Two Row Time

Previously published in the October 30, 2013 issue of The Two Row Times

Much has been made of the Two Row Wampum lately. The “Two Row Wampum Renewal Campaign” and the launch of the “Two Row Times” are just two examples of the recent attention being given to it. Yet there seems to be something fundamentally missing from a meaningful conversation on the subject even as attention has spread.

Let’s be clear. The Two Row isn’t just about a ship and a canoe. It is about the paths of creation. This is important enough to repeat — the two rows symbolized in the Kaswentha are paths. They are not roads, highways, canals, pipelines, power lines, lines on a map, or a charted course on a body of water. A path yields to nature whether it is laid down by the feet of millions of our ancestors, a pair of chipmunks, or mighty glaciers. It widens, it narrows, it adjusts with time, and it provides the guidance for us in times of trouble or conflict.  

The message of the Kaswentha is respect, rights and responsibility. Respect of the paths for all of creation is what we remind ourselves of every time we say the Ohenton Karihwatehkwen — those words before all else. We respect not only those paths and our relationships to them but also the rights and responsibilities of those who travel those paths.

Our path, too, needs respect. Respecting that path shows not only respect to those who came before us but also a commitment to those who will follow us.

But this is the tough part. While we are quick to claim the rights we hold, we are not so prepared to uphold the responsibilities that come with them. And if we jump off our path or if one of those shiny objects from their vessel catches our eye, do we accept the responsibility for that pursuit?

We need to take a hard look at three specific examples of these shiny objects and how each one has affected us. Many seem to be oblivious to how far off our path they have strayed; yet, we all have been impacted.

Voting is one of those shiny objects dangled in front of us and  promoted on both sides of the imaginary line. Voting in non-Native elections is so clear an act of the assimilated that it is amazing to me it is even tolerated among our people; yet, in many places “tribal government” is so complicit that they actually assist in “Get out the Vote” campaigns for the non-Native elections. In my opinion, voting is a cop-out if not a sellout. It is simply  passing the buck for responsibility by giving your authority to someone else. By empowering an elected official you diminish your own rights and responsibilities.

Enlisting in the U.S. and Canadian armed forces is another shiny object, an act of indoctrination that began even while those same forces were barely done killing our own Onkweh Onweh brothers and sisters. Here’s an example. We ignored the attack and invasion of Hawaii when it was the U.S. doing the invading but rushed to sign up when the Japanese did the same.

Finally, we must avoid their courts. Now I realize that far too often we find ourselves as hostile participants in their judicial system and beyond our assertion of their lack of jurisdiction and our sovereignty, we do what we must to get out of it. But when we willingly enter their courts we wittingly or unwittingly give them authority over our lands, our environment and ourselves.

Land claims are prime examples of this. We do not have "Land Claims." It is they who have illegitimately claimed our land. Filing a claim for our own land is oxymoronic. And filing it in their courts is just plain moronic. The Onondaga Nation should agree with this, especially since their final attempt at even being heard in the U.S. court was dismissed a few weeks ago.

Their courts are not remedies for our conflicts with them. I would not give our authority to a court anywhere in the world. Conflicts between peoples are only "legal" issues only if there is an overarching set of laws that both sides acknowledge — and no such law exists. Otherwise the issues are political and require diplomacy; not litigation. One cannot just file papers to launch a diplomatic effort. The line must be drawn in the sand not by a "legal action" but with a real action.

So occupy your land, block an environmental crime, and stop an unlawful development! Win the battle in the court of public opinion if possible. Raise the cost of their actions. And find support for a cause to bolster a call for diplomacy.

Voting in their elections, enlisting in their armed forces and voluntarily submitting to their courts are not actions of a people who have survived the longest and most complicit act of genocide the world has ever known. These are acts of submission by its victims. It is important to remember that they have NO lawful act of subjugation over us. Those that continue to oppress us would love to suggest that these voluntary acts are evidence of the success of their "final solution" but we know better.

We must remain vigilant in many more areas to stay true to our path. We need to renew our commitment to the Kaswentha. And while our path must continue to yield to Nature we must fulfill our first and most solemn compact — the one with Creation.

We Are Not Alone

This is the unedited version of my column submitted for the October 23, 2013 issue of the Two Row Times

A few things need to be immediately taken away from the events of the past week. The first is that we are not alone.  The Mi’kmaq who are standing against fracking for natural gas in Elsipogtog do so not just with courage of their own convictions but also with support from places diverse in geography, culture and ethnicity.

Social media has made it much easier to reach across time and space connecting our Native relatives from the Mohawks to the Lakota but also to the Paiute, Ojibwe, Kumeyaay and hundreds of Native people familiar and unfamiliar to us all. We may not form an ever-ready unified military force at the drop of a hat but that is neither where our strength will ever be nor should ever be. Our strengths are in each of the territories or regions that we live. For some it is seizing the moment to take our own stand on a parallel issue that strengthens the fight for each. For many of us it is simply using whatever field of play that we find ourselves in to raise awareness, make a statement and build support.

As I wove the information on the raid at Elsipogtog into my previously arranged interviews in Albany, N.Y. on public radio and cable news, I was surprised at the interest that was piqued. And as I listened to public radio on my drive back across the state from Albany to Cattaraugus, I was moved by an interview with a local non-Native elected official in the area of the protest and raid who said, “God bless the First Nations.” This gentleman went on to describe how municipal leaders had voted almost unanimously for a moratorium against gas well exploration because of their concern over hydrofracking. He suggested that only the Native protesters were having success fighting this affront to land, water and the life of the region because his own federal government was working against the interests of the municipal governments. These local elected officials were standing with the Native protesters and quite literally so, as this man took a shot to the leg from one of the RCMP’s non-lethal weapons. While many enemies remain set against our fight for sovereignty, more and more non-Native activist are coming to the conclusion that Pamela Palmater once stated on my show, that we may be the last best hope for anyone interested in saving the planet.

Many of us hold some very specific iconic images from events of the past — the Warrior vs. soldier faceoff from Oka or Richard Nicolas standing rifle raised in his hand on a flipped over SQ van from the same conflict. But images these days come quicker than ever and travel the globe at lightning speed. There were immediate images from Elsipogtog of the conflict; among them some of the most compelling images of the last few decades. My good friend Gregg Deal may have helped immortalize one of them with his latest poster created for the “Honor the Treaties” project from the photo image of a woman holding an eagle feather kneeling in front of a line of heavily armed RCMP. Gregg, a Pyramid Lake Paiute, working from his home studio in the Washington D.C. area worked feverishly to get this new creation completed and posted on social media as soon as possible.

From Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal to the capitals of New York and the U.S. the work in various platforms of social activism have taken hold. As I sit here banging on my keyboard I see a picture show up on a Facebook post from Hollywood, California of actor Adam Sandler holding a sign that reads, “We Support Elsipogtog.” 

We don’t need to win everyone over but as more people from outside our Native communities come to realize they need us, we add both their support to us and our responsibility to them. We are not alone but in the words of Uncle Ben Parker “with great power comes great responsibility.”

There are still plenty of racist and condescending views held of our people. Those with solid control of the mainstream media are among them but social media gives us a fighting chance. If we play it right and refuse to let anyone hijack our message or misappropriate our power and responsibility we may yet see major shifts in policies.

The Mi’kmaq of Elsipogtog have made us all proud. And I for one feel stronger than ever when fighting for our land, water, women and children.

Change the Name or End the Genocide

From the October 16, 2013 issue of the Two Row Times

To suggest there are many and far more pressing issues facing Native people than being exploited and insulted by sports teams is an obvious understatement. Should the NFL franchise from the capital of one of the world’s superpowers change its name? Of course it should. As should all those high school, college and pro sports teams that appropriate their image of us as though we are a dead part of their history.

Personally, I have a major problem putting this issue out in front of the continued assault on our sovereignty, which continues to promote poverty, suicide, dependency and every other social ill known to man. The irony of the President of the United States suggesting he “would think about changing the name” of the Washington football team seems to be missed by almost everyone. Perhaps he should have “thought” about the 3,000 jobs killed on Native lands with the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act that he signed into law. Perhaps he should have “thought” about how his Executive Orders calling for consultation and collaboration with Native people are ignored by his departments and agencies as they stretch the interpretation of laws and send their enforcement agents into our lands. Or perhaps he should “think” about at least honoring the minimum standard for Indigenous rights as called out by the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The “Redskins” should not be a distraction to our life issues. And for people like the Oneida Indian Nation of New York’s pathetic Ray Halbritter to make it his centerpiece publicity stunt with statements, such as “We deserve to be treated as we are – Americans” and to actually think this change will “make America better” is the worst example of a self serving attempt to salvage his image from the sellout fraud that most know him to be. I know no Native people in the fight to defend Native sovereignty who would make such sycophantic statements. I am not an American and I am not particularly concerned with making America better while my people struggle everyday from American oppression.

This is not about bad words. It’s about racism, white privilege and the need for the realization for Americans that we are still here. When a rich man like Washington’s NFL team owner Dan Snyder can claim the use of a Native image and a derogatory word as his and his fan’s tradition, this is the definition of white privilege. The suggestion that the “Hail to the Redskins” team song is somehow honoring us isn’t just racist — it is simply a lie. They aren’t “hailing” to us or our history or even our appropriated image. They are hailing Snyder’s team. Snyder should not be forced to change the name; his shame should compel him to do it. In fact, America’s shame should compel the change.

The problem at the root of all this is the fact that racism is alive and well in the U.S. and Canada. Obama made the point that this discussion is a numbers game when he said, “If I were the owner of the team and I knew that the name of my team…was offending a sizable group of people I’d think about changing it.” So for America’s first black president, size matters. If a sizable group needs to be offended to affect change, let’s be clear — we are talking about non-Native people again. We are not a sizable group — not in DC, not in the Washington metropolitan area and, when compared to the rest of the population, not in this country. Forget about right and wrong, right and left, or even black and white — no one is more marginalized than the original inhabitants of this land. And every day politicians, law makers, law enforcement and judges yield to lobbyists, special interests and rich people like Dan Snyder to continue the forced assimilation and further marginalization of Native people.

Yeah, the name should change but don’t any of you dare check a box and say, “there, this one is for the ‘Indians.’” If anyone thinks throwing us a bone by changing the “Redskins” name solves anything for us then your delusional racism is safely intact.

I, for one, hope to point to the name of the U.S. capital’s multibillion dollar sports team for years to come as the perfect metaphor for the racist dominant culture — not just with their continued use of our misappropriated images but with everything else that serves to demean us — this land’s first peoples.

Not even the broadcasters have problems with these images

If  anyone can't see a problem with these images alone and on the face of them, then imagine being a Native person with your child at a game and having to explain this. If you still have no problem with this, and clearly the broadcasters are willing to televise these morons, then we should all be able to agree that we have a long way to go.

"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.