“You can see they’re in a somewhat precarious situation in terms of their basic existence and the stability of their communities given that precarious land tenure situation.”
James Anaya United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
As published in The First Perspective April 18, 2013
By Chris McGreal in Washington
guardian.co.uk
A United Nations investigator probing discrimination against Native Americans has called on the US government to return some of the land stolen from Indian tribes as a step toward combatting continuing and systemic racial discrimination.
James Anaya, the UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, said no member of the US Congress would meet him as he investigated the part played by the government in the considerable difficulties faced by Indian tribes.
Anaya said that in nearly two weeks of visiting Indian reservations, indigenous communities in Alaska and Hawaii, and Native Americans now living in cities, he encountered people who suffered a history of dispossession of their lands and resources, the breakdown of their societies and “numerous instances of outright brutality, all grounded on racial discrimination”.
“It’s a racial discrimination that they feel is both systemic and also specific instances of ongoing discrimination that is felt at the individual level,” he said.
Anaya said racism extended from the broad relationship between federal or state governments and tribes down to local issues such as education.
“For example, with the treatment of children in schools both by their peers and by teachers as well as the educational system itself; the way native Americans and indigenous peoples are reflected in the school curriculum and teaching,” he said.
“And discrimination in the sense of the invisibility of Native Americans in the country overall that often is reflected in the popular media. The idea that is often projected through the mainstream media and among public figures that indigenous peoples are either gone or as a group are insignificant or that they’re out to get benefits in terms of handouts, or their communities and cultures are reduced to casinos, which are just flatly wrong.”
Close to a million people live on the US’s 310 Native American reservations. Some tribes have done well from a boom in casinos on reservations but most have not.
Anaya visited an Oglala Sioux reservation where the per capita income is around $7,000 a year, less than one-sixth of the national average, and life expectancy is about 50 years.
The two Sioux reservations in South Dakota – Rosebud and Pine Ridge – have some of the country’s poorest living conditions, including mass unemployment and the highest suicide rate in the western hemisphere with an epidemic of teenagers killing themselves.
“You can see they’re in a somewhat precarious situation in terms of their basic existence and the stability of their communities given that precarious land tenure situation. It’s not like they have large fisheries as a resource base to sustain them. In basic economic terms it’s a very difficult situation. You have upwards of 70% unemployment on the reservation and all kinds of social ills accompanying that. Very tough conditions,” he said.
Anaya said Rosebud is an example where returning land taken by the US government could improve a tribe’s fortunes as well as contribute to a “process of reconciliation”.
“At Rosebud, that’s a situation where indigenous people have seen over time encroachment on to their land and they’ve lost vast territories and there have been clear instances of broken treaty promises. It’s undisputed that the Black Hills was guaranteed them by treaty and that treaty was just outright violated by the United States in the 1900s. That has been recognised by the United States supreme court,” he said.
Anaya said he would reserve detailed recommendations on a plan for land restoration until he presents his final report to the UN human rights council in September.
“I’m talking about restoring to indigenous peoples what obviously they’re entitled to and they have a legitimate claim to in a way that is not devisive but restorative. That’s the idea behind reconciliation,” he said.
But any such proposal is likely to meet stiff resistance in Congress similar to that which has previously greeted calls for the US government to pay reparations for slavery to African-American communities.
Anaya said he had received “exemplary cooperation” from the Obama administration but he declined to speculate on why no members of Congress would meet him.
“I typically meet with members of the national legislature on my country visits and I don’t know the reason,” he said.
Last month, the US justice and interior departments announced a $1 billion settlement over nearly 56 million acres of Indian land held in trust by Washington but exploited by commercial interests for timber, farming, mining and other uses with little benefit to the tribes.
The attorney general, Eric Holder, said the settlement “fairly and honourably resolves historical grievances over the accounting and management of tribal trust funds, trust lands and other non-monetary trust resources that, for far too long, have been a source of conflict between Indian tribes and the United States.”
But Anaya said that was only a step in the right direction.
“These are important steps but we’re talking about mismanagement by the government of assets that were left to indigenous peoples,” he said. “This money for the insults on top of the injury. It’s not money for the initial problem itself, which is the taking of vast territories. This is very important and I think the administration should be commended for moving forward to settle these claims but there are these deeper issues that need to be addressed.”
Tyler Fryberg carries the torch for the Special Olypmics Photo by Brandi Montreuil
Tulalip Tribal member Tyler Fryberg has set his mind to return to the Special Olympics Summer Games this year. Tyler has been participating in sports activities like track and field, cross country, basketball and bowling, since high school. Prior to the summer games last year, Tyler was asked to carry the Special Olympics Torch, which he gladly accepted and ran 18 miles.
“I definitely want to carry the torch this summer,” said Tyler “it’s so much fun.”
For the past few weeks Tyler and the Marysville team have been training and preparing for the Northwest Regional Spring Sports Festival on May 5th, 2013 at Marysville Pilchuck High School. Tyler will make every effort during the festival to qualify for the Special Olympics Summer Games that will be held at Joint Base Lewis – McChord on May 31-June 2.
This year at the festival, Tyler will be taking part in the 100 meter and the 4 X 100 meter relay along with two extra events; the shot put and the 400 meter.
“I’m okay at shot put” says Tyler, “The ball is eight pounds and my best throw is ten meters.” Tyler has been practicing the shot put since the beginning of winter.
Even though Tyler has FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome), he has not let that determine his limits in life. In high school Tyler was accepted on the varsity track team at Monroe High School and ran a 5:28 mile. Tyler explains, “For someone that has a disability, I was trying to prove that they could get on the varsity track team, and I did. I was on the varsity team for two years.”
Tyler maintains a busy schedule of sports, training, school and volunteering. His favorite sport is running, but Tyler participates in other activities such as bowling and basketball.
“I actually won the bowling tournament, that was kind of cool.” boasts Tyler.
Tyler Fryberg battled rain & cold weather as he began the 3.5 mile run Photo by Brandi Montreuil
Along with sports, Tyler has an active interest in criminal justice. Last year he began taking criminal justice classes at Everett Community College. He contacted the Tulalip Police Department (TPD) and met with the Police Chief at the time, Jay Goss, and began volunteering in the office.
“It’s an interesting story,” laughs Tyler, “I came in and asked for a ride-along, I had a meeting with Chief Goss and I told him all about myself, and that because I have a disability I couldn’t get a real job, but he said I could volunteer instead.” At the TPD, Tyler gains extra experience in the criminal justice field by helping out around the office.
“Ty is very helpful,” says Shawn Edge of the Tulalip Police Department, “he’s always here at the busiest time of the day and he’s always here to help with the stuff that we can’t get to. “
TUALIP, Wash. -The Opportunity Expo had its second successful year. Marysville Rotary, Marysville School District and The Tulalip Tribes coordinated this year’s Expo. Students preparing to graduate were ushered into the Expo where they could speak with a variety of recruiters and employers about their plans for their future.
The Opportunity Expo booths included over 100 different vendors, including colleges, universities, and vocational and technical schools from across the country, along with law enforcement, military recruiters, and top employers like Boeing.
TULALIP, Wash.- The Hibulb Cultural Center’s Gardening Together as Families event was planned for Saturday April 13, 2013, rain or shine. Despite the cold and rainy weather, gardeners began arriving at ten am, dressed in rain gear and ready to garden. They made their way inside the Cultural Center where they enjoyed traditional prayers and songs prior to heading out to the garden and greenhouse.
Sweet peas vining on an old crab pot Photo by Monica Brown
In the garden’s raised planter boxes they replanted the starts from the green house. Cabbage, cauliflower and broccoli were all placed in the raised beds. Sugar snap peas were replanted in a raised bed and given an old crab pot to vine on. A spring mix variety of lettuce was replanted in a lettuce wall that looks like upside down stairs to maximize space and water. These cold weather plants are hardier to cold and some freezing temperatures. While the sweet peas and broccoli may produce all summer, cabbage, cauliflower and lettuce will need to be reseeded after they are done producing.
Master Gardener Richelle Taylor inspects the Kale plants Photo by Monica Brown
Early spring plants that are able to withstand the cooler temperatures were already thriving in the raised planter boxes. Master Gardener Michelle Taylor coerced me to try the fresh Kale that she tore from the stalk. Kale is surprisingly refreshing, sweet and tender; it is similar in taste to sweet peas. Michelle explained how Kale is an easy vegetable to grow in this area of Washington and is full of nutrients like Iron, fiber, calcium, Vitamins C, A and K. Kale is simple to cook with and prepare, it’s great in salad, soup, casserole, or in a smoothie.
Carol Kapua fascinates over the artichoke plant Photo by Monica Brown
Gardener Carol Kapua was enthralled when she saw the large artichoke that it was “so very healthy” and explained how the artichoke will grow and mature on the inside of the bushy plant. Artichoke is not usually grown in this wet climate and is a bit of a finicky perennial but is able to be grown as a low maintenance annual. The artichoke plant will need to be “overwintered” a term which means the plant will need to be cooled to a low temperature of 30 degrees in order to flower.
A peek inside the greenhouse Photo by Monica Brown
The next Gardening Together as Families event will be in May. All levels of experience are welcome and Gardeners do not need to bring any tools, although if you have your own garden gloves, knee pads etc. you are welcome to bring them. At the end of each Gardening Together as Families event a delicious and nutritious lunch is prepared by the Cultural Center staff.
For more information or you would like to attend future garden events please contact Veronica Leahy at (360) 716-5642 or email vleahy@tulaliptribes-nsn.gov
A little girl is at the heart of a big case at the Supreme Court next week, a racially-tinged fight over Native American rights and state custody laws.
Veronica with her biological father Dusten Brown and his wife, Robin. (Courtesy of John Nichols)
The United States Supreme Court next Tuesday hears argument in a head-spinning case that blends the rank bigotry of the nation’s past with the glib sophistry of the country’s present. The case is about a little girl and a Nation, a family and a People. The question at the center of it has been asked (and answered) over and over again on this blessed continent for the past 400 years: Is the law of the land going to preclude or permit yet another attempt to take something precious away from an Indian?
The case is styled Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, but everyone knows it as the “Baby Veronica” case. The “baby” is a little girl, now three-and-a-half years old, born of the fleeting union of an American Indian man named Dusten Brown and a Hispanic woman named Christina Maldonado. Before Veronica was born, her mother arranged for her to be adopted without telling the baby’s father. When, months after the baby’s birth, the father found out about the adoption, he exercised his rights under federal law to block the adoption and gain custody. The two state courts which have reviewed the case have both sided with him.
The adoptive family, the couple who joyfully took Baby Veronica home from the hospital to South Carolina following her birth, claim that Brown waived his rights to custody under state law. The father, who now lives with the little girl in Oklahoma, claims that his conducts falls perfectly into the safe harbor of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978, a federal law designed to protect Indian families from “abusive child welfare practices that resulted in the separation of large numbers of Indian children from their families and tribes through adoption or foster case placement.”
So there is an intensely personal component to the case. And there is the larger picture, the political calculus, that seems to animate every high-profile Supreme Court case. This is yet another case about federalism — about states’ rights — some experts have told the Court. And Paul Clement, the conservative lawyer representing the child’s guardian in the case, has made an extraordinary argument designed to undercut federal oversight over Indian affairs: These statutes, he argues, are unconstitutional because they are based upon racial classifications that violate the equal protection rights of non-Indians.
Some of the elements of the case, sadly, harken back to the bad old days of dark stereotypes about Indians. The adoptive couple, who’ve relentlessly argued their case in the court of public opinion by appearing on television with the likes of Anderson Cooper and Dr. Phil, have been widely portrayed as the innocent victims of the story. Meanwhile, Baby Veronica’s father has been largely portrayed as little more than a shifty, good-for-nothing drifter. The truth lies somewhere in the middle — and the fact is that Baby Veronica’s story is precisely the sort of story Congress had in mind when it passed the ICWA.
Which is why it was a surprise to many when the justices in Washington agreed to hear the case. The Supreme Court of South Carolina, where the adoptive couple lives and where Baby Veronica was located at the time of the lawsuit, ruled that the federal law trumped state law and gave custody of the child back to her biological father. So did the justices take the case to reaffirm the primacy of Congressional authority over the lives of Native Americans? Did they take the case to strengthen the federal law? Or did they take the case to force Baby Veronica’s father to give her back to the white couple who thought they had successfully adopted her?
Some Facts
Like most cases that come before the Supreme Court, the “Baby Veronica” case has many more villains in it than heroes. Neither of the little girl’s biological parents respected each other enough to do right by their legal or moral obligations to one another. The father did not want to pay child support. The mother did not tell the father that she intended to place the baby up for adoption. The adoptive couple filed for adoption three days after Baby Veronica was born but didn’t give her father official notice of the proceedings for four months — that is, until just a few days before Brown, a U.S. Army soldier, deployed to Iraq.
There was a lot more of this sort of shadiness surrounding the adoption. Baby Veronica’s mother knew that the father was a member of the Cherokee Nation. She evidently told both the adoption agency and the adoptive couple that the father was Cherokee, but also acted in ways designed to conceal the situation from Indian officials (and, for that matter, from the little girl’s father). Before the baby’s birth, for example, there was an unsuccessful attempt to notify tribal officials, but Brown’s first name was misspelled on the notice, and his birth date on the form was, as the South Carolina Supreme Court later found, “misrepresented.”
Transporting the baby from Oklahoma, where she was born, to South Carolina, where the adoptive couple lived, required the consent of Oklahoma officials. On the state form, one option for identification was labeled “Caucasian/Native-American-Indian/Hispanic.” The word “Hispanic” was circled (although it is unclear who circled it). Had the Cherokee Nation known about the baby’s heritage, an Indian official later testified at the four-day hearing in the case, it would have objected and prevented the child from leaving the state. In short, everyone knew that there were “Native American” interests in the adoption, but no one at the time did all they could to ensure that these interests were fairly represented.*
Some Law
The South Carolina Supreme Court viewed these facts as consistent with the language and purpose of the Indian Child Welfare Act, and it’s not hard to see why. The law was passed 35 years ago because Congress was concerned with adoption practices that separated large numbers of Native American children from their parents (and their heritage). In plain English, having for centuries implemented policies and practices which shattered the centrality of Native American family life, federal lawmakers tried to do something remedial about it. From an amicus brief filed in the case by current and former members of Congress:
Congressional inquiry over several years [in the mid 1970s] demonstrated the severity of the problem: a large percentage of Indian children — one-quarter to one-third — were being adopted or placed in foster care families outside of the Indian tribes; state adoption policies provided little to no protection for maintaining the tribal affiliations of these adopted Indian children; and the loss of millions of acres of tribal lands at the turn of the twentieth century rendered the continued existence of an Indian tribe’s sovereign identity dependent on the tribe’s ability to maintain its future generations of citizens — citizens who would learn the tribe’s language, practice its traditions, and participate in its tribal government, regardless of whether they lived on or off a reservation.
The purpose of the law was to help protect Native American parents like Brown by preventing the “involuntary removal” of Indian children as well as any voluntary adoptions — like this one — which did not give preference to the child’s Indian relatives. It was designed to help keep Indian families together — or at least to give Indian fathers a better chance at keeping custody of their children. In recognizing the purpose of the federal law, and the concomitant need to protect Indian children from having their lives determined by non-Indians, the South Carolina Supreme Court cited a tribal chief’s poignant Congressional testimony:
One of the most serious failings of the present system is that Indian children are removed from the custody of their natural parents by nontribal government authorities who have no basis for intelligently evaluating the cultural and social premises underlying Indian home life and childrearing. Many of the individuals who decide the fate of our children are at best ignorant of our cultural values, and at worst contemptful of the Indian way and convinced that removal, usually to a non-Indian household or institution, can only benefit an Indian child.
The law has been successful — but not entirely. There will be no argument here that the law must be struck down because it has achieved its goal. In their amicus brief in the case, Indian rights groups point out that “recent analyses of national child welfare data indicate that the out-of-home placement of Indian children is still disproportionate to the percentage of Indian youth in the general population and that Indian children still continue to be regularly placed in non-Indian homes.” The law also has been consistently upheld by the justices in Washington as a constitutional exercise of Congress’s authority over Native American affairs.
Matt and Melanie Capobianco
All sides agree that the key legal question in this case is essentially a definitional one. The adoptive couple, Matt and Melanie Capobianco, argue that Baby Veronica’s Indian father “unceremoniously” renounced his “parental rights to his unborn daughter” and thus forever waived his rights to be considered an Indian “parent” under federal law. They say that South Carolina’s law would not have required his consent to the adoption and that the Indian Child Welfare Act wasn’t designed to protect the rights of Native American parents. From their brief:
The state court’s application of ICWA here transformed a statute that prevents the removal of Indian children from their homes into a statute that required the removal of an Indian child from her home …The court held that an unwed biological father of Indian lineage who has abandoned a pregnant mother and child may veto the non-Indian mother’s lawful decision to place her child for adoption, even though under state law the father lacked custodial rights and his consent was not required for the adoptive placement.
But the state courts disagreed. Regardless of how state law might have resolved the dispute, the judges ruled that the girl would never made it to South Carolina, and into the Capobianco’s home, had the couple followed federal law. Brown was a “parent” under the ICWA, two state courts ruled, because he was the girl’s “biological parent” who had established his federal rights by “acknowledging his paternity … as soon as he realized” the girl had been put up for adoption. His waiver of his parental rights was invalid, the South Carolina courts concluded, because the adoptive couple “did not follow the clear procedural directives” of the federal law.
This is all wrong, the Capobiancos told the justices, and a grave injustice is going to occur if Baby Veronica gets to stay with her father. Federal law “does not countenance the chaos and heartbreak that would ensue if tribes or noncustodial fathers with no right to object to an adoption could later uproot Indian children from their adoptive families.” Of course, the “chaos and heartbreak” over adoptions that took Native American children away from their families and tribes is the very reason why Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act in the first place. At least in this case, it appears the Indians have the letter of the law on their side.
Turning Equal Protection on its Head
This is another case where state law conflicts with federal law — which means it is yet another Supreme Court case involving principles of federalism and states’ rights. Enter Clement, the conservative lawyer, who on behalf of the child’s guardian (more on her later), has filed a jaw-dropping brief. Clement doesn’t just want to win for the Capobiancos. He wants also to undermine Congressional authority over the ICWA and all federal Indian law, and he wants to do so not just for this client but for another client, a non-Indian gaming client (who, as you might imagine, also has great eagerness to see the demise of federal Indian law).
So the federalism argument is here. And Clement also makes explicit some of the ugliest threads of this story. Brown doesn’t deserve to have custody of his daughter, Clement argues, in part because he has only “a sliver of genetic material” making him a Native American. The child is “predominantly Hispanic with some Native American and Caucasian background,” Clement writes, as a prelude to his argument that the little girl’s equal protection rights have been violated because the ICWA is a law based unlawfully upon race. Got that? By protecting Indian fathers and Native American heritage, the federal law unfairly burdens white people.
This is another version of the same argument conservatives like Clement have made with such force recently in their challenge to affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act. In this view, the federal law which gave Baby Veronica back to her father wasn’t a laudable shield protecting Indian families from questionable adoptions, but rather a “race-based preference” that lifts Native American fathers to an unlawfully exalted place in custody law. Because it’s a law based on race, Clement then argues, the statute must be evaluated by the courts using the toughest constitutional standard of review. It can’t withstand that review, he writes.
The Justice Department
The Obama Administration sides with Dusten Brown and the federal law upon which he relies. “The South Carolina court properly awarded custody of Baby Girl to Father,” wrote Justice Department lawyers in their brief to the justices. The federal law applies to any “child custody proceeding” involving an “Indian child,” the feds argue, and it is “uncontested that those two predicates are satisfied here. The Capobiancos, the feds wrote, seek a “judicially-invented exemption to the ICWA” that would allow state judges to circumvent it whenever they feel they are justified in doing so. The text of the federal law is clear, they say, and it covers this case.
The “exemption” the feds mention here is likely the reason the justices took this case. Some states have tried to evade the mandate of the ICWA in cases where “the adoption is voluntary and is initiated by a non-Indian mother with sole custodial rights.” But most other states have refused to recognize such an exemption. It’s hard to imagine the justices not resolving this case without resolving that conflict in the way the federal law has been interpreted. The exemption is “particularly problematic,” the feds contend, “because, as sometimes applied in the lower courts, it requires assessment of the ‘Indianness’ of a particular parent or child.”
The Justice Department also responded to Clement’s equal protection argument by briefly — perhaps too briefly — telling the justices that the ICWA is based entirely on political, not racial, classifications. Both biological parents of Indian children — whether both are Indian or not — have rights under the federal law, the feds say. Moreover, “the definition of ‘Indian child’ does not comprise all children who are ethnically Indian,” the feds write, “but rather only those who are members of federally recognizable Tribes or are eligible for membership and have a biological parent who is a member of such a Tribe.”
Postscript
When you don’t have the law, you argue the facts. When you don’t have the facts, you argue the law. And when you have neither the law nor the facts on your side, you argue for equity and justice. The adoptive couple, the Capobiancos, have been out and about telling anyone who will listen that the Indian Child Welfare Act “is destroying families” and has, in fact, destroyed theirs. Technically, it has done exactly that. Without it, Brown would not now have custody of the girl. But that begs the question of the case — did the Capobiancos have the legal right in the first place to take the girl home to South Carolina?
Inevitably, I suppose, this spin campaign has brought with it religious and racial overtones that surely trigger terrible memories for Native Americans, whether in the end they really care about Baby Veronica or not. For example, there was a popular online petition to amend the federal law — in which Baby Veronica’s return to her biological father is considered a “human rights” violation and Indian tribes are deemed to have “unjust power to remove children from happy, healthy homes.” And there is the work of the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare, with a website dedicated to “saving” Baby Veronica by returning her to the Capobiancos.
And then there is the unseemly role of the guardian in the case, a woman who demonstrably has no business being involved in any case involving the rights of Native American citizens, be they little girls or adults. The guardian, according to Brown’s brief, told him that “she knew the adoptive couple prior to the child being placed in their home,” that the Capobiancos could afford to send the little girl to private school, and that as a result Brown’s family “really need[ed] to get down on [their] knees and pray to God that [they] can make the right decision for this baby.”
At first, the brief alleges, the guardian ignored Baby Veronica’s Indian heritage, but then said “that the advantages of Native American heritage “includ[ed] free lunches and free medical care and that they did have their little get-togethers and their little dances.” This is Paul Clement’s client. And this is part of the record of this case. It shouldn’t be about religion. It shouldn’t be about which family can provide this little girl with tuition. It shouldn’t be about white perceptions of Indian culture. It should be about whether or not the justices are going to support efforts to protect Indian families in the fashion set forth in the ICWA.
Indeed, this law is a rare example where Congress actually did something right by the Indians, by creating a national standard designed to preclude the type of state-centered “home-court advantage” symbolized by the attitude of the guardian in this case. The law adds a layer of protection for Indian fathers who face the possibility of losing their children in adoption to couples like the Capobiancos. And it refuses to reward adoptive parents who have failed to properly notify the biological fathers of Indian children that they are about to lose custody of their kids — as the South Carolina courts found in this case.
Cases like this are among the most difficult the justices ever have to decide. If you don’t believe me, ask Justice Antonin Scalia, who last fall cited an ICWA case from 1989 as one of his hardest in 27 years on the Supreme Court bench. They are difficult because there is only one child and two families seeking to raise her and thus no wiggle room for Solomon’s compromise. The Capobiancos surely deserve to have a child of their own. And so, federal law says, does Dusten Brown. In this instance, at least, the white man’s burden figures to be too much to bear.
* A lawyer for Baby Veronica’s mother contests these facts, argues that the Cherokee Nation was properly informed of the adoption, and contends that both the Nation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs now acknowledge they received timely and adequate notice. Brown and the Nation, in turn, dispute these characterizations. The Bureau of Indian Affairs acknowledged proper notice only after Brown had begun his lawsuit to stop the adoption, they say. So far, as set forth above, the only two courts which have reviewed the facts of this case have sided with Brown and the Cherokee Nation.
MINNEAPOLIS — Nothing in her upbringing on a remote Indian reservation in northern Minnesota prepared Jean Howard for her introduction to city life during a visit here eight years ago: an outbreak of gunfire, followed by the sight of people scattering.
She watched, confused, before realizing that she should run, too. “I said: ‘I’m not living here. This is crazy,’ ” she recalled.
But not long afterward, Ms. Howard did return, and found a home in Minneapolis. She is part of a continuing and largely unnoticed mass migration of American Indians, whose move to urban centers over the past several decades has fundamentally changed both reservations and cities.
Though they are widely associated with rural life, more than 7 of 10 Indians and Alaska Natives now live in a metropolitan area, according to Census Bureau data released this year, compared with 45 percent in 1970 and 8 percent in 1940.
The trend mirrors the pattern of millions of African-Americans who left the rural South during the Great Migration of the 20th century and moved to cities in the North and West. But while many black migrants found jobs in meatpacking plants, stockyards and automobile factories, American Indians have not had similar success finding work.
“When you look at it as a percentage, the black migration was nothing in comparison to the percentage of Native Americans who have come to urban areas,” said Dr. Philip R. Lee, an assistant secretary for health during the Clinton administration and an emeritus professor of social medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.
Recent budget figures show that federal money has not followed the migration, with only about 1 percent of spending by the Indian Health Service going to urban programs. Cities, with their own budget problems, are also failing to meet their needs.
One effect of the move toward cities has been a proliferation of Native American street gangs, which mimic and sometimes form partnerships with better-established African-American and Latino gangs, according to the F.B.I. and local law enforcement reports. Last month, a federal jury in Minneapolis convicted several members of the Native Mob, a violent gang, of racketeering and other crimes as part of one of the largest gang prosecutions ever undertaken in Indian Country.
The migration goes to the heart of the question of whether the more than 300 reservations in the United States are an imperative or a hindrance to Native Americans, a debate that dates to the 19th century, when the reservation system was created by the federal government.
Citing generational poverty and other shortcomings in reservations, a federal policy from the 1950s to the 1970s pressured Indian populations to move to cities. Though unpopular on reservations, the effort helped prompt the migration, according to those who have moved to cities in recent years and academics who have studied the trend.
Regardless of where they live, a greater proportion of Indians live in poverty than any other group, at a rate that is nearly double the national average. Census data show that 27 percent of all Native Americans live in poverty, compared with 25.8 percent of African-Americans, who are the next highest group, and 14.3 percent of Americans over all.
Moreover, data show that in a number of metropolitan areas, American Indians have levels of impoverishment that rival some of the nation’s poorest reservations. Denver, Phoenix and Tucson, for instance, have poverty rates for Indians approaching 30 percent. In Chicago, Oklahoma City, Houston and New York — where more Indians live than any other city — about 25 percent live in poverty.
Even worse off are those living in Rapid City, S.D., where the poverty level stands at more than 50 percent, and here in Minneapolis, where more than 45 percent live in poverty.
“Our population has dealt with all these problems in the past,” said Jay Bad Heart Bull, the president and chief operating officer of the Native American Community Development Institute, a social services agency in Minneapolis. “But it’s easier to get lost in the city. It’s easier to disappear.”
Despite the rampant poverty, many view Minneapolis as a symbol of progress. The city’s Indian population, about 2 percent of the total, is more integrated than in most other metropolitan areas, and there are social services and legal and job training programs specifically focused on them.
The city has a Native American City Council member, Robert Lilligren; a Native American state representative, Susan Allen; and a police chief, Janee Harteau, who is part Indian. But city life has brought with it familiar social ills like alcoholism and high unemployment, along with less familiar problems, including racism, heroin use and aggressive street gangs.
The Swinomish Indian Tribe is seeking $9 million from City of Oak Harbor after construction unearthed a burial ground on Pioneer Way in 2011.
Since the discovery of the remains, the city has worked diligently with the tribe to ensure the remains are handled appropriately and reburied.
Filed now to beat the impending statute of limitations deadline, the Swinomish Tribe lawsuit is apparent backtracking on earlier promises to not sue if the city jumped through all of its hoops.
Estimated cost to the city so far to rectify the matter is about $4 million.
Oak Harbor Mayor Scott Dudley said this week he was “perplexed” and “disheartened” to learn of the tribe’s intent to sue the city.
Dudley said tribal Chairman Brian Cladoosby assured him the city wouldn’t be sued if they handled the situation appropriately.
“We were operating under the understanding that we would complete the recovery work and the reburial and that would be sufficient,” Dudley said.
Cladoosby declined to comment to that assertion because the impending litigation.
If Cladoosby indeed made that promise to the city, it should be honored.
In its suit, the tribe wants an additional $9 million for economic losses and “severe stress, anguish and spiritual and emotional distress.”
City staff were warned prior to the 2011 construction project about the “close proximity” of the archaeological site. It was “strongly recommended” that the city “retain the services of a professional archaeologist to monitor and report on ground disturbing activity … and help develop and implement a plan for cultural materials.”
City officials conceded employees overlooked the warning and acknowledged the city messed up. Since then, Oak Harbor has worked in good faith to rectify the situation.
The city has already forked out $4 million to fix its mistake.
Cost to properly rebury the remains could cost as much as an additional $2 million.
Of that initial $4 million, more than $600,000 was already paid to the tribe for work performed by spiritual leaders, monitors and handlers at the archaeological site.
The city is living up to its promise, the tribe should do the same and drop its lawsuit.
A House Democratic budget proposal to spend $150,000 to study the larger economic impact of coal-export facilities on Washington state was dying just one day after majority Democrats introduced their proposed $34.5 billion operating budget plan on Wednesday.
Rep. Reuven Carlyle, D-Seattle, had asked to include the money in the budget, saying it “recognizes the need for Washington to thoroughly evaluate the economic impacts of coal exports in our state.” But Thursday evening the money was on its way to being removed at Carlyle’s request.
“We felt it was a gesture to avoid the potential of a political battle that would not be constructive,” he explained in a text as the House Appropriations Committee was starting work on a series of amendments to the budget measure, Senate Bill 5034. Carlyle said it was he who asked to remove the funds.
The proposal had offered Washington a chance to gain additional information on an issue that is intensifying politically, and Carlyle had initially said lawmakers did not want “to let the project proponents and the federal government be the only sources of information on this issue.”
The coal industry’s attempt to restore its flagging fortunes by shipping much more of the fossil fuel to China and India by way of Washington and Oregon is attracting growing objections.
As McClatchy Newspapers reported last week, the industry has dropped proposals for export terminals in Coos Bay, Ore., and Grays Harbor. The surviving four proposals call for coal exports from the Gateway Pacific terminal near Bellingham, the Millennium Bulk Terminals of Longview, the Morrow Pacific Project at Port of Morrow, Ore., and the Port Westward Project at Port of St. Helens, Ore.
The exports could hit 100 million tons of coal a year and increase carbon emissions by some 240 million tons a year.
Gov. Jay Inslee campaigned on a clean-energy platform and has talked a lot about the economic opportunity in moving away from fossil fuels.
Last month, he joined Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber in asking the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality to consider climate-change and air-pollution impacts of exporting coal from federal lands to Asia.
“We cannot seriously take the position in international and national policymaking that we are a leader in controlling greenhouse gas emissions without also examining how we will use and price the world’s largest proven coal reserves,” they said.
The House budget proviso called for the Office of Financial Management to look at the “potential cumulative economic impacts of proposed coal-export projects in the Pacific Northwest.”
It specified that the agency must take into account impacts to transportation infrastructure, economic development opportunities “forgone in favor of coal-export projects,” global carbon emissions, the state’s major economic clusters, and taxpayers.
The Republican-dominated Senate Majority Coalition Caucus was unlikely to go along. It watered down Inslee’s signature bill on climate change, reducing him to the role of non-voting chairman and stripped the legislation of language spelling out Washington’s vulnerability to global warming and acidifying oceans.
Carlyle said that “given Inslee’s deep reluctance” about the coal exports and a regional economic study by Puget Sound Regional Council, that impacts from the export projects will continue to be assessed.
WASHINGTON, April 12, 2013 /PRNewswire/ — The Trail of Hope for Indian Housing is carting a house 1500 miles from South Dakota and displaying it next to the U.S. Capitol Building to highlight the terrible housing conditions on Indian reservations.
The facades of an actual house from the Lakota Pine Ridge Reservation will arrive by motorcade and be placed at Union Square (3rd Street NW) on Wednesday April 17, 2013. The site adjacent to the U.S. Capitol will be open to the public from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Senators Heidi Heitkamp (D – ND) and John Barrasso (R – WY) will both speak as will Kevin Gover , Director of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian. Several tribal officials will also be on hand.
The dilapidated structures are typical of the overcrowded and sub-standard housing conditions where Northern Plains Indians are forced to live. Many Indian reservations have the worst housing in the United States. Tens of thousands of Indians often have to live three families to a unit with as many as 18 people crowded into aging two-bedroom houses.
“Since Washington cannot come to the reservation, we will take the reservation to Washington,” said Paul Iron Cloud , Executive Director of the Oglala Sioux Housing Authority. “Washington and America will learn of the current conditions on many of our largest and most preeminent reservations.”
The Hopi masks displayed at the Paris auction house before the sale, which was condemned by Hollywood actor Robert Redford as a ‘criminal gesture’. Photograph: John Schults/Reuters
PARIS (Reuters) – An auction of ancient masks revered as sacred by a Native American tribe fetched more than 750,000 euros on Friday, disappointing prominent opponents to the sale after a French court ruled it should go ahead.
The Hopi tribe of northeastern Arizona and supporters including the U.S. ambassador to France and actor Robert Redford had urged the Paris auction house to suspend the sale due to the masks’ cultural and religious significance.
But the court rejected a motion from the tribe and Survival International, a non-government group representing its interests, arguing that it could only intervene to protect human remains or living beings.
The auction went ahead in front of a standing-room only crowd, raising about 752,000 euros ($984,500) in pre-tax proceeds as collectors snapped up dozens of lots in a sale that lasted more than two hours.
A buyer who acquired four masks said he was delighted to be adding to his collection of Hopi artefacts.
“One day I might give some back,” said the collector, who declined to be identified. “But if it had not been for collectors in the 19th century who contributed to the field of ethnology, there would very little knowledge of the Hopi.”
Some disagreed. A man with Hopi origins studying in France was kicked out of the auction room for interrupting the sale with an angry speech. Several people trying to take photographs were also removed.
“We have lots of art that can be shared with other cultures, but not these,” said Bo Lomahquahu, 25. “Children aren’t even supposed to see them.”
The Neret-Minet, Tessier and Sarrou auctioneers said their collection of masks, priced between $2,000 and $32,000 apiece, was assembled by “an amateur with assured taste” who lived in the United States for three decades.
A spokeswoman for the auctioneers was not immediately available for comment.
“This decision is very disappointing,” said Pierre Servan-Schreiber, the lawyer for Survival International, a London-based advocacy group. “Not everything is necessarily up for sale or purchase, and we need to be careful.”
A visitor looks at antique tribal masks revered as sacred ritual artifacts by a Native American tribe in Arizona which are displayed at an auction house in Paris April 11, 2013. REUTERS/John Schults
‘CRIMINAL GESTURE’
A chorus of opponents had weighed in on the dispute, arguing the Paris auction house should provide legal justification for selling the masks.
“To auction these would be in my opinion a sacrilege, a criminal gesture that contains grave moral repercussions,” Robert Redford wrote in an open letter.
The U.S. ambassador to France, Charles Rivkin, had urged the auctioneers to reconsider, saying in a statement late on Thursday: “A delay would allow the creators of these sacred objects the chance to determine their possible rights.”
Rivkin, who said that the auction house had yet to provide the Hopi Tribe with essential information about the objects, voiced his dismay in a Twitter message.
“I am saddened to learn that the sacred Hopi cultural objects are being put out to auction in Paris today,” he wrote.
The tribe’s legal advocates had sued the auctioneers at the Drouot-Richelieu auction house in central Paris on grounds that auctioning the masks would cause the Hopi “profound hurt and distress”.
Lawyer Quentin de Margerie bought mask 13, a design which mocks tourists, on behalf of Servan-Schreiber to give to the Hopi. He told Reuters few of the collectors understood the significance of the artefacts they were buying.
“It’s a symbolic choice,” de Margerie said. “What the Hopi have said about this auction is that people don’t understand their culture.”
($1 = 0.7618 euros)
(Reporting by Nick Vinocur, Chine Labbe, Lucien Libert; Writing by Nick Vinocur; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall)
