Indigenous Ed

I read a blog entry that had me revisit need to understand cultural/political standpoint when I use authority of position to deliver curriculum (any subject, any grade, etc.). [1] What acts of praxis to transform schooling for students of First Nations ancestry? I asked this question throughout a career as classroom teacher. It is a centuries long struggle of resistance to assert independence of thought, historical record, identity, protocols and et cetera. This is a given for all indigenous peoples, whether Dené, Mohawk, Cree or Mi'kmaq. For indigenous peoples the classroom has not been a tame environment, but rather an environment to tame. Thus, a new generation of educators emerged at 1972. [2]

Praxis: 'Hands On' Tradition

Their/our modern roots are grounded in the policy statement Indian Control of Indian Education [ICIE], issued by the National Indian Brotherhood in 1972. [In 1982 the NIB became the Assembly of First Nations.] This does not imply that self-determination was new. By 1970, the Dené were developing a statement of inherent independence, with assertion that 'We the Dené of the N.W.T. insist on the right to be regarded by ourselves and the world as a Nation.' This was unanimously accepted and declared in 1975. [3]

There is a history of self-determination: students ran away from or parents/guardians kept children out of residential schools; communities continued to use heritage languages; leadership signed (or not) treaties as Nations; leadership sustained traditional acts, for examples, of political governance, art, healthcare, spirituality, environmentalism, agriculture. These acts of Ancestors produced concrete examples about how we live today because of the strength of cultural knowledge (now called Traditional Indigenous Knowledge [TIK] in modern lit).

These acts are praxis; a term, first used by Ancient Greeks to describe the 'acts of free men'. The emphasis is on men in Ancient Greek culture, unlike Mohawk or Cree understandings of women as equal, although role differentiation is understood. For Marxists, the term meant that people act to change/transform the world and not just theorize. For educators, Friere brought us critical pedagogy to deconstruct oppression by the oppressed. [4] I have lived long enough to understand more deeply that we do not save the culture but it is the culture that saves us.

For indigenous peoples, praxis is the 'acts of free people', self-determination a Gift of the Creator. No one can take away a gift of the Creator ― although some may try again and again. Does indigenous praxis suggest anarchy? I was asked this once. 'No,' I said, 'Aboriginal communities were not lawless.' Then I would be asked, 'What is self-government' As an academic, I could recite text and chapter. More now I recall the words of an Elder who repeated what he heard from an Elder senior to him. He said, 'See that little bird up in the tree. See it sit. See it fly away? That is self-determination.' Another Elder once remarked, 'Every time you decide to get out of bed in the morning that is self-government.'

Self-Government and Staying Focused

For me, life in classrooms became assertion rather than resistance. One of the goals of ICIE is reinforcement of identity (NIB, 1972, p. 3). But do we have to resist to be, or can we just be?

Resistance can keep us very busy. Better to talk Cree or Mikmawisimik than write about saving a language? [5] Use time to scour for thought-speak from our voices and not too handily rely on Gramsci's theory of hegemony? I lived the experience of the business of busyness (Smith, 2003) when living in Hungary the summer of 1984. I needed to experience standing in line-ups for food and basic toiletries and to observe how newspapers were not read but deconstructed. Marketing could take a full day. As I stood in line, the exhaustion helped me understand how I might tire of resistance, struggle and praxis. Yet, the Magyars persevered to reclaim traditional territory and preserve their language, despite a few generations forced to speak-write-read Russian.

Life in classrooms today continues to be self-surveillance about whose knowledge, tradition, history, standpoint takes precedence. Given what First Nations Ancestors survived, it is good to revisit Indian Control of Indian Education, policy adopted in 1973 for students of indigenous Ancestry within the borders of Canada.

ICIE (1972)

In 1972, we used 'Indian'; we still do in particular circumstances. In 1974 the Canadian School Trustees adopted ICIE stating, 'any transfer of educational jurisdiction from the federal [Canada] to the provinces must be done with prior consultation with Indian peoples,' and school must be a place where Aboriginal students 'learn their own language, history and culture in the classroom, with curricula revised. [6, 7] This is policy of Assembly of First Nations and Canadian government.

So when I/we wonder about how I/we will transform the classroom today (whether bush camp or post-secondary lecture hall), it is sometimes good to reread the policy adopted on behalf of parents/guardians, youth and children.

The policy is in play so we can act as our Ancestors did. My think of this post reminded me of Kirkness' (1998) recipe that First Nations need to cut the shackles, cut the crap and cut the mustard. [8]

ENDNOTES

[1] Thank-you TH for post. Made brain work. I refer to:
http://twinkleshappyplace.blogspot.com/2009/01/kaupapa-maori-theory-theorizing.html

[2] See: Calliou, S. (1999). Activism and self-determination in First Nations education (1972-1988). In J. Hylton (Ed.). Aboriginal self-government in Canada (2nd Edition, Chpt. 8). Sask, SK: Purich Publishing Ltd.

[3] Full text: http://www.denenation.com/denedec.html. By 1970, parents of Rae-Edzo reclaimed the elementary school because they knew they would provide a more relevant education, including heritage language. There is a checklist for teacher self-assessment. See: http://www.newteachersnwt.com/culture_based_education2.html

[4] Freire, P. (1969). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. This idea discussed previously; e.g., Sartre described 'digestive' or 'nutritive' aims of education, where knowledge is fed by teachers to 'fill them out'. Sartre, J.P. (1947, Paris), Une idée fundamentale de la phénoménologie de Husserl: L'intentionnalité, Situations 1.

[5] Mikmawisimik, is an Algonquian language spoken by 8000 Indians in the Canadian Maritimes (particularly NS) and a few US communities. . . . Mi'kmaq is written alphabetically today, but in the past it was written in pictographs, which predate European contact.' Jesuit missionaries modified to teach Christian prayers. Micmac hieroglyphics do not resemble Ancient Egyptian or Mayan. Mi'kmaq is not linguistically related to Ancient Egyptian or other Semitic languages. See: http://www.native-languages.org/mikmaq.htm

[6] http://www.sicc.sk.ca/saskindian/a74jun23.htm

[7] Re. history of overturn of use of 'Indian', the Hon. F.A. Calder, Nisgha, spoke as elected MP in Canadian Parliament, 'This may be the time to mention that the native people of Canada do not appreciate being lumped together as a faceless body known as Indians. We would prefer to be recognised by our own distinctive national, linguistic, and cultural characteristics'. See:
http://qp.gov.bc.ca/hansard/30th2nd/30p_02s_730215p.htm

[8] Kirkness, V.J. Aboriginal education in Canada: A retrospective. (1999). Journal of American Indian Education. Vol 39(1). Special issue #2. Available @
http://aboriginaleducation.epsb.ca/documents/kirkness.pdf

Editor's Note:
Dr. Sharilyn Calliou, is a status band member of the Michel First Nation, located in Treaty 6 Territory, Canada and is descended from the Mohawk, Cree and Lakota Peoples. A career teacher, she has served in many capacities in inner city schools, as well as in an on-reserve isolated northern community. She received her Ph.D. in Curriculum & Instruction from the University of British Columbia, where she taught in the Native Indian Teacher Education Program and Ts''kel, First Nations Graduate Studies in Education. Doctor Calliou has been published in English Journal, the Journal of Native Education (Canada) and the Canadian Journal of Community Education. Her daily blog Word Zoo can be found at http://wordzoo.spaces.live.com/?_c11_BlogPart_pagedir=First&_c11_BlogPart_BlogPart=blogview&_c=BlogPart&partqs=amonth%3d1%26ayear%3d2009

__________________________________________________________
© Sharilyn Calliou. 20 January 2009. All rights reserved. May be reproduced for educational use but NOT commercial use.

Native Rights News is publishing this article with express permission of the author without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society. The image used in this article was obtained from the Visual Resources Database of the Minnesota Historical Society and is published in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the United States Copyright Act.

--
Posted By Alliance for Indigenous Rights to Native Rights News at 1/30/2009 10:35:00 AM