In a fight for federal recognition, the Chinook Indian Nation and Clatsop-Nehalem Confederated Tribes are each bringing their own history books to the debate.
A bill introduced in Congress this year would recognize Oregon’s Clatsop-Nehalem tribes, granting them the same rights to sovereignty and self-determination as the more than 550 other federally recognized Native American tribes.
That doesn’t sit well with the leaders of the Chinook Nation — 3,000 members comprising Cathlamet, Lower Chinook, Wahkiakum, Willapa and Clatsop tribes. They say the Clatsop-Nehalem are historically part of the Chinook Nation and that recognizing them separately would undercut the Chinooks’ 160-year-old drive for federal recognition.
“We want people to know we are the Clatsop people, and when it comes to that tip of Oregon there (the Lower Columbia), we’re there and we’re not going away,” said Sam Robinson, vice chairman of the Chinook Nation. “To have a group just come out of nowhere is a little bit disturbing.”
But Clatsop-Nehalem Council member David Stowe said the group hasn’t come out of nowhere, and that the history of the confederated tribes has been well-documented.
“The Chinook have a history of sour grapes,” Stowe said. “… but our restoration doesn’t impact the rights of anybody. They’ll have exactly what they have right now, and we hope they get restoration as well.”
At stake for both tribes is the ability to become sovereign and restore rights to land, hunting and fishing rights as well as partake in services offered by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Competing press releases sent out in September from both tribal councils disagree on the history of the Clatsop people.
The Chinook Nation says its 1950 constitution was drafted by its five member tribes in reference to 1851 treaties, and the federal government recognized the Clatsop’s relationship with the Lower Chinook in 1958.
“The history with the Clatsop-Nehalem is pretty fresh, compared to thousands of years of history the Chinook folks have,” Robinson said.
But the Clatsop-Nehalem say that despite centuries of trade along the Columbia River and marriages with other tribes, the Clatsop have been a distinct entity since before Europeans arrived.
About 25 percent of Chinook enrollment is Clatsop, according to the Chinook Nation, and any splintering could lessen those numbers.
“We just feel it’s not right. Because they won’t take all of our folks” for federal recognition, Robinson said.
The Clatsop-Nehalem don’t see the problem, however.
“Clatsop that are enrolled with the Chinook, Quinault, Grand Ronde or Chehalis tribes or other tribes are free to choose their enrollment status,” the Clatsop-Nehalem press release reads. “Our restoration will not change their status or member benefits in any way. We have no desire to make any claims of any kind in the Chinook homeland in Washington.”
Those of Clatsop descent may also have other tribal connections in their bloodline. Robinson gave the example that he is descended from Lower Chinook, Willapa Chinook and Chehalis tribes. The amount of ancestry needed to enroll in a tribe is up to individual tribes’ governments.
BIA Northwest Regional Director Stan Speaks says it’s impossible to know what will happen before recognition is granted, and it is “premature to think fellow members are going to abandon one group and go with the other.”
The restoration bill before Congress, introduced by Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.), asks for little more than recognition. Land, hunting and fishing rights have all been left out of the equation.
“That’s very contentious,” said Stowe, the Clatsop council member. “(Asking for more) creates a whole whirlwind and lessens our chances of restoration. At the end of the day what’s important to us, what’s important for our identity is recognition of our tribe.”
The term restoration is used by both sides of the debate. The Clatsop and Nehalem tribes were “terminated” by the federal government in the 1950s under the Western Oregon Indian Termination Act. That severed ties between the government and the tribes in a new policy toward Native Americans. The policy was later reversed for many of the terminated tribes, excepting the Clatsop and Nehalem. Stowe says the act of termination is recognition in and of itself because the Clatsop and Nehalem tribes are listed in the law.
The five tribes of the Chinook Nation — including the Clatsop — were recognized at the end of the Clinton administration, only to have the status revoked 18 months later by the Bush administration.
“We felt it was an injustice for them to be recognized and have it yanked form them, that was horrible, and it was equally an injustice we were terminated in 1954,” Stowe said.
The argument between the groups is centered around those living north or south of the Columbia River, though both sides agree that the divide can be arbitrary.
Dick Basch, the vice chairman of the Clatsop-Nehalem Confederated Tribes, supports efforts to get his tribes recognized, but he is “saddened” by the fighting it has caused.
“We are Lower Columbia Indians that should be supporting each other and working for the benefit of all of us,” Basch said. “We’re all Indian people and just because some of our families went south and others went north doesn’t mean that we have to battle each other.”
Robinson and the Chinook agree on the principle of unity.
“Some folks say, “Well they’re Oregon Clatsop or they’re Washington Clatsop.’ … But the river wasn’t a divider — it was just a highway for us.”
By Kyle Taylor Lucas, Special to Tulalip News
This is the third in a series of stories on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) and the intersection of disproportionately high substance abuse, behavioral, and health disparities in American Indians as compared to the general population.
A landmark 25-year research project by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Kaiser Permanente has linked childhood trauma to major chronic illness and social problems such as heart disease, diabetes, depression, heart disease, diabetes, violence, suicide, and early death.
Begun in the 1980s, “The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study is one of the largest investigations ever conducted to assess associations between childhood maltreatment and later-life health and well-being,” said the CDC. The study included more than 17,000 patients who provided detailed information about childhood abuse, neglect, and family dysfunction. Since the breakthrough study, hundreds of scientific articles, workshops, and conferences have helped practitioners better understand the importance of reducing childhood adversity to overcome myriad social and health issues facing American society. Learn more about the ACEs Study here: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/acestudy/. See the ACEs questionnaire, here: http://www.acestudy.org/files/ACE_Score_Calculator.pdf.
Federal Program Helps Build Family Resiliency with Home Visiting and Early Childhood Parenting Education
The Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV) is a federal and state partnership administered by the Healthy Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and the Administration for Children and Families (ACF).
The MIECHV program was established by the Congress in 2010 with an initial $1.5 billion investment. In March 2014, Congress extended funding through March 2015. Said, the HRSA, “While decades of scientific research has shown home visiting improves child and family outcomes, the program is the first nationwide expansion of home visiting.”
Consistent with research on ACE reduction, the program is based upon scientific research, which shows that home visits by a nurse, social worker, or early childhood educator during pregnancy and in the first years of life prevent child abuse and neglect, encourage positive parenting, and promote child development and school readiness. An HRSA white paper cites a recent Pew Charitable Trusts study that showed “every dollar invested in home visiting yields up to a $9.50 return to society.”
The program supports pregnant families and parents of children to age five to access resources and develop necessary skills for raising healthy children. All of the HRSA-supported home visiting programs are locally managed and voluntary.
According to the HRSA, “The Home Visiting legislation prioritizes American Indian and Alaska Native populations through the inclusion of a three percent set-aside for discretionary grants to Indian Tribes, consortia of Tribes, Tribal Organizations, and urban Indian organizations. Currently, the program supports 25 Tribal grantees’ home visiting programs.”
Several tribes and tribal organizations in Washington State have applied for MIECHV funding and have established programs that will help to reduce ACEs among their members and simultaneously help establish benchmarks and data long missing.
South Puget Intertribal Planning Agency (SPIPA) – Helping Build Family Resiliency by Increasing Traditional Native Parenting Practices
The South Puget Intertribal Planning Agency (SPIPA) is one of several local tribal organizations and tribes that have undertaken training and applying intervention and have begun measurements similar to the ACE Study indicators to address generational trauma, support prevention programs, and to strengthen families.
SPIPA is a five-tribe consortium that supports each tribe’s vision of success and wellness. Its mission is “to deliver social, human, and health services and provide training and technical assistance, resource development and planning” to its member tribal communities—the Chehalis, Nisqually, Shoalwater Bay, Skokomish and Squaxin Island Tribes.
Founded in 1976, despite a challenging economy, SPIPA strives to carry its past successes forward. In its most recent annual report, SPIPA Chairman Dan Gleason said, “While much has changed for the better at the five Tribes, the underlying issues that made the formation of SPIPA necessary still exist. These issues center on self-sufficiency for our families, youth, and elders as they strive to overcome external forces that are barriers to their personal, educational, and career development.”
Asked how SPIPA incorporates the ACE indicators in its work, Jennifer Olson, SPIPA Data Analyst and Evaluator, said, “We are doing some pretty exciting things about addressing early childhood trauma and the ACE Study, but we don’t use the term. We talk about it more in terms of historical trauma. We use a similar intervention and measurements to the ACEs within our own cultural context.”
Olson, who has been with SPIPA for the path fifteen years, earned MA degrees in both Public Health and Community Planning from the University of Iowa. Her work is focused on grant writing and program evaluation.
Olson said their staff has taken ACEs training, and “We have found the ACE measurements dove-tail nicely with our work. They especially align with our work on intergenerational trauma and diabetes.”
SPIPA is starting the fourth year of a six year project supported by federal MIECHV funding from the Administration for Children and Families. It is a Healthy Families Home Visiting Program geared toward tribes. “The Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe and United Indians also received funding in that cycle,” said Olson. The program emphasizes culturally appropriate parenting skills to develop happy, healthy, well-adjusted children. “We blend our program to give support in teaching the basics of parenting to pregnant families and those with children up to three years of age,” said Olson.
SPIPA has an approximate budget of $450,000 to $600,000 to fund, in part, six home visitors (five of whom are tribal members) for four tribes and “We also have urban Indian Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) offices in Tacoma and Bremerton,” added Olson.
A longstanding obstacle in Indian Country is lack of benchmark data making it difficult to measure success which could help communities to secure continued program funding to both reduce ACEs and fill the data gap for other programs. Asked how SPIPA measures success, Olson replied, “We have served over 120 families that are now getting developmental screening who were not previously screened. Four tribes and two urban Indian sites now have early intervention services for birth to three.” Included among their early intervention services are child development screening, parenting education, family wellness assessment, resource/referrals, parent-child interaction activities, ‘Positive Indian Parenting,’ and child development classes.
“In terms of measurement and evaluation tools, SPIPA incorporates some of the federal goals of improving maternal/infant health, reducing child injuries or maltreatment, increasing school readiness, access to healthcare, addressing family violence, family economic self-sufficiency, and referrals for other community resources,” said Olson. She emphasized that it is also important to their member tribes to include a “full program” measurement in which they ask, “Does this program increase traditional Native parenting practices?”
SPIPA does developmental screening with a tool called the “Ages and Stages Questionnaire,” and they utilize an annual survey that incorporates screening for domestic violence, depression, parental stress, family planning and other parenting issues. They have a family assessment called “Life Skills Progression,” which both identifies development and stresses in the family’s health.
Asked about foster care, adolescents, and teen suicide, Olson noted they have a foster care program, but they are not yet applying the ACE Study to adolescents. She added, “We do screen for all ten of the ACE questions at least once per year and routinely with all of our home visits.” SPIPA incorporates the ACE measurements in its work with parents and guardians, and foster home families, for substance abuse and domestic violence screenings among others.
“It is sometimes hard to convince families how critical early childhood education, parenting education, and continuing support are to the family. We meet twice a month with families. This is a new concept for many, so we try to emphasize early screening and intervention,” added Olson.
The SPIPA Healthy Families Home Visiting Program grant has another two to three years and Olson is hopeful the program’s funding will be continued indefinitely, but it is dependant upon congressional approval.
The United Indians of All Tribes Foundation – Reducing ACEs in Urban Indian Population through Culturally Relevant Parenting Program
The United Indians of All Tribes Foundation (UIATF) is a non-profit corporation in Seattle. UIATF was founded in 1970 when a group of Northwest Indians and supporters, led by the late Bernie Whitebear, engaged in an occupation to reclaim Fort Lawton as a land base for urban Indians. Eventually, a twenty-acre site was secured at Discovery Park, and in 1977 the Daybreak Star Indian Cultural Center was completed. The UIATF provides social, education, economic opportunities, and cultural activities for the local urban Indian community.
One of the Foundation’s central services for the urban Indian community is the Ina Maka Family Program with its goal to improve family bonds by visiting in the home, making referrals and coordinating with community resources and support. Their work aims to reduce crime and/or domestic violence by making improvements in family self-sufficiency. They focus on “prevention of injuries, child abuse, neglect or maltreatment, and reducing emergency room visits, improving school readiness and achievement.”
In 2012, the Ina Maka Family Program began a five-year home visiting program funded by the HRSA and ACF. As noted, ACE research has established the link between infant, early childhood home visiting and family health. In 2012, the Ina Maka Family Program conducted a community needs assessment among members and service providers, the results of which they have used to develop a home visiting program.
Katie Hess, who is Program Manager for the Ina Maka Family Program, has been with the foundation for almost three years. Hess is part Native Hawaiian and earned her MA in Public Health from the University of Washington. She was born and raised in Seattle and went to Berkley where she earned a B.A. in Creative Literature.
Speaking to the UIATF’s work to reduce ACEs, Hess discussed the results of their qualitative and quantitative data collection, which she said, “provides contextual support for the need for home visiting in the King County American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) community and guidance for our choice of the appropriate curriculum that will best fit the needs of our community.”
Hess noted, “We are participating on the tribal side of this, but there is also state expansion. At the same time we received our five-year project, the state is using a public-private program through “Thrive by Five” for home visiting programs. The state side is where most of the home visiting money is coming from. They’re doing work with tribes, too, and have recently funded a two-year home visiting (promising practice) program for a tribe.”
In terms of measurements, Hess said, “What’s really special about this program is that we work closely with an evaluator, and we have real vigorous measurements. We established our own measurements. We looked at what’s a realistic measure and how to measure change. For example, breast feeding. We’re only seven months in and data takes awhile to collect, but we also will be doing more qualitative measurement.”
Asked about what she considers the foundation’s next milestone, Hess said, “Oh good question! We only have another year and a half of home visiting in our five-year project. For us, our goal is to ensure our program and data is strong enough to ensure continued funding.” Hess emphasized that in their data and evaluation process, they affirm theirs as a full-service urban Indian organization providing critical services that are “culturally designed.”
The Ina Maka Family Program used a survey tool and results to identify all of the components of its home visiting program. “We have an advisory board that helps guide our work, so we’ve also included pieces that were not in the assessment. It’s going very well. We have about 29 families and we’re still recruiting,” said Hess.
Noting that their home visitors are on a learning curve, Hess nonetheless expressed confidence in their training and program. “Three of our four home visitors are tribal. All have training in curriculum. We also have two elders, two grandmothers working in our program who advise and guide our home visitors. They have a lot of experience in early childhood education. They go on some of the home visits. The other piece that we do is we work with an evaluator. We’re constantly making changes and enhancements to ensure it’s a good fit for our Indian community.”
Asked whether they had utilized the ACE measurements, Hess said, “ACE was not part of our original assessment because people were only starting to talk about it two years ago.” However, she stressed how valuable the ACE measurements are. She explained why. “From a programmatic perspective we want to ensure that we have the tools in place to help our clients so that they are not re-traumatized. Our home visitors are familiar with the ACEs and have an understanding of generational trauma, but we want to ensure that the trainers are prepared. We just haven’t gotten there yet. It can be a really slow process,” but she said they wanted to get it right before including the ACE questions.
In terms of its other efforts to address childhood adversity, Hess replied that at United Indians, “We’re doing our best; we have a workforce program where individuals can receive support to find employment or educational opportunities. We have a Department of Corrections program that provides religious and cultural services with a chaplain, other activities, and helps to coordinate powwows.”
Asked whether their programs include training on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD), Hess noted that while theirs is still a new program, all home visitors have prior training on FASD, and it is on the list for further specialized incorporation into their programs.
Speaking to teen suicide education and prevention, Hess noted, “There is nothing in the schools, but there are several other programs in the Seattle area that we partner with—Clear Sky, and Red Eagle Soaring—a youth theater group, and we partner with Seattle Public Schools education program. We will be opening up an ECAP [Early Childhood Assistance Program] in January at Daybreak Star and geared toward school readiness and long-term school success.”
Although the program is not presently applying the ACE Study questions in their surveys and home visits, as does SPIPA, they do intend to incorporate the research after further training. It is evident that their Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program addresses the findings of the ACE Study and subsequent research—that reducing childhood adversity is essential to overcome myriad social and health issues facing society and disproportionately—the American Indian and Alaska Native communities.
Hess said, “I love doing this work because home visiting has great potential for families and to make some big changes in the long run for the urban Indian families we serve.”
Next in the Series
Both the SPIPA and UIATF tribal programs and overall MIECHV program data thus far demonstrates tribal communities are creating resiliency among their members by reducing adverse childhood experiences. The final story in this series will look at subsequent ACEs research, including neurobiology, epigenetics, and the developing brain. Because ACEs extend beyond the nuclear family to educational and child welfare policies, and to institutional racism in police, courts, and other institutions controlling the lives of Indians, those intersections are reviewed. Finally, the series will explore the potential of ACEs measurement in prevention and for building resiliency for American Indian people and tribes.
Kyle Taylor Lucas is a freelance journalist and speaker. She is a member of The Tulalip Tribes and can be reached at KyleTaylorLucas@msn.com / Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kyletaylorlucas / 360.259.0535 cell
The Seattle City Council has voted to celebrate Indigenous Peoples’ Day on the same day as the federally recognized holiday, Columbus Day.
The resolution that passed unanimously Monday honors the contributions and culture of Native Americans and the indigenous community in Seattle. Indigenous Peoples’ Day will be celebrated on the second Monday in October.
Tribal members and other supporters say the move recognizes the rich history of people who have inhabited the area for centuries.
“This action will allow us to bring into current present day our valuable and rich history, and it’s there for future generations to learn,” said Fawn Sharp, president of the Quinault Indian Nation on the Olympic Peninsula. She is also president of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians.
“Nobody discovered Seattle, Washington,” she said to a round of applause.
Several Italian-Americans and others objected to the move, saying Indigenous Peoples’ Day honors one group while disregarding the Italian heritage of others.
Columbus Day is a federal holiday that commemorates the arrival of Christopher Columbus, who was Italian, in the Americas on Oct. 12, 1492. It’s not a legal state holiday in Washington.
“We don’t argue with the idea of Indigenous Peoples’ Day. We do have a big problem of it coming at the expense of what essentially is Italian Heritage Day,” said Ralph Fascitelli, an Italian-American who lives in Seattle, speaking outside the meeting.
“This is a big insult to those of us of Italian heritage. We feel disrespected,” Fascitelli said. He added, “America wouldn’t be America without Christopher Columbus.”
Seattle Mayor Ed Murray is expected to sign the resolution Oct. 13, his spokesman Jason Kelly said.
The Bellingham City Council also is concerned that Columbus Day offends some Native Americans. It will consider an ordinance Oct. 13 to recognize the second Monday in October as Coast Salish Day.
The Seattle School Board decided last week to have its schools observe Indigenous Peoples’ Day on the same day as Columbus Day. Earlier this year, Minneapolis also decided to designate that day as Indigenous Peoples’ Day. South Dakota, meanwhile, celebrates Native American Day.
Seattle councilmember Bruce Harrell said he understood the concerns from people in the Italian-American community, but he said, “I make no excuses for this legislation.” He said he co-sponsored the resolution because he believes the city won’t be successful in its social programs and outreach until “we fully recognize the evils of our past.”
Councilmember Nick Licata, who is Italian-American, said he didn’t see the legislation as taking something away, but rather allowing everyone to celebrate a new day where everyone’s strength is recognized.
David Bean, a member of the Puyallup Tribal Council, told councilmembers the resolution demonstrates that the city values tribal members’ history, culture, welfare and contributions to the community.
Concern over more scrutiny – and possibly a lawsuit – has prompted residents of a town in Maine to rename a private road to something less offensive.
In August, the board of selectman in Wiscasset, Maine voted s 3-1-1 to name a road there “Redskins Drive” after the now-defunct name of the town’s high school. In 2011, the school’s mascot and name were changed to the Wolverines. Recently, property owners of where the road is located submitted a request to rename it “Micmac Drive” to evade further confrontation.
A letter signed by property owners, dated September 23, gave consent to change the road name “to avoid any further conflict or potential lawsuits with the Indian tribes in the state.” They offered Micmac Road as an alternative, The Times Record reported.
Activist and artist Gregg Deal of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe commended the move to change the name, but he questioned the ubiquitous practice of honoring Native Americans by naming streets and cities after them.
“I think it’s a good move to get away from a racial slur for street name, but I still find it disconcerting that they want to gravitate towards something Indian,” he told ICTMN. “It looks like a case of romanticism. Naming a road after a tribe to honor – that seems really strange when you begin to look at the history and relations with the people and even the specific tribes.”
Deal, who advocates for changing the name of the Washington football team, added sovereign nations have the right to decide whether or not they want to be honored in such a manner.
“If the [Micmac] are all about it, I honor their decision and their right to make such decisions for themselves. I do, however, question the constant need to honor indigenous people in weird materialistic and arbitrary ways.”
Regardless that the name “Redskins” is no longer the high school mascot, and given the road’s name is on its way to a change, people in the town of Wiscasset still have affection for the old moniker.
“It doesn’t bother me,” Julie Groleau told ABC-affiliate WMTW. “The word redskin – I know some people may look at it as derogatory but, um, it’s part of the heritage of the United States and it’s like a tribute to Native American Indians. I don’t think of the term as something bad.”
Chief Edward Peter Paul of the Aroostook Band of Micmacs told The Lincoln County News he approves of the name Micmac Drive, according to The Associated Press.
The selectman will consider the name change on Tuesday. Representatives of Wiscasset did not respond for comment.
Washington — The administration of Gov. Dannel Malloy has asked the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs to scrap proposed rule changes the state believes could lead to recognition of additional Indian tribes in Connecticut.
The BIA has been considering the rule changes for months. The state says the changes could open the door to large land claims and expanded Indian gaming in Connecticut. Yet Kevin Washburn, Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, has said he’s determined to fix what he’s called a “broken” federal recognition process.
The federal tribal recognition rules in place require a tribe to prove its continuous community and political authority since first contact with European settlers. Washburn’s proposal would change that to allow a petitioning tribe to demonstrate it has maintained a state reservation since 1934. Washburn‘s new regulation would also allow tribes that have been denied recognition to apply again.
“The proposed rules represent a dramatic departure from the standards and process governing acknowledgment decisions for nearly 40 years,” Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen said in comments filed before a midnight deadline Tuesday. “If adopted as proposed, petitioners could gain recognition in circumstances completely at odds with fundamental principles of tribal acknowledgement. These proposals…are unjustified and should be rejected.”
A new, final Indian recognition rule will be posted within 60 days. It could be modified again based on the comments of the Malloy administration and others, including Connecticut’s tribes.
Gov. Malloy, the Connecticut congressional delegation and most of the state’s political establishment, have pushed back harder than anyone on the proposed rules, even after the BIA changed them to include a provision aimed at blocking three tribes that have long sought recognition in Connecticut — the Eastern Pequots, the Schaghticokes and possibly the Golden Hill Paugussetts.
The BIA had given the Eastern Pequot and Schanghticoke tribes acknowledgement, then withdrew it after an appeal by the state.
At the behest of Connecticut officials, the proposed rules were modified so those who opposed the tribes’ recognition previously would have veto power over a new attempt at recognition.
That infuriated Connecticut’s tribes.
“The BIA failed to consider the long, oppressive history of the state of Connecticut,” wrote Kathleen Sebastian Dring, an elder of the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation, in her comments to the agency.
Dring told the BIA that, “The third-party veto undermines the BIA’s attempt to create an equitable and objective process for the tribes” and was “imposed by the BIA after political pressure from Connecticut.”
“As citizens [Eastern Pequot tribal members] are entitled to the equal protection of laws in accordance to the U.S. Constitution,” Dring said.
Chief Richard Velky of the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation told the BIA that giving third parties the right to object to new petitions for federal acknowledgement “does not, I believe, comport with the due process and equal protection principles of our Constitution.”
“Nor does the U.S. Constitution provide that a state and its political subdivisions may exercise an absolute veto over the exercise of constitutional authority vested exclusively in the United States government,” Velky wrote.
Meanwhile, Jepsen said the veto provision isn’t a comprehensive enough protection to keep the Connecticut’s tribes from suing the state if it doesn’t consent to recognition, and “the outcome (of the litigation) is uncertain.”
Jepsen also said he is concerned the proposed regulations wouldn’t block “splinter groups” of Indian tribes from seeking recognition.
Under the proposed rules, the Schagticoke Indian Tribe, a group of Indians that rejected the leadership of the Schagticoke Indian Nation, might be able to apply for federal acknowledgement – and since they were never denied recognition, no veto provision would apply.
Jepsen also called the proposed elimination of the Board of Indian Appeals, which allowed Connecticut to challenge the Eastern Pequot and Schaghticoke recognitions “patently unfair.”
The BIA had granted a Malloy administration request for more time to submit its public comments. The deadline was pushed back from Aug. 1 to Sept. 30.
The entire Connecticut congressional delegation signed a letter that supported the administration’s objections to the proposed recognition rules.
“We…agree the process should be improved,” the letter said, but it recommended more transparency and perhaps a bigger budget, instead of “weakening the longstanding standards for federal recognition.”
The letter backed all of the Malloy administration’s objections and asked the BIA to eliminate the proposal that allowed rejected tribes to petition again for recognition, because the consent requirement or third-party veto, would be challenged in court.
“We note that at least one party is objecting to the consent requirement, contending it may be unconstitutional,” the lawmakers’ letter said.
In all, 255 comments were filed. Many came from tribes and most, like the comment from the National Congress of American Indians, supported Washburn’s efforts.
“Connecticut politicians and their special interests seek to derail justice for Native Americans,” said an unsigned comment. “Please don’t allow the process to become politicized by special interests BIA. Stick to what you believe is fair to Native American tribes.”
WASHINGTON, Sept 30 (Reuters) – The Federal Communications Commission is considering whether to punish broadcasters for using the moniker of the Washington NFL team, the Redskins, a word many consider a slur to Native Americans, the agency’s chairman indicated on Tuesday.
The FCC, which enforces broadcast indecency violations, has received a petition from legal activist John Banzhaf III, asking that regulators strip local radio station WWXX-FM of its broadcasting license when it comes up for renewal for using the name “Redskins.”
Banzhaf says the word is racist, derogatory, profane and hateful, making its use “akin to broadcasting obscenity.”
“We’ll be looking at that petition, we will be dealing with that issue on the merits and we’ll be responding accordingly,” FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler told reporters.
“There are a lot of names and descriptions that were used over time that are inappropriate today. And I think the name that is attributed to the Washington football club is one of those,” Wheeler added.
The FCC could formally deem use of the team name to be indecent, and thus impose a de facto ban on it on over-the-air television and radio.
Despite protests, vigorous lobbying and even intervention from President Barack Obama, team owner Daniel Snyder has vowed not to change the name of his National Football League team.
Some TV football analysts, including CBS’ Phil Simms and Super Bowl-winning coach Tony Dungy, have said they will no longer use the term Redskins. On the other side, former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka, a Hall of Famer, says the issue is “so stupid it’s appalling.”
Half of the U.S. Senate asked the NFL to endorse a name change and the Washington Post editorial board has also said it will stop using the team’s name, although it will still be used in the rest of the paper, including the sports section.
In June, a panel of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceled the team’s trademark registration because it considers its name and logo disparaging. The team has appealed the decision in federal court.
(Reporting by Alina Selyukh; Editing by Ros Krasny and Dan Grebler)
Editor’s note: Last night “The Daily Show” aired a segment about Washington’s controversial football team nickname. The segment included the 1491s, a Native American comedy troupe the Indy has profiled and which includes Migizi Pensoneau, who lives in Missoula and contributes regularly to the paper. Migizi wrote the following behind-the-scenes account of the segment and how it came about.
A couple of weeks back, the 1491s got an email from a producer at “The Daily Show” hosted by Jon Stewart. They were recruiting for a panel discussion regarding the Washington Redskins, and the mascot controversy that surrounds the team. And they wanted us—a Native American sketch comedy/video group that tackles everything from Indian Country politics to fart jokes—to weigh in. As a writer, educator, satirist and smart-ass, I was excited about the opportunity. While we love the reach that YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other Internet avenues provide, there’s something bewitching about being on national TV, and on a show we respect.
Less than a week after we got the email, three members of our group—including me—were whisked away to our nation’s capitol for two full days of shooting. The morning after we arrived, a Saturday, we learned more about the premise of the shoot. There would be two panels: pro-Redskins fans (as in, pro-mascot, pro-dressing up as Indian, anti-name changers) and anti-mascot activists, which included the three of us joined by five other indigenous panelists. The plan was to let the first panel make their case: talk about how the mascot honors Natives, that the name “Redskins” only refers to fans of the team and not Native Americans—standard pro-mascot arguments. Then, at a designated point, the host, Jason Jones, would ask, “Would you say all of this stuff directly to a Native American?” To which they’d presumably say, “Yes,” and then Jones would cue us to enter. The panel would be embarrassed, we’d be indignant, they’d be on their way—appropriately uncomfortable—and then we’d get our chance to talk.
Simple.
After a long wait in an adjacent green room, completely cut off visually and aurally from the pro-Redskins panel, we were finally asked in. We entered the room, looked indignant, and there was a wonderfully uncomfortable silence. Jones played the buffoon, eating some wings and drinking a beer. But then, one of the pro-mascot fellas started to defend their position, and everything derailed. This is the part you don’t really see in its full glory on the segment: As some of the anti-mascot activists started in passionately on the issue, pro-mascot panelist Kelli O’Dell, who was previously employed by the Washington Redskins and whose Internet presence is devoted to her support of the team and mascot, started to cry. My ever-dapper 1491s colleague, Bobby Wilson, offered her his own handkerchief. It was an intense situation, but never mean-spirited. O’Dell, though, started to accuse us of ambushing and lying and “how dare you.” (Later, after the shoot but before the episode aired, it would be reported by the Washington Post, Huffington Post, Time, Gawker, Uproxx, Buzzfeed and CBS that she felt in danger and this experience would smear her name.)
Sobbing and accusatory, she and the others left. From there, we took a break to reset the room, and we did our panel. This one went incredibly well and I’m proud to have been a part of it. The producer, crew and Jones were wonderful to us, and we all walked out of there with hugs and smiles. It was 180 degrees from the previous panel, and we were happy about it.
The next morning, football Sunday, the three of us went to FedEx Field as part of the show. “The Daily Show” taped us wandering around the “Redskins Nation” tailgate, though that never made it on air. I, rather naively, thought maybe we’d be able use our presence at the tailgate as a way to showcase our humanity, and let the Washington Team know that there are Native Americans out there who are among them—real people not relegated to the eternal myth of history. Maybe we’d change a mind or two. Or, at least, maybe some ignorant hilarity could be caught on camera. It was worth a try, so with a camera crew following us, one little, two little and a third big Indian struck out into FedEx Field’s Redskin Nation tailgate.
That did not go as I’d hoped.
There were points during that hour-long experience where I actually was afraid for my life. I have never been so blatantly threatened, mocked or jeered. It was so intense, so full of vitriol that none of the footage ended up being used in the segment. I’m a big dude—6’1”, and a lotta meat on the bones. But a blonde little wisp of a girl completely freaked me out as I waited in line for the bathroom. “Is that shirt supposed to be funny?” she asked motioning to my satirical “Caucasians” T-shirt. And then she said, “I’ll fucking cut you.” Actually, she didn’t scare me so much as the wannabe linebackers standing behind her who looked like they wanted to make good on her threat.
On one level, I get it. I’m walking around with an ironic T-shirt on, being a Native in the middle of FedEx Field with a camera crew from “The Daily Show” nearby. But amid the jeers, mocking and threats, did I cry, and accuse them of ambush? No, because I knew what I was getting myself into. It’s “The Daily Show.” I know the format. More than that though, I didn’t back down or break down because I knew in my heart and conscience I was doing the right thing, as silly as the method may have been.
I think back to the tailgate: the man blowing cigar smoke in my face, the man who mockingly yelled, “Thanks for letting us use your name!”, the group who yelled at us to “go the fuck home,” the little waif who threatened to cut me, the dude who blew the train horn on his truck as I walked by the hood. I think of all of that, and I think back to O’Dell crying and trying desperately to get out of the room full of calm Natives. I thought she was crying because she was caught unawares and was afraid. But I realized that was her defense mechanism, and that by overly dramatizing her experience, she continued to trivialize ours. It was privilege in action. And as I realized these things, something else became incredibly clear: She knew she was wrong.
Once again, the federal government is funding “navigators” in Montana to help the uninsured buy private, subsidized health coverage this fall — with a new emphasis on Native American consumers.
Earlier this month, federal officials awarded $609,000 in navigator grants to three Montana groups: Planned Parenthood of Montana, the Montana Health Network and the Montana Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council.
“We had great, great success with the program last year,” Martha Stahl, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Montana, said Monday. “I think it’s a great way to continue our mission of connecting people with affordable health care, which is what we’re all about.”
Stahl said her group will be working closely with the other two grant recipients and other organizations to sign up more people for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, as well as target Native Americans. Planned Parenthood and the Health Network had navigator programs last year.
Navigators, who must be certified by the state insurance commissioner, help people buy private health insurance through the online “marketplace,” a key part of the ACA, the federal health-care overhaul also known as “Obamacare.”
Individuals buying policies on the marketplace can get federal subsidies to offset the cost of those policies. Lower-income consumers also can get further discounts on certain marketplace policies.
Most consumers who earn less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level — about $79,000 for a family of three — are eligible for the subsidies, which are paid directly to the insurance company.
The Obama administration launched the marketplaces last October in 34 states, including Montana, initially with disastrous results. Beset with technical problems, the marketplaces barely worked.
However, by the end of March, more than 36,000 Montanans gained coverage through marketplace policies, out of 8 million people nationwide.
The marketplaces will open again this year Nov. 15. Customers can shop for and purchase new policies for 2015. Four companies will be offering policies on Montana’s marketplace.
Cheryl Belcourt, executive director of the Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council in Billings, said the group will use its $142,000 grant to hire some navigators and coordinate with other groups to encourage Native Americans both on and off reservations to buy marketplace policies.
Many Native Americans think the policies are not for them, because they expect to use the Indian Health Service and don’t face a tax penalty if they’re not insured, Belcourt said.
However, the affordable private policies and their low-cost coverage can expand health care for Native Americans, she said.
“This is an opportunity to address the health disparities of Native American people,” Belcourt said. “We want to be able to really make a difference in terms of the quality of life for Indian people.”
Chris Hopkins of the Montana Health Network, a consortium of smaller hospitals and health-care centers, said its $175,000 grant will be used to add nine new navigators to the 20 it already trained with last year’s grant. Most of them are staffers at hospitals and nursing homes.
“Our focus is to have local people providing services in their own community, rather than having someone come in from the outside, do a presentation, and then leave,” he said.
The Montana Primary Care Association, which represents federally funded health clinics, had a navigator program last year but did not get a grant this year.
Amanda Harrow of the association said clinics will continue to work with various groups to help people sign up for ACA-subsidized policies.
RAPID CITY, S.D. (CN) – Oglala Sioux claim in court that Jackson County, S.D., is obstructing Native Americans’ right to vote by refusing to set up a voter registration and balloting site on the remote Pine Ridge reservation.
Thomas Poor Bear, vice president of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, and three other tribal members sued Jackson County and its Board of Commissioners on Sept. 18, in Federal Court.
Reservation residents have to travel at least 27 miles to the county seat in Kadoka to register and vote, which is twice as far as white residents travel, according to the complaint.
Poor Bear asks that Jackson County set up a satellite voting office in the reservation town of Wanblee.
Lack of transportation compounds the problem.
The Census Bureau reported that nearly one in four Native Americans in Jackson County has no access to a vehicle, but that every white household does.
According to the Oglala Lakota Nation website: “Many people walk to reach their destinations,” but distance between communities and harsh South Dakota weather often make this difficult or impossible.
“What we filed on Thursday really isn’t anything new – it’s just happening in a different way,” plaintiffs’ attorney Matthew Rappold said in an interview.
“The record speaks for itself in how the state government has tried to make the right to vote inaccessible to Native American people.”
In 2004, U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier detailed South Dakota’s long history of voting discrimination in a 144-page opinion in Bone Shirt vs. Hazeltine , which claimed that South Dakota redistricting diluted the impact of Native American votes.
Before 1924, Native Americans could vote only after “severing tribal relations,” Schreier wrote.
Even after the 1924 American Indian Citizenship Act gave Native Americans full citizenship rights, South Dakota continued to ban them from voting or holding office until the 1940s.
Native Americans in the part of the Pine Ridge Reservation now in Jackson County could not vote until 1983, because people from “unorganized counties” – counties attached to other counties for judicial purposes – were forbidden to vote.
South Dakota’s Help America Vote Act task force supports the measure to place a voting office on the reservation, and has even reserved funds for Jackson County to do so, the complaint states.
Nonetheless, minutes from a County Commissioners’ meeting in June this year, cited in the complaint, state: “This would be an additional expense for Jackson County.”
Jackson County Auditor Vicki Williams, a defendant in the new case, declined to comment on the county’s position.
The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in Southwestern South Dakota encompasses 11,000 square miles and spans three counties – Bennett, Shannon, and Jackson. It is home to more than 18,000, of which 88 percent are Native American, according to the 2010 census. The nationally famous Badlands of South Dakota also lie on Pine Ridge Reservation land.
About 39 percent of Native Americans live below the poverty line in Jackson County, which is nearly twice the percentage of whites, according to the Census Bureau’s 2006-2010 American Community Survey.
“Due … to the disparity in socio-economic status and the history of racial discrimination, Native American election turnout has historically been very low in South Dakota,” the complaint states, though South Dakota voter turnout is high overall.
Poor Bear wants Jackson County ordered to establish a satellite office on the reservation before the November elections, which will include gubernatorial candidates and constitutional amendments.
He claims there is “no justification” for not opening the satellite office, and that “the cost and burden on the county to designate a satellite office will be negligible in comparison to the irreparable harm that plaintiffs have already suffered, and will continue to suffer, as a result of the violation of their statutory and constitutional rights.”
Attorney Rappold, of Mission, S.D., said, “If we’re successful, and there are similar issues in other areas, this case would be something to tell the local folks: ‘You need to make sure you are doing things properly.'”
SEATTLE — The Seattle City Council will vote Oct. 6 whether to celebrate “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” on the same day as the Columbus Day holiday.
A council committee met Wednesday and advanced the resolution that would recognize the day on the second Monday in October in Seattle.
“We know Columbus Day is a federal holiday, we are not naive about that, but what we can do and what you have seen is a movement,” said Matt Remle, supporter of the Indigenous Peoples’ Day designation.
During the committee meeting, Italian Americans expressed their concerns. Many of them support Indigenous Peoples’ Day, but believe it should not replace Columbus Day.
“For most Italian Americans, Columbus Day is a symbol of pride in our heritage,” said Audrey Manzanares.
Many of those who spoke to the council committee did not attend the first hearing. In early September, the council delayed the decision.
As the council considers the change, Seattle Public Schools is in a similar situation.
District leaders were scheduled to discuss recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ Day at a board meeting Wednesday night.
“The city and a few other organizations have put it forward to us and requested our alignment in this work,” said Shauna Heath, of Seattle Public Schools.
Supporters of the measure expect the City Council to pass it.
“Hopefully, we will get a unanimous vote and honor native people, indigenous peoples, in this area,” said Remle.
