"Tewatahtawi” — "We carry ourselves"

Published in the October 9, 2013 issue of The Two Row Times

In 1776, when a group of 13 British colonies broke off from their empire, there was more than just a battle that needed to be fought. First, there needed to be a rationale or philosophy that the rest of the world (Europe, in particular) could embrace for such a revolt. The rationale was laid out in the Declaration of Independence, which formed the United States of America. The Declaration stated, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” 

However, for Europeans that truth was not so self-evident. Under the yoke of Europe's monarchies, all men were not regarded as equal and all rights came not from creation but from the thrones, the royal families. The “sovereignty” of the monarchs was derived from one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated by man: that “God” bestowed a “divine” and ultimate power upon chosen ones to rule over all others. The kings and queens of Europe ruled on the myth that they were chosen by God to wield ultimate and unlimited power over man and Earth. The vast majority, those not chosen by God, had no inherent right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness. All privilege came from the throne. Even life was a privilege dispensed or limited at the whim of these “rulers.”

Conversely, for thousands of years the Haudenosaunee had lived in a world where only nature and the natural order of things provided the paths for life. Sovereignty was inherent; it was a birthright; and it was inalienable.

Respect for the paths of all the elements of creation guided our own journey through the generations. The power and authority to carry ourselves was an individual right. It was our obligation. Our sovereignty was not a “collective right” but a right we defended collectively. Our people were not governed or led by a chosen few but, rather, were served by them. The consent of the people was essential for all major decisions. This was the original rationale adopted by this breakaway group of white men from Europe, which is now sold to the rest of the world as the "great experiment" that is the United States — at least in words.

The U.S. Declaration of Independence stated, as a matter of fact, that the “just powers” of a government derived those powers from the “consent of the governed.” The clear implication was that the power was from the people and any “authority” not derived from the consent of the people was not just. This concept came directly from the philosophy and path of the Haudenosaunee.

Those who were chosen for specific responsibilities were not elevated as leaders but rather placed in the service of their people; they were servants of the people. The young United States also made a commitment to adopt this concept.

But, as so often happens in the world of man, responsibilities are confused with authority, especially for those who lived for centuries under a hierarchy, male dominance and tremendous disparity. The influences of the European system, which were so engrained for centuries and, thus, so hard to entirely dismiss, not only corrupted the intentions of their children but, ultimately, also took its toll on our ways.

Make no mistake. Whether the citizens of the United States now look at their elected positions as "rulers" rather than "servants," whether they now accept their birthrights as extinguished and their rights and privileges as “grants” from those "rulers," the Haudenosaunee do not!  Whether elected by popular vote or selected through clans, those chosen by the people are SERVANTS. Those that sit in council for their people have no authority on their own. Resolutions, decisions and proposals can only be reached with and by the consent of the people.

Since Haudenosaunee sovereignty remains vested in the people, the debate over the authority of the people set against the assumed and exaggerated authority of “tribal leadership” must be settled. In fact, what some regard as the “Nation” is "the People." The “Nation” is not a council, a chief, a president, a chairman or a trustee. Again, these are servants of the people.

Before we appropriated words, such as “sovereignty,” the Haudenosaunee said, “Tewatahtawi” — “We carry ourselves.” Our livelihoods are the means for our survival. The right to carry ourselves is the assertion of our inherent right, our sovereignty. This we always knew.

The trade conducted within our territories and between our territories is the most vital and sustaining commerce we have. Our individual Native-to-Native trade is Nation-to-Nation trade. An act of aggression by a government or agency against an individual conducting a lawful act on Native land or between Native lands is an act of aggression against all our people. Violating the sovereignty of an individual violates the sovereignty of us all. Our commerce is a sovereign act in our free use and enjoyment of our lands and the right to “carry ourselves” without interference, whether that commerce is carried out by individuals or an agency or designee of the people.

http://tworowtimes.com/opinions/columns/lets-talk-native/tewatahtawi-carry-ourselves/

The Big Lie: The Doctrine of Christian Discovery

Previously published in the October 2, 2013 issue of The Two Row Times

Steven Newcomb is the author of “Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery.” He is the foremost authority on the subject. Steven will be a featured speaker of the University at Buffalo’s Indigenous Survival Day Speaker Series on Monday, October 14, 6 to 8 p.m. at 120 Clemens Hall. He will be a guest on “Let’s Talk Native…with John Kane” on Sunday, October 13, 9 to 11 p.m. EDT on WWKB ESPN Sports Radio 1520AM. LTN streams live on the Native Pride blog and on the TuneIn app for PCs and smart phones. If you miss Steven Newcomb live on LTN or at UB, catch his appearance in studio on demand on my blog or look for links on my “Let’s Talk Native…” Facebook group page.

Despite where you stand on religion or Christianity specifically, a lie is a lie even if the church utters it. One of the greatest lies ever pulled off on people the world over is that “God” chose individual “families” to rule over the rest of humanity. Even though many, including Americans who should know better, are still enamored by the notion of “princes and princesses,” most of us now relegate this stupid fairytale to Disney cartoons and the mainstream media’s coverage of a meaningless “royal family.”

Today there is another monumental ancient big lie that simply won’t die. Well, at least the U.S. and Canada hope it won’t. The Doctrine of Christian Discovery is actually a bigger lie than even the monarchy ordained by “God” that no one buys anymore. This doctrine is based almost solely on a series of decrees by 15^th century popes. Simply stated, the Vatican ruled that when a Christian people came into the lands of pagans – or non-believers – Christians could claim their land, their possessions and reduce those pagans to perpetual slavery.

Of course, this sounds so preposterous that a reasonable person would assume such a practice and policy would have died with slavery. Certainly, it would have no place in a nation that claims to govern with a separation of church and state. But not only is this doctrine codified in U.S. law with court rulings and legislation built upon those rulings but it is the basis of all U.S. land title. It is also the eggshells that the house of cards that is “federal Indian law” is built upon. There is no event, no treaty, no surrender, no petition and no referendum that ever places us “pagans” under the authority of the United States or anyone else. There are only the words of dead popes and the dead judges who regurgitated them.

The United Nations even felt compelled to state, what should be obvious to all, in the third affirmation of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP):

Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on

or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of

national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are

racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and

socially unjust.

So, surely, with the entire international community (some nations quite reluctantly) condemning religious based racism, issues including equating discovery with conquest and the exclusively European-based transferrable “discovery title” with legitimate land ownership must be revisited. After all, can the world sit by and ignore the theft of land, subjugation and genocide of an entire hemisphere of people based on religious dogma?

Yes, it can. And, it does.

The UNDRIP is just words on paper unless someone gives it force. The force required isn’t just to overcome the inertia of history. It has to overcome world powers posturing for control of water, oil, minerals, gas and all the other natural resources on the lands of us “pagans” — the land, too, for that matter. The force must be enough to overcome the strongest attraction known to man. That is the attraction between a rich man and his money.

The church is in no hurry to put this issue to rest. How much have they pillaged from the “New World” in five centuries? How much do they still pillage? And who else has benefited? Even the Jewish judge on the U.S. Supreme Court cited the Christian Discovery Doctrine in a rationale to dismiss a Native land claim a few years ago. Think about it: a Jewish woman citing 15^th century Papal Bulls. And this was in 2005. How ironic and absurd is that?

It is one thing for Chief Justice John Marshal to make racist rulings in 1823 when a black man still could be bought and sold, a woman was still regarded as a man’s possession, and an “Indian” was just a savage with way too much land. But even in an era of offering apologies while admitting no guilt, there must be movement on this.

I once asked at the U.N., “Who gives the UNDRIP force?” Who repudiates racist doctrines that continue to support unjust policies? The only answer I got was, “We do.”

Let’s do it then. But first let’s learn how their house of cards is built. Investigate their BS and don’t let it stand!

http://tworowtimes.com

No, Really! It’s OK to Watch Al Jazeera America

Previously published in the September 25, 2013 issue of The Two Row Times - By John Kane

I am amazed at the displaced loyalty to all things "American" that far too many Native people have. Whether it is getting all ”patriotic” every time 9-11 is mentioned or supporting American political candidates or voting in their elections or even enlisting in their armed forces. Have we forgotten that we are survivors of the most monstrous and prolonged act of genocide the world has ever known? Do we forget that for more than 100 years our children were stripped from our homes, stripped of their identities, languages, cultures and dignities while being abused and crippled physically and mentally? Do we fail to acknowledge that policies exist to this day designed to conform us and assimilate our people to their laws and customs? Can we not see that in 2013 we have become so marginalized in our own lands that the occupiers can actually get away with using our images for sports mascots as though we are not real people or no longer exist?

What's worse, I think, is that so many are fine with all of this.

The mere mention of a country or nation that the U.S. or Canada deems "unfriendly" sends far too many Native people scurrying to their oppressors’ teats. Venezuela, Iran, Palestine — countries whose people have never harmed our own invokes an – almost – involuntary response due entirely on the propaganda we have been fed.

No matter how many times ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX or CNN portray us as pitiful creatures incapable taking care of ourselves in the land of milk and honey, we still flock to them or to their affiliates for our basic windows to the world and what can only be described as funhouse mirrors to view ourselves.

When I mention a viable alternative to such blather, such as Al Jazeera or Al Jazeera America, it is actually comical to view the responses. Big eyes and "Whoa there, terrorist" are not just written on their faces but are actually uttered through the mouths of some people. Mention that I have done an interview for them and a step back has even been witnessed.

Dianne McNair, Bureau Coordinator/Assistant to the Bureau Chief, Al Jazeera Network, Washington, DC Bureau and Abderrahim Foukara, Al Jazeera Bureau Chief, Washington, DC and New York with a Unity Flag from yours truly. Al Jazeera network is committed to the voices of the voiceless. Sign me up! No buffalo speeches. Just the hard truth and how WE see things.
(Photo by L. Hill)

I am not suggesting that anyone gets our story entirely right. However, until there is an Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN) in the U.S. market and perhaps, more importantly, in the international market, we need to examine more critically the ridiculous talking heads that currently dominate the mainstream media. For me, Al Jazeera is the only hope on the horizon.

With the launch of Al Jazeera America, this news channel has committed itself to giving a voice to the voiceless and therein lies our best opportunity to be heard. But we have to be willing to at least utter a few sounds first and stop running from those the U.S., Canada and the rednecks in both countries that would love to see us silenced. As we make noise in our own territories we need to help this new network stay true to its word by telling our stories and providing feedback. My conversations with the folks from Al Jazeera have stressed our plight in the context of many conflicts around the world and throughout history.

There is little point in waging war against the “Washington Redskins” if we are only suggesting that a name change “will make America better.” That is ridiculous! It won’t! Mascots are not the real issue here – racism and genocide are. If no other network ­– sports, news or talk — is willing to have a serious discussion on how the true heirs to this continent still battle everyday to survive, not just as individuals but as peoples, then I am all in for giving my new best friend “AJ” a shot.

Let’s get a conversation going on the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Let’s expose the Doctrine of Christian Discovery as the racist foundation the U.S. and Canada is built upon. Show the poverty, the suicides, the violence and corruption that exist on Native lands – but this time show why. Show the federal policies, state sponsored racism and crimes against humanity that continue to this day in the land of “truth, justice and the American way.”

I don’t mind for a minute telling our story from a studio devoid of fake patriotism, flag lapel pins and pro-America spin on every turn. Let’s give Al Jazeera America a chance. What the Hell! They even have “America” in their name – for all of you who need that sort of thing.

http://tworowtimes.com/opinions/columns/lets-talk-native/really-ok-watch-al-jazeera-america/

Rule of Law or Rule of Lawyers?

Previously published as the LTN Column by John Kane in the September 18, 2013 Two Row Times 

We often hear from the righteous voices of the U.S. and Canada when looking at countries and peoples they view as inferior, that “rule of law” must prevail in these “developing” nations. “Developing”…? Excuse me! Forget the fact the U.S. and Canada have no culture or even a language of their own and barely a history, for that matter, compared to other peoples of the world.

But what does “rule of law” even mean?

When the upstart British colonists became dissatisfied with their “mother country,” they set about trying to create something new and distinct from European monarchies — new to them anyway. There is much talk of democracy these days but male dominant aristocracies is a habit hard to break especially when it is all you've known for several centuries. In the view of the “founding fathers,” democracy would empower the ignorant and the uninformed. They believed everyone should have rights. However, there was an important caveat: that “power” needed to be in the hands of the “capable.”

The U.S. did not form a democracy. It was a republic. The distinction between the two comes down to two concepts. The first is where sovereignty is vested. In a republic sovereignty is a birthright. It is vested in the individual; and the sovereignty of a nation comes from the people collectively. In a democracy it is the state that is the sovereign although it is an authority held by the collective of the people. The second thing that separates a democracy from a republic is the notion that the foundation of law or a constitution for a republic is natural law. That is to say that certain rights are inherent and unalienable. In a true democracy all laws are subject to majority (mob) rule. Both these ideas incorporated in the concept of a republic came from the Haudenosaunee. Sovereignty as a birthright, the understanding that creation is the ultimate power, and that any and all constructs of man are bound to that power, is the essence of our opening address, the Ohentonkariwatehkwa.

So when the words, “rule of law” are uttered, I say: hell yeah, agreed, no problem — as long as we are talking laws of nature and not the laws of men imposed on others without consent.

Seemingly, the entire world has forgotten the distinction of natural law from man’s law. Laws do not solve conflict. Even nature’s laws don’t do this — ask the next dinosaur you see how that worked out for them. Law, by court or certainly by lawyers, cannot resolve conflict. No one has ever successfully challenged nature in court. They have used courts to defy it but nature, like us, does not recognize that jurisdiction. Man’s law, on the other hand, is supposed to be based on the establishment of legitimate authority at the foundation of every piece of legislation and should lay out everything from jurisdiction to the legislative intent to constitutionality and basic rightness. It fails on much of this.

Now the biggest problem with this concept of “rule of (man’s) law” is that, unlike nature, we abandon diplomacy and negotiation and basic harmony for court rulings — i.e. winners and losers. And again, unlike in nature, there are flaws in much of the foundation of man’s law.

As I sit here today striking these computer keys and pondering all of this, I insist that there still does not exist any proper legal foundation for the subjugation of Native people to U.S. or Canadian law. And I would imagine the same could be said for many other peoples oppressed by colonial powers. The reality is there was no transfer of our sovereignty, no surrender agreement, no “treaty” asking to join the “club,” no referendum, and certainly no consent to genocide or assimilation. The U.S. and Canada cannot legislate our sovereignty away and their courts and judges cannot just rule it away. By definition the sovereignty of one people is outside the jurisdiction of another.

While I do believe the United Nations should do more than approve a “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” I don’t believe the U.N. should be the final arbitrator of any justice. No individual or no organization should have this role — or this right.

We must return to an era of diplomacy and statesmanship. A civilized society needs to have honest and meaningful dialogue to resolve conflicts. It should not be based on might makes right but, rather, on right makes right. Statesmanship and compromise need to be held higher than court precedents and religious dogma. Lawyers and lobbyists playing word games with man-made laws to screw the less fortunate, the environment and future generations need to be thrown off the table and conflicts need to be looked at as things to resolve — not as contests to win.

http://tworowtimes.com/opinions/columns/lets-talk-native/rule-law-rule-lawyers/

Servants of the People

Published previously as the LTN Column by John Kane in the September 11, 2013 Two Row Times

It was an honor bestowed on those already having proven both the willingness to serve and effectiveness in doing so. This was our concept — unique throughout the world but one with such a strong sense of rightness that many would claim it for their own. Of course, claims and reality are not necessarily the same.

The crazy part of this story is that we don’t use this concept or even the expression anymore. Americans never quite got the concept but to this day they refer to elected or appointed office as public service — to be sure, these are only words. But what happened to us?

Those now getting themselves into an “office” or “title” call themselves “tribal leaders.” They claim authority from nowhere, earn ridiculously fat paychecks, and leave policy, diplomacy and defense of sovereignty to lawyers, consultants and lobbyists, most of whom are non-Native. Worse than that is while they claim this illegitimate authority and empower “professionals” to do their work, they strip the power from the people and trample their birthright.

Now don’t get me wrong. This doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The lazy, “pass the buck” attitude of the people enable all this to happen. The fact that “Idle No More” caught on at all is an acknowledgment that the people have been far too idle for far too long.

It also must be made clear that this isn’t just a commentary about “elected governments.” Anyone that suggests the virtue of the “chief system” as some would claim exists today or speak romantically of such in the past already proves my point. The Kaianerehkowa of the Haudenosaunee NEVER called for a “chief system.” The process laid out meticulously and represented by the Haiwentha Belt, the Circle Wampum and scores of other images is a “clan system.” This slow and deliberate process empowered the people, laid out the shared responsibilities of both men and women and clearly defined the roles of those men and women who would be placed in the service of their people.

But today, Chiefs, Presidents, Chairmen, Trustees, Councilors, and even Faithkeepers and Clan Mothers are selected through whatever process by only small fractions of the populations they claim to “lead.” They become “federally recognized” through the BIA in the U.S. or Indian Affairs in Canada and in the absence of their own “constitutional authority” rely on this “recognition” as their authority not as servants but as “Leaders.”

Some of these “leaders” are paid more in a single day than most of their people earn in a week with no accountability for their time or requirement to show they actually did anything. Once in these positions, more time is spent securing that spot than performing the job at hand.

Servants of the people? I have said it before that when winning an election or an appointment is tantamount to winning the lottery, it begs the question as to who is serving who. When was the last time your “tribal leader” reached out to ask how you felt about an issue or how you were doing? I suspect unless it was your family member on council, probably never. When was the last time you ever heard them refer to themselves as servants of the people? And when was the last time they actually served?

I was told recently that people need leaders and that they want to be led. I begged to differ. I find that people want to be encouraged and to be empowered. They want to know that they matter and that there is a place for them in the decision-making process. They want to fight for their sovereignty and be the force behind the diplomacy of their “servants” and not be the last to know what the lawyers and lobbyists of their “leaders” lost in the latest negotiation or court battle.

I have seen what the powerful “leaders” do. They get rich, get famous and get praised by the non-Native governments and institutions while dependence on gaming or government programs grows, sovereignty is encroached upon and inch by inch the process of assimilation by the dominant societies around us continues.

Many have indeed become complacent to how things are but those brief glimpses of an empowered people do show themselves on occasion.  The people need to be the power every day.

We don’t need leadership. We need participation!

http://tworowtimes.com/opinions/columns/lets-talk-native/servants-of-the-people/#.UjBjrxZVhpU

Time for the U.S. to Admit What It’s Doing—“Indian Fighting” with Terrorism Laws

The LTN Column by John Kane for the September 4, 2013 Issue of the Two Row Times

The Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (CCTA) and its enhanced amendments through the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act* are supposed to be tools to fight organized crime, violence associated with the illicit tobacco trade and the funding of terrorism through tobacco diversion.  And yet the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that claims to be pitifully underfunded still managed to spend several years, millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours conducting a “sting” operation out of Kansas City, Missouri, not to prosecute the “mob” or biker gangs or even terrorist cells, but to help New York State with its “Indian problem.” It’s true! This entire elaborate “set up” had Native businesses as the objects of its affection.

This is a country in the midst of a decade-long war on terrorism, the worst economic crisis since the “Great Depression,” and street violence that rises to a level where a little girl is gunned down in the street a week after performing for the President of the United States.  And these laws are being used for an “Indian problem”? A state that is rated as the worst place in the country to do business, has the highest tax rates, highest Medicaid costs, and most of its cities on the brink of bankruptcy has an “Indian problem”?

And this “Indian problem” warrants the use of laws designed to fight organized crime and terrorism? Well, just what is this “Indian problem”?

Oh! It’s that sovereignty thing again! I recently spent two days at the National Indian Gaming Association’s Legislative Summit in Washington D.C. There I saw and heard Congressman after Congressman and Senator after Senator—none from New York, by the way—take to the podium and pledge their undying support to “Tribal Sovereignty.” It’s funny, but not one suggested that we were a threat to national security or hinted at any concern about our territories slipping into the clutches of organized crime. Yet the attempt to force our barely existing economic development into compliance with the state with the worst regulatory atmosphere is the exact opposite of respect and support for our sovereignty. It tramples it!

Since New York State was born, our people have resisted its regulations and many federal ones, too. For more than 30 years our people have worked to reclaim a place in an industry we started: the tobacco trade. During that time we have stood strong in our resistance to the State’s authority over our tobacco trade. Even as New York State whined and complained about tax revenue it claimed to be losing to us we demonstrated over and over again the positive effects our trade had on and off our territories. As the State shut off their wholesalers from supplying national brands, our people produced our own brands bringing manufacturing, distribution and wholesaling to our lands and giving even more of a boost to our economy and that of the areas around our communities.

Our tobacco trade is not a crime. We have backward integrated from tarpaper shacks selling cheap cigarettes to full-fledged convenience stores, sophisticated wholesale and distribution companies and state-of-the-art manufacturers. We bank, we invest, we employ and we support one another. But we don’t owe and we don’t pay the State anything. And although we don’t allow New York State to regulate our businesses, it certainly does benefit from them. This is not a crime. It is the assertion of our sovereignty.

If the U.S. Treasury Department’s ATF and the prosecutors from the Justice Department intend to use the CCTA and the USA PATRIOT Act* to solve New York’s “Indian problem,” then they should come right out and call us all criminals and terrorists and cease with all this “unintended consequence of our laws” BS. It’s time for Native, state and federal politicians to stop playing dumb. And it’s time for the U.S. to admit how it abuses its own laws.

*For those who don’t know, this act has nothing to do with “patriotism.” It stands for “Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act.

http://tworowtimes.com/opinions/columns/lets-talk-native/time-for-the-u-s-to-admit-what-its-doing-indian-fighting-with-terrorism-laws/#.Uic6nRZVhpV

Cuomo’s Casino Dream

Published in the August 29, 2013 issue of the ARTVOICE

Somewhere along the line, Andrew Cuomo’s campaign promise to clean up New York State politics and government got replaced by a dream he never shared with us during his run for governor. New Yorkers got neither campaign reform nor heightened transparency laws. What they received instead was a slew of gaming interest dollars showered on the Governor and some of his key supporters, a collection of back door “Indian” gaming exclusivity deals, and the second passage of a law to amend the State Constitution to legalize State-licensed casinos. So no Albany cleanup but the wholesome family fun of “Vegas style” casinos made it through the State legislature and the Governor’s pen instead.

This Cuomo casino dream, pitched as a job creator and a plan to lift the State out of its financial morass, is not a done deal yet. This November’s off-year election will feature a public referendum to amend the 193-year constitutional ban on casino gaming. Beyond the obvious problem with the New York State jumping into an industry based solely on a vice and one known for corruption, there are some valid reasons why this is such a bad idea for New Yorkers.

First, where will the new casinos’ patrons come from? New York State boasts tourism as its number four industry, but how much of that industry draws revenue from outside the state? With the exception of New York City, is any other place really a tourist draw from out-of-state? The answer is no. It is fairly well established that the type of casinos proposed for the Empire State will draw 90 percent of its patrons from within a 50-mile radius of the venue. The casinos will be paying around 40 percent of their net to the State. So all the promises of jobs and tourism aside, let’s be clear: rather than pulling dollars into the State, these facilities will instead suck money out of their areas to the State. These new businesses cannot possibly be a boon to a local economy unless patrons are bussed in from elsewhere to offset the money that will be siphoned out of the area.

The only place that could possibly draw outside money is New York City, which will not get a casino anytime soon as a result of this referendum. So all you “New Yorkers” who will have to take one more look at your Weiner in your mayoral race, this “dream” is not for you. Other places, such as Niagara Falls, the Thousand Islands and Lake Placid, aren’t getting one either. Cuomo’s “Indian” exclusivity deals removed all of them from consideration. Just three areas are included in the legislation: the Eastern Southern Tier (Binghamton), the Catskills and the Capital District. So that’s it; a statewide constitutional referendum to change a 193 year-old ban so three areas (all excluding the State’s 4 largest cities) can try to save New York State from its financial woes.

In the best of times, when disposable income is plentiful and a majority have money burning holes in their pockets then, sure, fleecing the public with the old “dollar and a dream” scam might be great. I suppose a “dream” does sound better than a “gamble.” But not when it’s their last dollar or when they are already a dollar short. State gambling is a backhanded tax––an addictive, unfair and uncompromising tax. Like the New York Lottery, it is designed to fleece the public for state revenue.

And Albany will not be the only black hole casino revenue. Don’t forget about the gaming corporations that will be running them. There is only a slim chance that a New York-based company will win a casino contract. I’d put my money on Malaysia, Nevada or New Jersey. Their profits will not be spent in the area of these new venues. They’ll be distributed to shareholders living elsewhere. Their high paid executives will likely be brought in from out-of-state and the jobs created for the local residents will be barely above minimum wage with a heavy reliance on tips. And unlike most jobs where you might expect pay to increase over time; these jobs will see tips drop off once the newness of Cuomo’s casino dream wears off. Players won’t be the only losers.

There is no good reason to vote for this referendum. It is one thing for the Seneca or Oneida nations to fund their governments with casinos. They fund their tiny population, drawing from a much larger outside demographic. They don’t rely on their own people as a primary market.

Herein lies the fatal flaw in the Governor’s “Casino Dream.” New York State cannot fix its failing economy by sucking more dollars out of the people who are struggling within it.

Vote “no” in November.

http://artvoice.com/issues/v12n35/guest_essay

Good “Indians”

Published in the August 28, 2013 issue of The Two Row Times

Let’s be honest. Most people have no idea who Philip Sheridan is – or care. The infamous quote, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian” is attributed to him. Whether Sheridan really said it or not is like him – of little consequence. However, the quote is as entrenched in American racism as any opinion that was ever expressed.

There are two ways to interpret the quote but neither leaves any room to describe a Native person who has survived the longest and most sustained attempts at genocide as “good.”

The obvious and first assumed interpretation is that relative to a live “Indian” a dead one is better. U.S. President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Theodore Roosevelt (d. 1919) once said, “I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.” This guy obviously subscribed not only to this interpretation but also to this sentiment. Is there any wonder why the Lakota want his face off their Black Hills?

There is another way to view this classic American quote and that is to suggest that all the “Good Indians” have died or been killed. L. Frank Baum, author of “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” thought Sitting Bull was a “good Indian.” He called him the “Greatest Medicine Man of his time, by virtue of his shrewdness and daring.” And upon his cowardly murder at the hands of the U.S. government, Baum went on to write, “With his fall the nobility of the Redskin is extinguished and what few are left are pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them.”

Now here we have a “gentleman” that so loved the image of the “early Redskins of America” who because of his belief that the “proud spirit” of the Indian “lingered last in the bosom of Sitting Bull,” called for “the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians.” For Baum, the “Good Indians” were all dead and so as not to tarnish the image of those “good” dead Indians, he preached genocide.

In his words: “Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they are. History would forget these latter despicable beings, and speak, in latter ages of the glory of these grand Kings of the forest and plain.” Hell! They would model their Boy Scouts of America after them. They’ll name their high school, college and professional sports teams after them. But, of course, he meant name them after the “good Indians” – that is to say, the dead ones.

Unfortunately, for America – and not for lack of trying – those “latter despicable beings” were not annihilated. Baum knew we would always be trouble. Here’s what he wrote following the 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre: “Having wronged them for centuries we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up by one more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth.”

I contend that most non-Native people on this continent suffer from a “Baum Complex.” They really like the “story” of the “Indians” so why do we living Indians have to mess it up for them? I don’t think the non-Native population is really worried that we will destroy their civilization – they are doing that just fine without us.

But we sure do screw up their version of history; and messing with their sports teams is just unreasonable. Even those that claim to “empathize” with us because they acknowledge the undeniable, as Baum did – “Having wronged them for centuries” – just can’t understand why we don’t stop all this sovereignty nonsense. Just accept things now, be proud of who you were, and stop being “despicable.” Cheer for the Washington Redskins and the Cleveland Indians and be proud of your place in our history. So we've been told.

I was told recently and very publicly by the Niagara Falls, New York mayor to “Let it go! Just let it go!” Well, many have, but a growing number of us just won’t “let it go.”  We will not be “Good Indians.”

www.tworowtimes.com

“Full Sovereign" – a buzzword for minority status - The River of Words

Too often I have witnessed, that lip service is given to issues that are associated with Onkwehonweh (real people) political matters. Whether coming from elected government representatives or the mainstream media, the disdain for culturally-based concepts comes across through skin-deep engagement and coverage. This historical practice remains the same in modern times.

Under the guise of modern history, the language of diplomacy has been closely attributed to the French language. The French word “parler” (verb) means “to speak.” A word with similar origins is the name of the “parliamentary” form of government.

If a country “parleyed” with another country, the intent was to conference with another party, particularly as part of a truce, or as an action between enemies. The classic sign to parley was to raise a black flag by the summoning party. This is still the internationally recognized signal.

Following this train of thought, within the language of contemporary politics I have heard that recently the term “full sovereign” is now being put forth as a public talking point statement by elected representatives of the United States, in reference to North American Indian nations. The usage of this phrase raised a black flag with me. This is not a political equal speaking to another political equal. It is a diplomatic pat on the head.

What are they really saying? Why are they saying this? What is the benefit to Onkwehonweh, if any?

These words “full sovereign” were spoken recently at the NIGA Summer Legislation Update meetings to a meeting visitor by a male Congressman (NIGA stands for the National Indian Gaming Association.) When questioned on the use of this phrase, the response was from a bewildered-looking member of the US Congress. The gratuitous value of a “full sovereign” label was thus exposed.

It is possible that the intended audience for the remarks (in Washington D.C.) was one of placated, and possibly satisfied, citizens of the United States. The irony of uttering the words “full sovereign” to a gathering of Onkwehonweh should have fallen on deaf ears. Yet the hall was silent as the question of what it meant was muddled in response.

Possibly “full sovereign” made reference to the legal term “sovereign immunity” that has been employed by elected, federally-recognized American tribal councils. It is more commonly cited by the historically ensuing federal governments of the United States and Canada in response to lawsuits by federally recognized tribes and band councils, to assert their own “sovereign immunity” in response to the legal challenges. In fact, a common expression of tribal sovereign immunity is to “waive sovereign immunity” as part of the legal process. You rarely, if ever, hear the federal governments waive their own “sovereign immunity.” Evidently, it is poor form to begin to do so, if one believes in “stick to your guns” sovereign expression.

More likely, “full sovereign” alludes to an interpretation best displayed in the legal proceedings of the Miccosukee Tribe in their arguments against the United States Internal Revenue Service. In 2010, Judge Alan S. Gold of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the Miccosukee Tribe overstepped their claims of sovereign immunity to efforts by the United States government to access financial records involving tribal accounts and elected leadership. Additionally, to display the matter to other watching tribal governments, the United States was described as a superior sovereign in comparison to the political status of the Miccosukee Tribe as a “domestic dependent nation” which the US Congress can limit, modify or eliminate the powers of local self-government which tribes otherwise possess, “subject to ultimate federal control.”

The shock and awe of “full sovereign” tribal status labeling fails all of the political tests that equals employ with each other.  Whether spoken in the French language or through legal briefs, the intent is clear. In the United States, there can only be one form of government, despite the lack of formal agreements by Onkwehonweh to accept or endorse that status. There can never be any confusion to the outcome of such an argument, according to the United States. They will never parley with inferiors.

Onkwehonweh have to bear this in mind. Tribal governments funded by big government can be bought off and stifled. The land-based rights of Onkwehonweh have no buyout price nor can they be discounted. The birthright of the unborn generations can never be made inferior to any man-made system. Creation cannot be bought off, today or ever.

The River of Words

Sometimes you have to just get in there and get down to the business of the people. Let’s look through the mist surrounding the solutions that we can find together as a united people in need of clarity and advancement.

With your permission, we will now navigate the maze of the motive and intent of what Onkwehonweh (real people) must face, each and every day, as they reach for their own freedom as people of the earth and as guardians of the lands of the unborn. Our sovereign path is built upon land-based rights, neither granted nor limited by government, but instead, lit by the freedom of thought and personal choice of action of the individual. The path that is shared by all of us who feel that if it is not used, it will become overgrown and forgotten through disuse, or placed off-limits by those who have laid an alternate, temporary road covering those same lands, which leads those who take it in the wrong direction and is always in need of repair. Laying those new roads does not mean that those original sovereign rights we share are extinguished. They will always still be there. They represent our Unity. They must be dusted off regularly.

These words are for those of you who walk this path with me. Taking longer strides the stronger you become in your understanding of who you are and where you are going. Your Native pride inspires me, all of you, both young and old, with every step that you make, with every breath that you take, each and every day. I want to personally thank you for your survival. Our lands and the awe-inspiring power of Creation live through each of you, who have chosen to defend them.

The Sting and the Overreach: From Kansas City to Tonawanda, Oshweken, Yakama and More

From the LTN Column in the August 21, 2013 edition of The Two Row Times.

Last week, a 43-count federal indictment was filed in the Western District of Missouri. It named 18 defendants and while only a handful of were Native, this indictment and the “sting” that brought it is ALL about us. The elaborate Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) sting set up in Kansas City, Missouri was all about selling cigarettes to Native retailers on Native lands within the imaginary borders and, even more imagined, control of New York State.

For more than 30 years, Native retailers have been selling tobacco products on Native lands free from New York State’s regulatory control, including the State’s sales and excise taxes. Compliance with federal excise tax, for the most part, has been met and is not at issue with this indictment. Of course, this specifically raises the question about why, i.e. if the federal taxes are paid, is the ATF mounting a sting over state tax? Herein lies the crux and significance of this case.

The Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (CCTA) is really being put to the test here. This law basically states that ANY tobacco products requiring state tax (and the stamp indicating proof of that paid tax) found in a state requiring such a tax and stamp is deemed by the federal government as “contraband” if that tax is not paid (and affixed with the proper tax stamp) UNLESS the product is in the possession of an AUTHORIZED dealer or wholesaler. Of course, Native wholesalers, distributors and retailers do not qualify as AUTHORIZED dealers. The facts that New York State knows – that their taxes cannot be enforced on our lands and that THEY have never established that “unstamped” product on Native land is “illegal” or that Native businesses do not require State “authorization” – are completely glossed over for one reason: PRECEDENT.

Now while the product used in this “sting” was not a Native-made product, establishing that a product brought onto our lands without a NYS tax stamp can be deemed unlawful and to have that hold up in court is HUGE. Let’s be clear: NONE of the cigarettes on the shelves in Seneca Territories, Tuscarora, Tonawanda, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, Mohawk or our brothers on Long Island have NYS stamps on them. NONE! And in the more than 30 years that Native smoke shops have existed, never has a stamped product been on our shelves. Now New York State has, after many years, cleared enough of their own legal hurdles to finally cut off their “state licensed wholesalers” (state stamping agents) from selling us unstamped product, a practice that existed for almost all of those 30 years, but state laws stop well short of establishing that our sales and, likewise, our acquisition of unstamped cigarettes is a crime. In fact, to the extent that “premium brands” or non-Native brands have been made more difficult for retailers to purchase, Native brands have pretty much successfully replaced them and New York State finds itself wrestling with this “problem.”

So now here come the FEDS! By luring a few Native retailers with truckloads of hard-to-come-by Marlboros and Newports from out of state, the ATF hopes it can assert federal law to enforce state law that otherwise cannot be established on our lands, PARTICULARLY AS IT APPLIES TO NATIVE BRANDS!

Even as this case was building, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman had filed lawsuits to block Native brands from entering the State en route to Native territories. So there you have it! This entire elaborate scheme has been developed to crush Native-to-Native commerce, a trade that the State and Feds know they have no business in.

No matter where you stand on tobacco use or “wealthy smoke shop owners,” this is an affront to all of us. The two targets of the NYS Attorney General are King Mountain brand of the Yakama Nation (located in what is now Washington State) and Seneca brand of Grand River Enterprises in Oshweken. In my opinion, this is the SOVEREIGNTY fight of our time – not because of cigarettes but because of trade. We need to realize that it doesn’t matter if it is the Conservatives in Canada or the Democrats (Liberals) in the U.S. We are under attack. When the U.S. federal government under Democrat Barack Obama throws this kind of support to New York State under Democrat Andrew Cuomo to shut down one of the few bright spots in the otherwise dismal economies of our territories, it is time to respond. We will always fight for our land and water – a fight that will be ongoing – but when will we finally draw the line on oppressive governments interfering with a basic right to trade and sustain ourselves? It is time for ALL of us to respond.

Tobacco was always ours and it was always a significant element of our trade. It was this way long before the white man bastardized its use and its form, turning it into a product of addiction, politics and massive wealth opportunities for them. The continuous attempt to criminalize our participation in a trade that they misappropriated from us and almost completely dominate throughout the world is as incredible as it is hypocritical.

Almost as a side note and for any of those within our own ranks that harbor ill will toward private sector development within our territories and are under the belief that all private enterprise is evil and unlawful, perhaps I should mention a few more details of this indictment and just who is in the tobacco trade on our lands. One of those listed in the indictment is the operator of the Tonawanda Seneca Nation Enterprises (TSNE). The TSNE shop, also known as Jan’s Smoke Shop, is not a private enterprise. It is one of the much-touted “lawful” Haudenosaunee businesses that are distinguished from private entrepreneurs by the Grand Council of the Haudenosaunee. This shop’s premier brand is the Seneca brand of Grand River Enterprises, one of the same brands that are being targeted in this grand scheme. Seneca brand is the most popular Native brand not only for the privately owned shops but also for the Onondaga’s smoke shop and Seneca Nation’s “One Stops” and Oneida Nation’s “Sav-on” stores. That’s right, the “Central Fire” of the historic and legendary Haudenosaunee depends on this product from Oshweken. Even beyond these specific “Nation” enterprises, the Seneca Nation and Saint Regis Tribe in Akwesasne also pull millions of dollars into their general funds from the private sector smoke shops. Seneca, King Mountain and a host of other Native brands fund both “Traditional” Native governments and “Elected” ones.

But let’s get back to the individual indicted this past week as the operator of the TSNE’s smoke shop. This is a Nation employee and is actually forbidden from paying state tax according to “A Special Report by the Haudenosaunee on some of the primary aspects of Law, Sovereignty and Governance” (March 1998).

“The Haudenosaunee have never accepted, nor do we intend to accept, the jurisdictional authority of New York State…to levy sales and excise taxes upon our people or any transactions that are conducted within the territorial boundaries of our member nations.”

Will this loyal Tonawanda woman be hung out to dry and “take the rap” for the only enterprise of the Tonawanda Seneca Nation? Will the Tonawanda Chiefs allow this (or recommend it to shield them)? Will the Tonawanda people allow this? Will the Haudenosaunee?

Whether it is a Nation enterprise or private business, the sovereignty of all of us is being violated. The Feds imposing state law on any of us, whether we are in Yakama, Oshweken or Tonawanda is wrong and must be fought. Most on the list of those indicted will ultimately plea out to make a deal. Many did before the indictment even came down. An individual plea agreement is one thing but a court ruling on this must not stand. The ripple effect will cripple what little economies we have and will kill many opportunities we have yet to even explore. Protecting Native-to-Native trade is not an option – it is an imperative.

The Two Row Times is a Family Affair

Andrew Cleaning Ink from his hands

By Jim Windle
SIX NATIONS

The Two Row Times news publication is the product of years and even generations of hard work and entrepreneurial Native spirit.

Owner and publisher, Jonathan Garlow, inherited this spirit from his father, Andrew Garlow of Garlow Printing and Copy located on Mohawk Road at Six Nations of the Grand River Territory.

“I’ve been in the printing business for half a century now, I guess,” says the senior Garlow.

“I’ve been in the printing business for half a century now, I guess,” says the senior Garlow. “I started in the printing business at age 22. I guess I kind of fell into it.”

He recalls becoming friends with a man he worked with in Toronto who showed him the basics of how to run an offset press. And he liked it.

“I kept moving to different places,” he remembers. “I was just trying to get a little money and gain some experience.”

His life journey then took him to Brantford where he began work at Ricter Web Printing, some 30 years ago. That is where he and Two Row Time’s Graphic Designer, David LaForce, first met and worked together as the only two Natives in the shop.

Andrew and Jonathan working on the press

David’s connection to Six Nations comes through his maternal grandmother, a Mohawk of the Wolf Clan. His father is from the Mississaugas of the New Credit and his grandfather was from Wahta Mohawks. His grandfather attended residential school but his grandmother’s family would not allow her to go.

Two years later, Garlow jumped at the chance to work at Hurley Printing, a union shop in Brantford, and he and LaForce went their separate ways. Now, decades later, their paths meet again.

In 1994, Garlow gathered up a few dollars, his accumulative knowledge and experience, and opened his own print shop back home at Six Nations, which has been serving the needs of Six Nations and New Credit ever since.

Now, almost 20 years later, he is helping his son Jonathan make his own move into the news publication business.

Jonathan is a man of many talents. He has an accomplished musical career which saw him found Tru Rez Crew, an award winning hip hop group and groundbreaking force in Native hip hop. Tru Rez Crew won the 2003 Canadian Aboriginal Awards for best Rap Album and best song single. Jonathan continues to play Gospel music in his community and is a producer who collaborates with many local native artists. In 2008 he produced Karha:kon – “In the Bush” a reality TV hunting show which aired on First Nations Cable. Among other efforts directed and produced the feature length documentary film Day Zero.

Andrew is proud of what Jonathan is now pursuing, and supports him in every way he can. He is also pleased with the team Jonathan has assembled around himself — a team which includes Andrew’s old co-worker and friend Graphic Designer David LaForce.

“When you start a new thing you have to be around people who believe in what they are doing and put into it whatever it will take to succeed,” says the senior Garlow. “When I started my business, failure was not an option and I’d put in as many hours as it took, many times 16 hour days.”

David LaForce and Family

“It’s a great team Jon has put together,” he says. “I have every confidence in them all.”

“I’m really excited about the Two Row Times,” says Nahnda. “Our family has gone through a lot the last while with the death of Jon’s brother Jeremy and his mother (Eleanor). I have also recovered from having had breast cancer, and it all kind of happened in a short period of time, so it’s really good to see something new on the horizon — to be walking forward into a new part of this journey.”Although a little nervous, as anyone would be going into such an ambitious endeavor, Jon’s wife Nahnda, an Onondaga of the Beaver Clan, is also excited about her husband’s new adventure.

She loves to see Jon and his dad working together with a group of people of the same good mind.

She and Jon are a part of a new generation of young Native entrepreneurs, who bring a whole new approach to the age old business of information sharing.

Nahnda admits to getting the majority of her news and information on-line, and this is the element of the Tow Row Times that most excites her.

“Having a strong social media element has got to be an integral part of the Two Row Times,”

“Having a strong social media element has got to be an integral part of the Two Row Times,” she says. “To be honest I might look at the front page news and a couple of pages in, but then I go right to the births deaths and classifieds. But I’m on facebook four, five or six times a day.”

She isn’t alone. In fact, within her age group and younger, this is the new normal according to all statistics, which also reveals more than 50% of Native populations are under the age of 30.

Like most Onkwehon:we readers, she has become jaded by the misrepresentation and misinformation being put out as fact in the mainstream media. This is another reason she believes in her husband’s vision for the Two Row Times.

According to her, it was all the misrepresentation and spin the mainstream media put on the coverage of the reclamation of Kanonhstaton (Caledonia) that turned her off to the  corporate media.

“Things were way blown out of proportion and a lot of things were left out,” she recalls.

This being said, there will always be a need for the printed page as well as the electronic media and the Two Row Times hopes to excel in both forms.

Together and with their extended family and staff the Garlows hope to make a difference and help get the “real” news reported for and about Onkwehon:we people everywhere with the Two Row Times.

www.tworowtimes.com

www.facebook.com/tworowtimes