Laura Waterman Wittstock, Indian Country Today Media Network
Hundreds of travelers left their home areas from points all over the United States and Canada last weekend to meet in the tiny village of Wounded Knee, South Dakota. There, they will observe the 40th anniversary of one of the most unusual military undertakings the United States has ever engaged in—or we could say entangled in—during the 20th century. Wounded Knee is located in the southwestern corner of the 11,000 square mile Pine Ridge reservation.
According to then Senator James Abourezk, when the American Indian Movement arrived in Wounded Knee on February 27, 1973, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and federal marshals were already there on alert for armed activity on the Pine Ridge Reservation. The marshals were there in the event of a civil disturbance that might occur during a possible attempt to impeach the tribal chairman.
There were many issues on the table but two that emerged at the top of the list were the torture death of Raymond Yellow Thunder, which took place in Gordon, Nebraska. Yellow Thunder was from Kyle on the reservation. AIM leaders were incensed at the brutal death and what appeared to be a lack of concern for the victim. The other issue was Pine Ridge tribal chairman Richard (Dick) Wilson’s presumed disrespect of traditional Lakota culture. So strong was the sentiment that Gladys Bissonette and others formed the new organization OSCRO: the Oglala Sioux Civil Rights Organization.
According to AIM’s national chairman Clyde H. Bellecourt, it seemed that as soon as a meeting with OSCRO and traditional leaders got underway, word of the movement of FBI and federal marshals toward Wounded Knee was taking place and a defense perimeter was needed. By the next morning, an armed standoff began to take shape. There were three governmental groups lined up: Dick Wilson’s GOONS, the federal marshals, and the FBI. The federal group brushed aside Wilson’s government and took over the tribal offices with its only telephone, which made reporters on the scene wait in line for their turn to call in stories.
Newspapers across the country blared headlines about the “occupation of Wounded Knee.” At that time the name “Wounded Knee” was also part of the name of an American best seller by librarian Dee Brown, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. The book title was taken from the poem, “American Names” by Stephen Vincent Benet, and a strong sense of American romanticism attached itself to what was happening at Wounded Knee. Of course distance added much to the élan presumed to be part of the takeover, but a close up showed unarmed women and little children becoming increasingly pinned down with little prospect for food and the daily necessities of life. February was cold and March was no warmer. Blanketed Indians were photographed moving around the compound and it could be seen in Kevin McKiernan’s photographs that nearby cattle were being sacrificed for food.
With little time to plan, all action was about response and reaction. Help poured in as Indians from all over the U.S. came to help, as did Vietnam Vets and the traditional government of the Haudenosaunee of the Six Nations in Iroquoia.
Negotiations began to end the standoff and secure direct communication between the traditional chiefs and the U.S. government. Representatives of the Richard M. Nixon administration, primarily Assistant U.S. Attorneys General Kent Frizzell, were sent to secure a peace. Presumably, an internal fight over how much violence to use against the occupiers was underway, but the president did not want dead unarmed civilians to be among the casualties.
Some help was less evident, such as that of screen star Marlon Brando, who helped the negotiations through support of the work of Hank Adams. These were pre mobile phone and pre Internet days. Official government papers had to be typed out and signed. At one point, between May 3 and 5, Adams was in the process of delivering a letter with terms to the chiefs and it had been decided that the letter would be delivered at the reservation border. The chiefs, headmen and their interpreters numbering 100 feared breaking the government seal until they could carry the letter into Wounded Knee, Adams writes in the Hank Adams Reader.
The invisible hand and pocketbook of Brando helped bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion on the weekend of May 5-6, 1973, and arms were laid down. The Sioux National Anthem filled the air with a heart-filling swell of notes at sunrise on May 8 and around 125 Wounded Knee defenders surrendered to federal authorities in three predetermined groups. Federal authorities then overran the village, searching for arms and explosives. Returning residents were searched. No arms or explosives were found and the marshals went to their cars and drove out of Pine Ridge.
Laura Waterman Wittstock’s book with Dick Bancroft’s photographs, We Are Still Here: A Photographic History of the American Indian Movement, will be released in May, 2013.
There’s a consensus in the United States of America that the wearing of blackface is a racist act. It’s something you just don’t do, and if you do it you can expect to be rightly pilloried. For American Indians, it’s often frustrating that racism toward Native Americans that feels very overt is somehow harder for the mainstream to detect.
With some ill-advised costume choices, and a thoroughly unapologetic apology, a New York State Assemblyman is doing his part to connect the dots.
Dov Hikind of Brooklyn is being rightly pilloried for hosting a Purim party wearing blackface. Costume parties are a tradition of the Jewish celebration of Purim, and Hikind had decided to host his in the costume of “basketball player,” which necessitated an orange jersey-ish garment, an afro wig and dark makeup.
Hikind’s getup earned him plenty of press. His initial response was a shrug of acknowledgement in a post to his blog entitled “It’s Purim. People Dress Up.” “I am intrigued that anyone who understands Purim—or for that matter understands me—would have a problem with this,” he wrote. “This is political correctness to the absurd.” Hikind was fixated on the idea that the costume only seemed racist because people didn’t understand Purim. Also on Monday he held a news conference to address the criticism — but didn’t. He explained again that costumes are part of the Purim celebration. (The “it’s not racist, it’s a costume” argument is one Natives hear every Halloween.) In addition to explaining what a costume is, he offered a classic first-draft non-apology: “Anyone who was offended — I’m sorry that they were offended, that was not the intention.”
Hikind posted a more genuine apology to his blog on Tuesday. Unfortuately for him, the New Yorker and the Daily Show were still reacting to Monday’s news.
African Americans have plenty of cause to be incensed by Hikind’s ignorance — but so too do American Indians. On Monday, when Hikind was still trying to defend himself with the “political correctness to the absurd” argument, he told a New York Times reporter that the outcry was making him rethink his plans for next year’s Purim.
“Next year I was thinking I’d be an Indian,” he said. “But you know, I’ve changed my mind about that. I don’t think that’s a good idea. Somebody will be offended.”
Of course, it’s hard to know whether (or to what extent) he was joking about dressing as an Indian. (It is also hard to know exactly which kind of Indian he had in mind, but that’s beside the point.) If he didn’t know blackface was a no-no, there is really no telling how unenlightened his thinking may be when it comes to Native stereotypes. Many have seen a unique irony that it is Hikind who would be in this position — Hikind is well known as a zealous, perhaps overzealous, defender of the Jewish community against anti-Semitism or perceived anti-Semitism.
“Dov Hikind is the first person who will holler about something when he thinks or hears a whisper that it might be anti-Semitic,” said Assembly member Annette Robinson, according to the Wall Street Journal, “but does not recognize something is disrespectful to another community.”
The alarm in Europe over the discovery of horse meat in beef products escalated again Monday, when the Swedish furniture giant Ikea withdrew an estimated 1,670 pounds of meatballs from sale in 14 European countries.
Ikea acted after authorities in the Czech Republic detected horse meat in its meatballs. The company said it had made the decision even though its tests two weeks ago did not detect horse DNA.
Horse meat mixed with beef was first found last month in Ireland, then Britain, and has now expanded steadily across the Continent. The situation in Europe has created unease among American consumers over whether horse meat might also find its way into the food supply in the United States. Here are answers to commonly asked questions on the subject.
Has horse meat been found in any meatballs sold in Ikea stores in the United States?
Ikea says there is no horse meat in the meatballs it sells in the United States. The company issued a statement on Monday saying meatballs sold in its 38 stores in the United States were bought from an American supplier and contained beef and pork from animals raised in the United States and Canada.
“We do not tolerate any other ingredients than the ones stipulated in our recipes or specifications, secured through set standards, certifications and product analysis by accredited laboratories,” Ikea said in its statement.
Mona Liss, a spokeswoman for Ikea, said by e-mail that all of the businesses that supply meat to its meatball maker issue letters guaranteeing that they will not misbrand or adulterate their products. “Additionally, as an abundance of caution, we are in the process of DNA-testing our meatballs,” Ms. Liss wrote. “Results should be concluded in 30 days.”
Does the United States import any beef from countries where horse meat has been found?
No. According to the Department of Agriculture, the United States imports no beef from any of the European countries involved in the scandal. Brian K. Mabry, a spokesman for the department’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, said: “Following a decision by Congress in November 2011 to lift the ban on horse slaughter, two establishments, one located in New Mexico and one in Missouri, have applied for a grant of inspection exclusively for equine slaughter. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (F.S.I.S.) is currently reviewing those applications.”
Has horse meat been found in ground meat products sold in the United States?
No. Meat products sold in the United States must pass Department of Agriculture inspections, whether produced domestically or imported. No government financing has been available for inspection of horse meat for human consumption in the United States since 2005, when the Humane Society of the United States got a rider forbidding financing for inspection of horse meat inserted in the annual appropriations bill for the Agriculture Department. Without inspection, such plants may not operate legally.
The rider was attached to every subsequent agriculture appropriations bill until 2011, when it was left out of an omnibus spending bill signed by President Obama on Nov. 18. The U.S.D.A. has not committed any money for the inspection of horse meat.
“We’re real close to getting some processing plants up and running, but there are no inspectors because the U.S.D.A. is working on protocols,” said Dave Duquette, a horse trader in Oregon and president of United Horsemen, a small group that works to retrain and rehabilitate unwanted horses and advocates the slaughter of horses for meat. “We believe very strongly that the U.S.D.A. is going to bring inspectors online directly.”
Are horses slaughtered for meat for human consumption in the United States?
Not currently, although live horses from the United States are exported to slaughterhouses in Canada and Mexico. The lack of inspection effectively ended the slaughter of horse meat for human consumption in the United States; 2007 was the last year horses were slaughtered in the United States. At the time financing of inspections was banned, a Belgian company operated three horse meat processing plants — in Fort Worth and Kaufman, Tex., and DeKalb, Ill. — but exported the meat it produced in them.
Since 2011, efforts have been made to re-establish the processing of horse meat for human consumption in the United States. A small plant in Roswell, N.M., which used to process beef cattle into meat has been retooled to slaughter 20 to 25 horses a day. But legal challenges have prevented it from opening, Mr. Duquette said. Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico opposes opening the plant and has asked the U.S.D.A. to block it.
Last month, the two houses of the Oklahoma Legislature passed separate bills to override a law against the slaughter of horses for meat but kept the law’s ban on consumption of such meat by state residents. California, Illinois, New Jersey, Tennessee and Texas prohibit horse slaughter for human consumption.
Is there a market for horse meat in the United States?
Mr. Duquette said horse meat was popular among several growing demographic groups in the United States, including Tongans, Mongolians and various Hispanic populations. He said he knew of at least 10 restaurants that wanted to buy horse meat. “People are very polarized on this issue,” he said. Wayne Pacelle, chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, disagreed, saying demand in the United States was limited. Italy is the largest consumer of horse meat, he said, followed by France and Belgium.
Is horse meat safe to eat?
That is a matter of much debate between proponents and opponents of horse meat consumption. Mr. Duquette said that horse meat, some derived from American animals processed abroad, was eaten widely around the world without health problems. “It’s high in protein, low in fat and has a whole lot of omega 3s,” he said.
The Humane Society says that because horse meat is not consumed in the United States, the animals’ flesh is likely to contain residues of many drugs that are unsafe for humans to eat. The organization’s list of drugs given to horses runs to 29 pages.
“We’ve been warning the Europeans about this for years,” Mr. Pacelle said. “You have all these food safety standards in Europe — they do not import chicken carcasses from the U.S. because they are bathed in chlorine, and won’t take pork because of the use of ractopamine in our industry — but you’ve thrown out the book when it comes to importing horse meat from North America.”
The society has filed petitions with the Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration, arguing that they should test horse meat before allowing it to be marketed in the United States for humans to eat.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: February 25, 2013
An earlier version of this article misstated how many pounds of meatballs Ikea was withdrawing from sale in 14 European countries. It is 1,670 pounds, not 1.67 billion pounds.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: February 25, 2013
An earlier version of this article misstated the last year that horses were slaughtered in the United States. It is 2007, not 2006.
WASHINGTON — Mandatory federal spending cuts scheduled to begin Friday are already affecting operations at many of the nation’s national parks and wildlife refuges, officials said Monday.
Contracts for plowing Tioga and Glacier Point roads in Yosemite National Park and Going-to-the-Sun Road in Glacier National Park have been delayed, pushing back the opening of large parts of those popular parks. Hiring of seasonal workers — including firefighters, law enforcement officers, search-and-rescue teams, and maintenance staff members — has been frozen. Rangers are preparing to close or cut back hours at campgrounds, trails and visitor centers at parks from Cape Cod in Massachusetts to Denali in Alaska in anticipation of the across-the-board budget cuts.
Ken Salazar, the interior secretary, did not announce the closing of any parks, monuments or refuges, but said that hours for visitors centers, tours and interpretive programs, like those at the Gettysburg battlefield, would be curtailed. He also said that access to some backcountry trails and campgrounds could be limited if firefighting and rescue teams are cut back.
“These are real impacts we’re looking at,” Mr. Salazar said in a call with reporters on Monday. “The sequester was not supposed to happen and now we have to implement these reduced numbers in the remaining seven months of the year.”
Mr. Salazar’s comments and his dire predictions for impacts on the millions of visitors to the nation’s 398 national parks and 561 wildlife refuges are part of a concerted administration campaign to pressure Congress to cancel the automatic spending cuts known as sequestration and to accept President Obama’s demand for balanced deficit reduction including some tax increases.
Mr. Salazar and Jonathan B. Jarvis, director of the National Park Service, used the call to highlight the economic impact of the 280 million annual visits to federally managed lands and the businesses that depend on them. They said the national parks generate $30 billion in economic activity and support 252,000 jobs and that some portion of those businesses and those jobs will suffer under the looming cuts.
Under the mandatory spending cuts, each park must absorb a 5 percent decrease in its annual budget. But since the sequester begins in the middle of the fiscal year, the immediate impact is in effect doubled.
Mr. Salazar has announced that he intends to leave office in March to return to his family in Colorado. President Obama has nominated Sally Jewell, currently the chief executive of the outdoor outfitter REI, to take over the department.
Mr. Salazar said that if the cuts take effect as scheduled, the agency will have to temporarily furlough thousands of employees, some for as long as 22 days. He said that federal personnel law requires 30 days’ notice of involuntary furloughs, so none will take effect before April 1. He said that he and other officials are now planning such actions.
The Interior Department has already warned that the budget cuts will reduce federal revenue by slowing development of oil, gas and coal on federal lands and waters. Mr. Salazar, in a letter earlier this month to Senator Barbara Mikulski, the Maryland Democrat and chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, said that the required cuts will have serious effects on the nation’s prized natural, scientific and tribal resources.
Mr. Salazar said that the spending slowdown would delay review of an expected 550 drilling plans for the Gulf of Mexico and permits for seismic testing and air quality in Alaska. He also said that the agency would issue about 300 fewer drilling permits than anticipated this year for oil and gas wells in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.
In addition, delays in coal leasing because of the sequester will cost the federal government $50 million to $60 million for each delayed lease sale, Mr. Salazar said.
Mr. Salazar also warned that federal mineral revenue sharing payments to state and local governments will decline by more than $200 million and that programs for Native American tribes would be trimmed by nearly $130 million.
Joan Anzelmo, the former superintendent of the Colorado National Monument and spokeswoman for the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, said that Mr. Salazar and Mr. Jarvis are highlighting the cuts that will be most immediately felt by the public to bring pressure on Congress to call off the sequester.
She said that the park service budget has been stagnant for four years while operating costs are rising. Something has to give, she said.
“Instead of being focused on getting their jobs done, park managers are all focused on how they’re going to implement these cuts,” she said in a telephone interview from her home in Wyoming. “It’s hurting people, it’s hurting communities around the parks, and employees are at a point where they’re hitting a wall. This is no way for our government to work.”
WASHINGTON — The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold a confirmation hearing March 7 to consider REI Chief Executive Sally Jewell’s nomination to become the next Interior Secretary.
President Obama nominated Jewell earlier this month to succeed Ken Salazar, who said he will leave the administration at the end of March and return to Colorado.
The hearing will be led by committee Chairman Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat of Oregon.
Jewell, an avid mountain climber and skier who worked as a banker and a petroleum engineer, would be taking on a department with a dual mission of protecting public lands while tapping timber, coal, gas and other wealth from them.
Already, Jewell’s nomination has drawn attention from interest groups, ranging from mountain bikers who want to lift the ban from their pursuits in national parks to east coast governors who want drilling permitted off the Atlantic Coast.
The face was a composite of at least three Natives. (AP)
Rick Heredia, Indian Country Today Media Network
November 17, 1915. The mighty bison Black Diamond bravely stood his ground in the Joseph Stern & Co. slaughterhouse on West 40th Street in New York City, staring at the man aiming the .38-caliber revolver at him. When the man pulled the trigger, the weapon kicked in his hand as the bullet hit Black Diamond’s head, but didn’t penetrate his four-inch-thick skull, which was covered with a hide two inches thick. Instead, the bullet dropped to the ground, flattened, amazing onlookers, according to the New York Times account that ran the next day.
Black Diamond, angry and sensing danger, lowered his head to charge his assailant, but a second assassin was waiting, this one holding a sledgehammer. When the bison, nicknamed Toby, lowered his head, that man gave a mighty swing and the sledgehammer made a sickening thud as it crushed Black Diamond’s skull.
“Black Diamond’s…head tossed weakly once or twice, his legs sagged and he went down. Then the knife in his throat completed the slaughter,” said the Times. August Silz, a wholesale meat dealer known as America’s Poultry King and hobnobbed with the rich and famous paid Central Park Zoo officials $325 for Black Diamond, believed to be 19 years old at the time of his slaughter.
Dressed out, Toby provided 750 pounds of meat. Buffalo meat, rare in New York City, sold for at least copy a pound at the time, about four times the cost of sirloin steak. The hide, which measured 13 feet by 13 feet, was made into a car blanket and a taxidermist took his head. (It was mounted and displayed for years at Silz’s meat company.)
So why all this press for a slaughtered beast? Black Diamond was, at the time of his slaughter, one of the most famous animals in the United States. Just two years earlier, in 1913, his image was stamped onto the reverse side of the Indian head nickel. The nickel—75 percent copper and 25 percent nickel—made its debut on Washington’s birthday, February 22, 1913, 100 years ago. In the decades that followed, it became an Indian country icon.
At least one newspaper, the National Labor Tribune, believed Black Diamond had been dealt a great injustice. “The buffalo which served as a model for the nickel coin has been put to death,” it said. “Republics are notoriously ungrateful.”
Black Diamond’s life wasn’t worth a plugged nickel just a few years after his coin appeared. (AP)
Invading Staten Island
The occasion for the nickel’s debut was the groundbreaking for the National American Indian Memorial, the dream/scheme (and it turns out, pipe dream) of Rodman Wanamaker, scion of the Wanamaker department store chain. Plans called for the memorial to have a colossal bronze statue of an Indian, 60 feet high on a 70-foot base, one arm raised, two fingers forming a V, greeting ships carrying immigrants and others arriving in New York. A museum and a warrior on horseback were also part of the design. The statue and all the rest were to be erected at Fort Wadsworth on New York’s Staten Island, just south of the Statue of Liberty. Staten Island, named for the Dutch parliament, the Staten-General, originally belonged to Lenape Indians, who repulsed the Dutch three times before the invaders were able to establish a settlement there.
Now, in 1913, the island was being invaded again. On a cold, bleak, wet day, just after noon, the fort’s batteries fired a 21-gun salute announcing the arrival of President William Howard Taft. Waiting to greet Taft were members of his cabinet, New York’s governor, New York City’s mayor, naval and military detachments and officers, including Lieutenant General Nelson A. Miles, who had taken part in many of the U.S. Army’s campaigns against Plains Indians, had forced the surrender of Chief Joseph and spent exhausting months in the field chasing Geronimo.
On hand, too, patiently waiting in the mist, were more than 30 Plains Indian leaders and warriors, many of whom who had fought Miles and the U.S. Army. They were dressed in beaded buckskin and wore eagle feather headdresses. They included Plenty Coups, Drags The Wolf, Crane In The Sky, Little Wolf, Black Wolf, Wooden Leg, Red Arrow, Hollow Horn Bear and Two Moons.
Two Moons, Northern Cheyenne, fought in the Battle of Little Big Horn and later, he, too, had been forced to surrender to Miles. Two Moons was one of the three Indians used as a model for the profile on the obverse face of the nickel. (Another was Iron Tail, Oglala Lakota; there is much debate about who the third Indian was.)
At the dedication, Two Moons, along with the other Indians, sang a war song and raised the U.S. flag. They also pledged allegiance to the United States. During the ceremony, George Kuntz, a member of the Memorial
Chief Two Guns White Calf, nickel model (AP)
Association’s executive committee and president of the American Scenic and Historical Preservation Society, produced a bag of Indian Head nickels that had just come from the Philadelphia mint. Taft, who used a sliver tipped shovel to turn the first bit of dirt, got the first nickel. Then he used an ancient axe and the Indians did the same. They, too, got nickels.
When the ceremony was over, the Indians took a day or two to do some sightseeing. They had visited the Statue of Liberty and Madison Square Garden before the dedication, so now they went to the Bronx Zoo and the American Museum of Natural History. Then they headed for Philadelphia where Wanamaker would be their host.
A few months later, in July 1913, Wanamaker sent out the last of three expeditions to Indian reservations promoting citizenship and fealty to the U.S. At the time, many Americans—even those who said they respected Indians, such as Wanamaker—thought American Indians were a vanishing race. Wanamaker believed that assimilation was their best hope for survival. (This, despite the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) findings that the Indian population was increasing. In 1890 the BIA counted 243,000 Indians. In 1900, that figure jumped to 270,000. In 1910, it stood at 305,000.)
Speaking at a press conference held when the citizenship expedition returned to New York in December 1913, Henry Roe Cloud, Winnebago, a Yale graduate known for his speaking skills, asked the question that must have been on the minds of many Indian leaders of the day. “Today, the American Indian finds himself in the midst of a great, complex civilization, and it is a national question whether this complex civilization will bear him down or be the means of his salvation,” Roe Cloud said, as quoted in The New York Times.
An Abomination?
Once the nickel went into circulation, it was hammered. Critics complained that it lacked the grace and beauty of previous coins, including its predecessor, the Liberty nickel. But after 25 years, that coin had run its course, and treasury officials wanted to change the design. The New York Times said the new nickel was a “striking example of what a coin intended for wide circulation…should not be.” It said the coin was not pleasing to look at when shiny and new and “will be an abomination when it is old and dull.” One Times reader, H.P. Nitsua, said, “The new nickel is certainly a travesty on artistic effect,” and called the Indian’s feathers “barbaric headgear.”
Iron Tail demanded that part of his pay for working a Wild West show come in nickels. (AP)
The New York Sun called it an ugly coin.
“The new nickel suggests a button for a corduroy coat,” said The Charlotte Observer. “The buffalo and the Indian adorning it are sculptural crudities.… ”
That was not the way George Roberts, the Bureau of the Mint’s director, saw things. He considered the Indian head, as displayed on the coin, “an impression emblematic of liberty.” That might have come as a surprise to the many American Indians forced by the barrel of an Army rifle onto reservations.
And there was a bitter irony on the other side of the coin as well. “From the beginning, there had been complaints about using a Native American and a bison on the coin,” said one of the American Numismatic Association’s Money Talks informational exhibits. One collectors’ magazine questioned whether either was a good symbol, considering that many Indians had been forced onto reservations and the American bison had been slaughtered to the brink of extinction.”
James Earle Fraser, the New York City artist who created the images on the coin, explained that he wanted to design a coin that was uniquely American. And, he reasoned, the American Indian on one side and a bison on the other would fit the bill. No other country in the world could make a similar claim about its currency, he said. “The great herds of bison that roamed the Western Plains played an important role in the great American epic, the winning of the West,” he said.
History suggests that at least one Indian liked the new nickel. When Iron Tail became a performer for the Miller Brothers 101 Ranch Wild West Show, he insisted that part of his weekly pay be in the nickels. To advertise their show, the Miller Brothers put him on a colorful poster, on horseback, wearing a headdress and carrying an eagle staff, riding the grassy plains. He is sandwiched between large, front and back images of the nickel. iron tail, reads the poster. america’s representative indian chief. Under the coin’s Indian head image the poster describes him as the indian chief that made the nickel famous.
Reproductions of the poster are sold on eBay and other sites.
What a Nickel Is Worth
The coin had a run of 25 years, from 1913 to 1938, when it was replaced by the Jefferson nickel. More than 1.2 billion Indian head nickels were minted; their total currency value was more than $60.5 million.
The National Indian Memorial never did get built at Fort Wadsworth. Wanamaker couldn’t come up with the money and soon enough, World War I grabbed the headlines. But the Indian head—or buffalo—nickel, outlived its critics to become one of the most admired coins the U.S. ever produced. Many have called it beautiful, and it has become iconic. In the early 1970s, an image of the nickel, Indian head showing, appeared on a protest poster that read the only indian america ever cared about.
It has been incorporated into many types of jewelry, from earrings to belts. It adorns T-shirts, jackets and other clothing and is the logo for coin shops and other businesses. It has been made into guitar picks and used to decorate the bolt-action rifles and rifle slings. The image has been tattooed onto backs and shoulders. One artist, Peter Rocha, created a striking four-foot-by-four-foot image of the nickel in Fairfield, California using more than 9,500 jellybeans provided by Jelly Belly (see Rocha’s work at JellyBelly.com).
Many of the nickels are sold on eBay. The American Numismatic Association displayed Black Diamond’s mounted head at its 1985 convention, writes author David Lange in his book, The Complete Guide to Buffalo Nickels. The ANA, headquartered in Colorado Springs, will celebrate 100th anniversary of the nickel during National Coin Week, April 21 to 27. Its theme will be Buffalo Nickel Centennial: Black Diamond Shines Again.
Perhaps the greatest testament to the nickel’s popularity and endurance has come from the U.S. Mint, which resurrected the nickel in the form of the $50 American Buffalo gold bullion coin. When it was first sold in 20
By Rob Capriccioso, Indian Country Today Media Network
Two members of Congress, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) are questioning a policy the U.S. Department of Interior has proceeded with in recent weeks involving its tribal land acquisition policies.
For years, Interior has operated under a “self-stay policy,” which prevented the Department from putting land into trust for tribes while another party was suing over that decision. The idea behind the policy was that if the land was already taken into trust, any court case against the decision would be mooted, and therefore a litigant would be denied his or her day in court.
But the game changed in 2012, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Salazar v. Patchak that a litigant could sue for up to six years after Interior takes lands into trust for tribes. In response, Interior officials decided this year that they would end their “self-stay policy” and put lands into trust, regardless of litigation, since litigation can happen for up to six years anyway.
“Interior is in effect saying that because there can be a suit anyway at any point, even after land is conveyed, then why not convey it right away,” said Michael Anderson, owner of Anderson Indian Law. “It makes a lot of sense for the Department and for tribes.”
And there are more possible changes to come. Kevin Washburn, assistant secretary for Indian Affairs at Interior, suggested another proposed policy modification at a January gathering of the National Congress of American Indians, saying that the Department was considering ending a 30-day period meant to notify the general public of land-into-trust decisions. Post Patchak, some Interior officials no longer believe the announcement period is necessary.
These policy shifts are an attempt by Interior to put a Band-Aid on the controversial U.S. Supreme Court Carcieri decision of 2009 and its piggybacking Patchak decision of 2012. Carcieri limited Interior’s ability to take land into trust for tribes not “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934; Patchak allowed a lawsuit to go forward challenging a tribal casino in Michigan from opening based on the Carcieri decision. The Patchak lawsuit – filed three years after Interior took land into trust, which the Supreme court affirmed was okay – argued in part that the tribe in that case, the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, was federally recognized after 1934, so the same Carcieri rule should apply to it.
Interior has not officially announced any of the Patchak-centric changes, but their existence came to be known during recent proceedings involving the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians, a California tribe that has long been proposing an off-reservation casino. Interior officials told the North Fork Rancheria in January that the Department did not plan to wait for a lawsuit to play out before taking the land into trust for the tribe. As a result, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell recently denied a challenge by the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians’ to stop the land from going into trust. He noted in his ruling that if the North Fork Rancheria ends up losing the suit to the other tribe, “the government may have to contend with legal claims against it.”
“Interior has defended the policy’s application to the North Fork Rancheria on the grounds that the tribe knows what it is doing, so there is little federal liability,” Anderson said, further estimating that “dozens and dozens” of tribes could find the change beneficial, since it is not solely intended for gaming land acquisitions, but all Indian trust lands, such as ones that have come under litigation for housing, health, cultural, and other non-gaming developments.
For a true Patchak fix to occur, and not just a patch, Anderson said that Congress would need to pass a law that would limit all post-land acquisition lawsuits.
Greg Smith, a lawyer focused on Indian affairs with Hobbs, Straus, Dean, & Walker, said that Interior’s decision to proceed with taking land into trust, even in the middle of lawsuit challenging that decision, has sound legal underpinnings, as the Department had voluntarily imposed upon itself the restriction to not take land into trust during litigation in the first place.
“They weren’t prohibited from taking the land into trust by the law, so they are free to change their ‘self-stay policy’ and now start taking that land into trust during litigation,” Smith said.
Still, Feinstein has many concerns. In a letter sent to Interior on January 31, she asked outgoing Interior Secretary Ken Salazar “to clarify several points of concern and allow stakeholders an opportunity for comment before this policy change is implemented.” She called it an “abrupt change in policy has caught many who follow this issue, including many within the Native American community, by surprise.” And she raised several questions, asking if there is a potential for federal liability, if the Department is ready to protect federal liability, if the Department has a procedure for removing lands from trust, and whether the change is necessary at all.
“Have you consulted with tribes and other stakeholders to determine if it is feasible to maintain your voluntary stay policy, with additional conditions?” Feinstein asked in the letter. “Given the significant unanswered questions and the lack of consultation as recommended by Executive Order 13175 which calls for ‘meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of Federal policies that have tribal implications,’ I urge you to open a formal rulemaking process to resolve these outstanding issues prior to implementing this new policy.”
Brian Weiss, a spokesman for Feinstein, said his boss has yet to receive the answers she is looking for. “The policy change is significant and was done without consultation,” he said. “The purpose of the letter was to ask some questions.”
Feinstein’s letter came at an interesting time, being sent very soon after Interior announced its decisions to take land into trust for the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians, as well as the Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians—both California tribes that she has been scrutinizing. The senator is well known for opposing Indian gaming interests in her state, and she has received criticism for offering legislation in 2011 that would amend Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) to make it very difficult for some tribes to open casinos. She has also been called out for attempting to secure a compromised Carcieri fix to a controversial 2009 Supreme Court ruling that called into question Interior’s ability to take land into trust for tribes recognized by the federal government after 1934.
Young, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs, is also requesting clarity on the policy change. In response to an inquiry from Indian Country Today Media Network about Feinstein’s letter, Young’s office said that he is concerned that Interior has not shared the change with him or his office. His spokesman said that Interior has not consulted with, nor informed, the congressman of the changes, and that Young would like to see a response from Washburn on this matter.
Nedra Darling, a spokeswoman for Interior, said that she could not comment on the letter: “We are reviewing the letter, but the Department does not comment on matters of litigation.”
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, has yet to respond with her thoughts on her Democratic colleague’s concerns; her staff has been studying the letter for many days without comment.
Several Indian affairs lobbyists and lawyers in Washington believe the shift in Interior’s policy is good for Indian country as a whole, and they fear that Feinstein, at least, is attempting to once again negatively tie Indian gaming to Interior’s ability to take land into trust for tribes.
“Interior is being fairly proactive about allowing land to be conveyed, and Sen. Feinstein has been on the record – probably at the behest of D.C. lobbyists and those who have opposed the North Fork and Enterprise projects – against Indian gaming interests,” said Anderson. “She’s opposed to gaming, period.”
Anderson said the issue goes far beyond gaming, however, adding, “There are tribal advantages to having land into trust immediately, including tax advantages, grant opportunities, and all the other opportunities of having a land base. It would be nice to see the senator support these outcomes.”
Joe Valandra, a tribal consultant, said he finds the substance of Feinstein’s letter to be “at best disingenuous” with an underlying motive of “dividing and conquering” Indian country on Patchak and other trust and gaming issues.
“This letter continues the point of view that land should almost never be taken into trust and when it is, it should be subject to every political whim and pressure available,” Valandra said, adding that Feinstein implies that the change in policy is a negative for tribes, but what he thinks she really means is that it is negative for some gaming tribes that wish to limit competition from other tribes on this front.
Valandra said that if she had real concerns in this area for all tribes, “she would be advocating for legislative fixes to remedy the effects of the Carcieri and Patchak decisions. She would also be supportive of the change in policy at BIA that is attempting to bring certainty to land in to trust decisions at an earlier time.”
Valandra said that Feinstein’s federal liability concerns are “spectacularly disingenuous,” adding, “the cost to tribes because of uncertainty about future landholdings and the ability to engage in economic development is the real cost.”
Other lobbyists, including those from firms representing some wealthy California tribes, are less alarmed by Feinstein’s letter because they see her as a person who needs to be worked with if important Indian country legislation is to pass the Senate, and they view her as a friend on issues they are passionate about.
Belonging to that camp is Larry Rosenthal, owner of the Ietan tribal lobbying firm, who said his firm consulted with Feinstein before her letter was sent. “She tends to see these issues through the prism of gaming because she has had a lot of issues with gaming in her state over the years,” Rosenthal said. “She has never liked gaming, and she has always been anti-gaming.
“At the same time, she is not anti-Indian. We have worked well with her on a variety of issues, like the tribal components of [the Violence Against Women Act] and Internet poker.”
To those who think he is befriending an enemy of Indian country, Rosenthal said, “It’s important to note the distinction between being a realist versus being a defender. I am not defending Sen. Feinstein; I’m just being a realist about who you have to work with to get things done.”
But Valandra cautioned that those who help Feinstein in her efforts are not looking out for the good of Indian country as a whole. “I am not inclined to pigeon hole, but the tribes that generally would benefit from the fruits of this letter are those that have a perceived economic interest to protect,” Valandra said.
“They are doing their job,” Anderson said of lobbyists who have supported Feinstein’s Carcieri and Patchak tinkering. “They are trying to achieve an ends for their clients, which is to stop competitive projects. Their goals are narrow.”
Valandra added that tribal policy at the federal level is based on consultation and consensus, but he believes that this idealistic ideology is hampered when it involves the divergent interests of the 566 federally recognized tribes today.
“Not all tribes agree, and most will never,” Valandra said. “This not for lack of incentive or trying, rather it is the same reason not all states and cities agree—diversity of ideas, geography, history and economic conditions. The policy dilemma is that when Feinstein (and others) use the divide and conquer strategy, it works. When consensus is not achievable, policy making/implementation almost always grinds to a halt, or is left to the loudest or most politically persuasive voice.”
Christopher Dunagan | Kitsap Sun – February 20, 2013
SKOKOMISH — A federal lawsuit involving the rights of Indian tribes to hunt game on “open and unclaimed lands” has been filed by the Skokomish Tribe against the state of Washington.
The lawsuit claims that actions by state agencies and officials have denied tribal members access to their legitimate hunting areas. Furthermore, state officials have imposed civil and criminal sanctions on tribal members and promoted a “discriminatory scheme” of hunting regulations that favor non-Indians, the suit says.
The Skokomish Tribe’s lawsuit could open the door to long-awaited litigation that could define the extent of treaty rights related to hunting animals and gathering roots and berries by Native Americans across Washington state.
Listed as defendants in the case are state officials who oversee the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Fish and Wildlife and Attorney General’s Office. Also listed are the county prosecutors in Mason, Kitsap, Jefferson, Grays Harbor, Clallam and Thurston counties, who are charged with prosecuting hunting violations.
The lawsuit asks the federal court to define the extent of the tribe’s hunting and gathering rights, identify the territory where the tribe may operate, confirm the tribe’s “exclusive and co-concurrent management authority” and declare a tribal allocation for game, roots and berries.
The tribe also seeks an injunction to prevent state officials from interfering with tribal rights to hunt and gather roots and berries.
Assistant Attorney General Joe Shorin, assigned as lead attorney for the state, said he and his colleagues are evaluating the tribe’s legal complaint and will file an answer with U.S. District Court in Tacoma.
“It is too early to say what, if any, precedent this case will have,” Shorin said. “There has not been a lot of litigation regarding these hunting and gathering issues. Part of that may be that the parties have been working together fairly effectively.”
In response to questions, Joseph Pavel, vice chairman of the Skokomish Tribal Council, said tribal officials are preparing a written statement.
A landmark 1974 ruling by U.S. District Judge George Boldt and following court decisions held that treaties signed in the 1850s guaranteed tribes the right to take half the harvestable fish and shellfish, with some exceptions. Tribal fishing areas have been approved by the courts, though some areas are still in litigation.
As a result of those rulings, Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted a policy in 1988 calling for negotiations with various tribes to resolve hunting issues. Tribes typically set hunting rules for their own members and coordinate with state officials on management plans for specific populations, including six identified elk herds. But the courts have never delved into hunting rights to the extent they have for fish and shellfish.
The 1855 Treaty of Point No Point preserves the “privilege of hunting and gathering roots and berries on open and unclaimed lands.” That treaty — signed by representatives of the Skokomish, S’Klallam and Chimakum people — ceded to the United States tribal lands around Hood Canal and the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
In its lawsuit, the Skokomish Tribe contests state maps that purport to identify those ceded lands, as well as a Washington State Supreme Court ruling that limits “open and unclaimed lands” to those not in private ownership.
The lawsuit argues that state Supreme Court cases fail to define the extent of the hunting and gathering rights of the Skokomish Tribe. That lack of definition has caused state officials to “unlawfully interfere with plaintiff Skokomish Tribe’s privilege of hunting and gathering on open and unclaimed lands as guaranteed by Article 4 of the Treaty of Point No Point …
“This unlawful interference … resulted and continues to result in denial of lawful access to plaintiff Skokomish Indian Tribe’s territory and use of resources located thereon.”
The tribe’s lawsuit lays out an extensive history of hunting before the treaties were signed. The Skokomish Tribe, which includes the successor of the Twana people, ranged throughout the Hood Canal region and lived in nine communities, mostly at the mouths of rivers.
Tribal members took sea mammals, including porpoises, seals, sea lions and whales; waterfowl, including geese, brant and duck; and land game, including elk, bear, deer, beaver, mountain beaver and muskrat, according to the lawsuit. Tribal people also gathered plants, including the roots of ferns and other plants, as well as a wide variety of berries.
INDEX — Building a mini-dam on a scenic stretch of the Skykomish River would not cause flooding or reduce water flow, according to preliminary studies by the Snohomish County Public Utility District.
These findings are among the results of studies done recently by the PUD in determining whether to pursue the project.
The utility is looking at building an inflatable mini-dam, or weir, on the river just above Sunset Falls near Index. The PUD believes the project could generate enough power for nearly 10,000 homes. Its cost is estimated at between $110 million and $170 million.
The utility has scheduled open houses for Wednesday in Everett and Thursday in Sultan to discuss its findings with the public.
The meetings will be informal. Visitors may circulate, look at photos and graphics and discuss the idea with officials.
“We heard a lot of concerns from the local residents,” said Kim Moore, an assistant general manager for the PUD. “We’ve been trying to address those concerns.”
Some neighbors and environmental groups oppose any consideration of a dam on the stretch of river.
Jeff Smith, who lives about 50 yards from where the mini-dam would be installed, said the new information makes no difference to him.
“This is not an issue about engineering details,” he said. “This is an issue about a protected natural resource. It’s like negotiating the terms of surrender before the battle starts.”
The south fork of the Skykomish is part of the state’s Scenic Rivers System. Under this designation, development is discouraged but not prohibited.
This designation also does not prevent development, but the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is required to consider the tag in deciding whether to issue a permit for a dam.
Last year, American Rivers, a national environmental group, listed the stretch of river as the seventh most endangered river in the nation. The designation was prompted by the possible PUD project, said Brett Swift, regional director for the group’s northwest office in Portland.
In the project, water would be diverted from the pooled water behind the weir, above Sunset Falls, through a pipeline downstream to a powerhouse below the falls.
The dam would be inflated only during winter months when the flow is highest, PUD officials have said.
The PUD has a federal permit to study the project but has yet to apply for a license to build. If that occurs, it likely won’t be for three or four more years, Moore said.
Concerns about the project include flooding above the dam and reduced water flow below it; glare from lights; noise and traffic during construction, and the effect on the scenery.
In addition to the findings on flooding and water flow, the PUD also has artist’s conceptions showing the weir would have a minimal effect on the appearance of the river.
Officials have drawn up routes to minimize noise and traffic during construction, Moore said. An electrical switchyard for the power could be hidden behind the powerhouse to keep it invisible from across the river, PUD spokesman Neil Neroutsos said.
Other issues, such as the project’s potential effect on fish, will have to be studied in greater detail, Moore said.
All the information so far is preliminary and will have to be fleshed out further if the utility decides to go ahead with the project, Moore said.
“We have not found, as of yet, a fatal flaw with respect to this project.”
The PUD buys about 90 percent of its power in the form of hydroelectric energy from the Bonneville Power Administration and is looking to diversify.
In 2011, the PUD opened a $29 million mini-dam on Youngs Creek near Sultan. In 2008, the PUD bought a tiny, 6-foot-tall dam and powerhouse on Woods Creek near Monroe from a private utility company for $1.1 million.
The PUD also owns and operates the Jackson Hydroelectric Project on the Sultan River, which includes Culmback Dam on Spada Lake.
Lower Elwha Klallam elder Adeline Smith talks about growing up on the Elwha, where the salmon were once so numerous she had to push them out of the way with her hands as she swam in the river’s cold waters as a child. Photo: STEVE RINGMAN / THE SEATTLE TIMES
For the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the Elwha River’s restoration also is a cultural renewal
By Lynda V. Mapes, Seattle Times staff reporter
Swimming in pools of the Elwha River as a child, Adeline Smith pushed salmon out of the way, so thick were the fish in the lower river. “It was nothing to see them everywhere when us kids were in the water, especially in the deep holes. We would scare them away.”
Elwha Dam was finished just four years before she was born in 1918. It quickly began killing fish.
Smith, one of the oldest living members of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, whose homeland included villages up and down the river, remembers as a kid running from pool to pool with her niece, the late Bea Charles, scooping up the silvery baby salmon stranded in puddles by operation of the dam. “They were just dying. We felt sorry for them,” she said of the gasping fish. The dam walled adult fish off from 93 percent of their habitat upriver. With so little spawning ground left, the fish declined. Today the river’s chinook, steelhead and bulltrout are listed for protection under the federal Endangered Species Act.
The tribe intervened in 1986 in licensing proceedings to demand the dams be taken out, and worked with environmental organizations to force the settlement that became the 1992 Elwha restoration act.
With 989 members today, the tribe lost the most with the destruction of the fish runs — and was the slowest to reap the benefits of economic development from the dams. Power poles carried electricity to only parts of the tribal community as late as the 1930s, and the reservation didn’t even have indoor plumbing until 1968.
Smith, now 93, has outlived three children and two husbands. Over the course of her life she welded submarines, worked as a riveter at Boeing, eviscerated chickens at a meatpacking plant, sewed jackets at a Seattle garment factory, and picked salal in the woods for 17 cents a bunch. She’s seen and done a lot in her life. But the dams coming out?
“I never thought I would see the day,” Smith said. “It’s a great thing, even if a percentage of the fish come back.”
Some things, though, may be gone forever.
As a child, she remembers her father telling her about Thunderbird’s Cave — the place where a rainbow jumped back and forth in the river’s mist as it crashed through a tight canyon.
There, Thunderbird, who could make the salmon come upriver just by flashing his eyes, dwelled in the upper reaches of the watershed, where only the biggest fish could go.
She fears the cave, and the tribe’s creation site near where Elwha Dam is today, may be gone because of the dynamiting of the river channel when the dams were built.
But restoration of the river will continue a cultural revival for the tribe, which in 2007 published a book on the Elwha River and its people for use in its tribal community and in public schools. And the tribe is playing a lead role in the recovery of the Elwha ecosystem, from restoring habitat in the river to replanting native plants in the mud flats that will be exposed when the dams come out.
“It’s a lot of change,” Smith said. “And we are going to have the fish back.”
