Todd, I believe you have added some vinegar and baking soda to the societal melting pot. I can almost see the witches of Macbeth chanting, "Bubble, bubble, toil, and trouble..." as they give it a vigorous stir. ;?) Perhaps Canda has the right approach of calling the original inhabitants First Nations.

Obviously, this idiot has never lived on any "Indian" reservation. He's lumping everyone in with his views of the 1-2-3 person tribes. Give him a month living on commodity food and driving a rez rocket and I bet his opinion would change pretty damn quick!

Craig: Thanks for the Shakespearean metaphor. Alas, words have meaning but they are hollow if there is no substantive underpinning beneath their appropriation in the name of political correctness. Until this country has an open, honest, angry, emotional and wholly-encompassing discussion about what happened to Native people in America (and in fairly recent times, all things considered), the descriptions that apply to their sense of ownership to the continent will continue to mean nothing. Among all of the reporting I've done in the West, the stories from Indian Country have been the most rewardingly human on a personal level. I don't see it so much as tribal leaders being unwilling to move on with the making of new history; rather it is a matter of having the government acknowledge and take stock of the involuntary divestiture that has affected tribes on many levels. Most Native Americans I've met are proud to be American. The Cobell case dealing with Indian trust fund money is one example of trying to re-balance the ledger. Elouise Cobell has brought forth not just the experience of being a Blackfeet; she's a smart banker.
I think South Africa had it partially right after Mandella was let out of prison and codified Apartheid was in its final throes. The country held national televised reconciliation hearings that maybe didn't make the pain go away but it was a catharsis the nation shared together. Has that ever happened here? Having a Ken Burns documentary aired on PBS doesn't cut it. Nor does passing a bill that sets Native Hawaiians down the same failed path of Nepotism-driven tribal governments as those that already exist in the Lower 48. There needs to be a better way to native governance than the paternalistic, broken down, 19th century approach practiced by the BIA. I think most people on all sides of the issue would just as soon move on from the past. Imagine having a Congress and a President that, for starters, initiated a national discussion and brought televised hearings on the tragedy and problems of Indian Country into every living room. That would be an American experience everyone could share in. Would it "fix" things? Probably not. But it wouldn't be a bad start.

Todd, I'll take this opportunity to relate a recent experience of mine. Apart from avoiding pink and purple houses in Cut Bank and doing a little fishing I took my parents to the Lighthouse at Valier for Mothers Day dinner. What a beautiful day. On the return drive to Cut Bank as we headed for the Two Medicine bridge I spied a fellow waving a jacket and in distress on a side road to the highway. I told my folks we needed to go and see what was needed. We drove up to the gentlemen, a Blood Indian from Alberta. His wife was at a nearby farmhouse and cornered in a garage by a large dog. We picked him up and went to get his wife. Their pickup had run out of gas on the bridge below. Faulty gas gauge and they had gone to this farmhouse to get help. Noone was home. We took the couple to another farmhouse and got a gallon of gas and returned to their vehicle. My father knows a little Blackfeet and conversed with the gentelmen. They noticed that my father wasn't in the best health and asked what was wrong. Parkinsons. They were so thankful for the help that the gentlemen took my father's hand, bowed his head and for about 5 minutes said a blessing and prayer in Blackfeet for his health. The woman said, " This won't cure him but it will make him feel better." We shook hands, hugged, and said goodbye.

Too often we focus on our points of friction rather than build on everyday opportunities to change things just a little.

being a journalist, one hopes, means balancing an informative article, presenting both sides of any debate, and leaving the reader able to form an informed opinion.
this was a poorly presented article, very clearly pushing a bias opinion.
one extreme case of a tribe, used to negate the well documented struggles of most native communities.
native nations,who are "fortunate" enough to be given back small rural area's as their reservations, are geographically disadvantaged economically, and if some of them have managed to provide for their communitites by erecting casino's,then one can only hope it provides enough to sustain future generations who can focus on reclaiming their heritage, one of proud,dynamic nations. where are the statisitcs of those native nations who live below the poverty line? little employment, and shatterred hopes for the future...lets keep this article real.your job is to educate the public.

Sally Ryan: Thanks for your thoughts. The whole intent of presenting Jim Marino's essay was not to do it under some false guise of achieving, as you say, "balance". You ask: "Where are the statistics of those native nations who live below the poverty line? little employement, and shattered hopes for the future....let's keep this article real. your job is to educate the public." I would assert that most, if not all, New West readers are well aware of the problems facing Native communities in the West and beyond. Far from being a secret, it is instead the glaring exception to the American dream and challenges the myth of prosperity reaching all. With Marino's piece, we are not pushing a bias. It's pretty clear that he has a strong point of view and the great thing about this kind of medium is that people like you, who disagree, can challenge it. Both sides of the debate were pretty well highlighted in the set-up piece to Marino's essay. We knew his point of view would cause New West readers to react. That's a good thing. Tell us, and him, where you think that he got it wrong.

One more note for Sally Ryan: You have an Australian email address. If you are writing from Australia, perhaps you could share your observations on the current state of affairs regarding the Australian government and aboriginals? I'm sure readers would be interested to hear your thoughts.

This topic, the articles, and comments are interesting. I have been thinking about the broader topic of "original rights" for a long time, been troubled by it, but from a different perspective. I tend to be very conscious of the concept of "equal rights" and of its sister concept of equitable application of justice and of the underlying concept of consistency in morals, ethics, and principles. I tend to be very bothered by the "dark sides" of these concepts, which are prejudice/discrimination, selfishness, and hypocrisy.

With that said, let me propose that, if this topic were only about "tribes" seeking to form some greater level of self-governance, it would not only not be so controversial, but would actually be welcomed by "entrepreneurs" as possibly opening the door to more exploitation of "tribal" people and their resources with less outside oversight. The reason that these trends/efforts draw attention is, of course, that it is feared that they could lead to "tribes" reclaiming lands and properties to which they had "original rights" that were taken from them or that they lost through some questionable set of circumstances. To use a simpler, less politically correct, perhaps borderline insulting, and only roughly accurate metaphor, people who now have a legal/financial stake in American real estate and property are afraid that the Kiowa are eventually going to try to reclaim Kansas. There may be some foggy concern about "secession down the road;" but, most of the heartburn about secession really boils down to fear of losing control over property and assets.

Now, with the question framed in this way, I have little or no interest in arguing whether the Kiowa have a right to Kansas in absolute terms. My interest is in whether morals, ethics, and principles are being applied consistently, whether justice is being meted out equitably, and in the questions of how and on the basis of what criteria do we determine who has or does not have unrelinquished "original rights" to a piece of property and how and under what mechanism do we respect, repay, or reinstate such rights.

In this context, I am, obviously, troubled by the perception that America has never applied its overtly advertised morals, ethics, and principles to its dealings with the "tribes" or their "original rights" to properties that they held at the time of the forming of the country. More to the point and to my level of confusion, America does not now treat the question of "original rights" consistently between its current dealings with the "tribes" and its current position on the international front.

Let me offer some inflammatory examples, prefaced by the disclaimer that I am neither supportive nor hostile to any of the peoples, cultures, nations, or states in these examples. As a first example, America has poured tremendous treasure, spilled the blood of many of our best, and embroiled the globe in conflict over the course of our support for the "original rights" of the "Israelis" to the lands they call "Israel" as opposed to an equal support of the admittedly more recent rights of the "Palestinians" to what they call "Palestine." The Israelites, after taking their homeland from the Canaanites, formed a vibrant and noble culture prior to their effective eviction by the Romans. The Palestinians then held the land for nearly two thousand years since and had made many significant human, cultural, and capital investments of their own. We support, America supports, the "original rights" of the present day Israelis and their reclaiming of the lands. The Kiowa held their original lands for millenia beyond any calculation and formed a vibrant and noble culture prior to eviction perpetrated through a widely acknowledged combination of private and governmental banditry. Yet, do we support their reclaiming of their "original rights" to their original lands? Why is there a difference and why is the difference so easily accepted by modern America?

We accept our pundits crying foul over the potential for "secession down the road" and, in fact, fought a civil war to stop secession. Yet, we seem to have little trouble with the rebalkanization of admittedly corrupt Yugoslavia or with activities that encourage the secessionist impulses of the former Soviet republics.

Again, I am neither attacking Israel nor defending the Palestinians, Serbs, or Russians. I am expressing my confusion over the seeming inconsistencies that are accepted in our culture. I am also lamenting the fact that the rest of the world seems to increasingly take note of these inconsistencies, that our credibility is subsequently questioned, and that our credibility is one of the foundations of our strength. I am troubled by the thought that "We're gradually eroding what it means to be an American."

I never intended to paint all Native Americans with the same broad brush. There are tribes that are making genuine efforts to better the plight of their enrolled members. Contrary to one respondent I am not an idiot who has never set foot on an Indian reservation". I have been on many reservations and as a lawyer, have represented many tribal memberrs badly mistreated by their own tribal government.

The answer to the difficult question of the economic well being of Native Americans is not to create more so called "sovereign nations". These California tribes, that are mostly Hispanic in origin, are not only making hundreds of millions in profits from the losses of non-Indians in casinos in their respective communties, but they are often using the court created doctrine of "tribal legal immunity from lawsuit" as a means to evade legal responsibility for all manner of misdeeds from negiligence and intentional injuries to customers, breach of contracts made with these "tribes" by non-Indians and in good faith, sexual harassent of female employees, lack of workers' compensation protection and a host of other misdeeds. Tribal governments use this same doctrine to block any attempts by tribal members trying to get justice in a bona fide court of law.

These are wrongs that even the United States, all state governments and all foreign nations could never get away with. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the absurdity of allowing Indian tribes and their businesses to literally get away with all manner of misconduct under the atiquated anachronism of the doctrine when they made their 1998 decision in the case of Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma versus Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. But then after pointing out the absudity of the doctrine, the majority passed the buck to Congress to correct it by telling them they should amend the Foreign Commerce Act to Include Indian tribes that do business with the public and hire non-Indian employees, while claiming they are "sovereign nations" immune from all the laws protecting employees and customers and are immune from paying all the taxes needed to provide public services and infrastructure the tribes and their businesses use as well as all of the laws protecting the environment, health and welfare of everyone, Indians included.

What many legitimate Indian tribes do not understand is that these often ersatz "Indian tribes" that have only some fractional historic claim (maybe) to any true Native American have teamed up with outside non-Indian gambling interests to construct highly profitable and essentially unregulated class III gambling casinos which then make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from the losses of non-Indians and Indian gamblers alike.

Then, despite making all of this money and negatively impacting the communities in which they are located, these "tribes" are still collecting tens of millions of dollars in federal grant and welfare monies that are badly needed by true Native American still living on remote reservations in conditions of abject poverty.

Some readers may see this as an unfair bias but to someone who has never done anything but help true Native Americans these concerns seem to be not only important, but matters of common sense. The answer is not to find more ways to create more "tribes" claiming "sovereignty" and "sovereign immunity" from all of the laws and taxes every one else is obligated to obey and abide by, which is the essence of the Akaka bill.

There comes a time when Man must look toward spirit and seek the closest Soul on Earth to establish a Ethical, moral secular law Hall of Justice. A Divine Judge that is known throughout the world and would be respected by the Sovergein Nations of all tribes. This Divine Preist would have answers and a higher path to Wisdom beyond man.There must be a High Court that deals with matters such as these. Seek Divine it is written in scripture..It not all about the money...

a note for todd, thankyou for your clarification, in regards to the people claiming rights in california, my reference was general,and the article above was specific in using the extreme example of a claim by three individuals.
i believe there is always room for including the other end of the spectrum within the paragraph.
I am residing in australia currently, and your question of my knowledge of the issues facing aborigional pepole here. their story is a familiar one, where white settlers arrived and delcared the land uninhabited. the estimated population at the time of invasion here varies from 1 to 3 million, by the 1930's it was between 30 and 60 thousand.native folk here were clasified under "flora and fauna" and were still being shot by landowners into the 60's without legal reprisal.their recognition as the origional land owners was sanctioned by the high court here in 1992,yet they have not been any steps toward a meaningful reconciliation.
two thirds of native people here live in urban cities, as the law stated that, if they had left the land they were claiming as their traditional home, the claim was not valid.
i could go on, but i dont want to stray too far from this particular subject, that of native folk in america, and their struggle to reclaim traditional land,and then find a way to provide an income for their communitites.we cant ignor the range of treaties struck that are still argued over, at a time when every other form of agreement was considered binding and to be upheld.
just look at a map of the untied states of origional native ownership, and compare with the land allocation now,not all was amicably sold.
i would be most interested to hear from the general native community on this article, but id imagine they are sick of hearing the same old complaint, "if we go giving them land of their own, where will it end".
it must be like banging your head into a brick wall, and then passing the pleasure onto your children as their only inheritance.
one can only hope that recognition of tribes is considered on historical evidence and common sense,taken on a case by case basis.
there are those of every nationality who would seek to bend laws,given an opportunity to benefit themselves,the very best of these being attorneys.
i think that while mr marino makes some valid points regarding the details in hawaii, we must look at this issue overall,and see that in some area's what constitutes a right to claim,does not make the "claim" wrong,nor should it invalidate a need to address the issue of self governing for native people across the globe.

Todd

It's about time that this discussion comes to the U. S. When I went to the Canadian North a decade ago to study wolves and wolf control, I ran right into the question of First Nations land claims. Wildlife management was right at the heart of land claims, as was over a century of mismanagement, culural arrogance, theft of ancestral lands, and neglect of people once "sovereign" and now abandoned to their fates. With the support of a couple of Canadian Supreme Court cases that acknowledged that Aboriginal rights such as aboriginal title to lands were still intact, thanks to King George III's Proclamation of 1763, which was never overturned in Canada as it was in the U. S., the Canadian government suddenly found itself in the position of having to negotiate late 20th century land claims in order to continue the development, that is, the destruction, of the northern environment. So, for a short time, First Nations found themselves in the driver's seat and much development was put off as First Nations suddenly discovered their political power to protect themselves and at least part of their ancestral lands. Now First Nations are struggling to move into the 21st century, some successfully, some not so successfully. But Land Claims was and is a great social experiment in Canada, and therefore First Nations have greater say over their destiny even while Ottawa and provicial governments are determined to hold them down.

Be that as it may, genocide causes long memories, and we have to face the fact that deliberate policies of both the U. S. and Canadian governments, not to mention the Australian government, which has its own aboriginal land claims isses and problems of a history of genocide on that great island continent, encouraged the destruction of peoples and cultures that went back thousands of years and were still evolving when Europeans showed up to occupy "unoccupied" land and brush away the natives like they brushed away wildlife and the forests, a process that is still going on. Yet these days, when native peoples demand justice and recognition and autonomy, all of a sudden those of the ilk who think natives never had any rights now talk about the U. S. or Canada or Australia being one nation under one law, with one set of rights for everyone, and they claim it's unjust for Natives to have their own special rights, even though whites have had their own special rights contra natives for decades and centuries. Native peoples do notice this kind of hypocrisy and they are determined to forge their own paths to the future.

In case people haven't noticed, the United States is no longer a nation. One the one hand globalism infects our lives to an intolerable degree, while at the same time the so-called nation-state crumbles under political and economic corruption and incompetence, not to mention trillion dollar debt. When was the last time Congress solved a problem?

This is why immigration and protecting our borders have become such an issue; not that they're causing "problems," but because they are forcing us to acknowledge something that no one wants to admit, that this country is no longer a country, no longer a nation, but a maelstrom of change beyond everyone's control, and who knows where it's going? Build all the fences you want along the Mexican border, deploy all the border forces and spy technology you want, make English the official language of the U. S., it won't change what's happening. You might as well order the sea to recede as tell immigrants not to come north. Time to learn Spanish, folks.

The American century is over. The 21st century will be the century of tribal peoples and multinational corporations.

The fact is that First Nations and American Tribes, as tribal peoples once vanquished by miltary force and the weight of European populations, are in the best position to understand what the changes now occuring in North America mean--a changing of the guard that cannot be forestalled. In such a maelstrom of social change, only people who can think and act in tribal ways will survive. Native peoples know that and that is why their pursuit of sovereignty is so important, and I support them in their efforts. Those of us of European ancestry who actually inhabit the places where we live, rather than just being here for the time being as too many are, have a lot to learn from tribal peoples' current and future experiences with sovereignty.

In closing, secession, which has a tainted definition rooted in the American Civil War, is not the right word for what's happening with Tribes or First Nations, or Hispanics, or any other group of people in North America. What's happening is a kind of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in society and culture. It's that fundamental, and that unstoppable. The wise thing will be to ride the wave, rather than try to control it as King George III did when the American colonies decided in 1776 their destiny was elsewhere than with England.

Best,
Robert

I wonder if Hitler's folks are trying to make the same claims for themselves? How about the resurrected rights of Napoleonic's in Waterloo? Communist Russia over a liberated one? What about those that have been the victims of Christian salvation! How about all losers against all winners in a world wide struggle of them? I am just as much a Native American being born in America! Matters not that my ancestors weren't just as it matters not that yours were descendants from Asia/Russia! What matters is the "Boiling up Theory" and that is the matter of fact of how we exist upon phenomenally huge boiling pot that doesn't care what race of people eventually will boil in it but that enough of them do! Consider yourselves lucky that it wasn't Hitler you were ultimately defeated by! Be thankful that it is a Nation of people that are merciful enough to allow your cultural preservations and reservations! As we are allowed ours! This white Native Irish/German/Italian American is very thankful for that for my descendants had been defeated by America to! The only difference is we willingly surrendered ourselves to its defeat! We eagerly assimilated ourselves into this new culture of free men! We are all brothers struggling to position ourselves in the place where the greater and more merciful powers that be shall live and reign upon US! And that at times we will have great border disputes! And that some tribes have to yield to other tribes is a fact of every nation and of every people! It was no different between Cherokee and Iroquois! Your uncontested existence in a great land of great bounty became your complacency until a more desperate tribe survived the canoeing onto your shores! Its all about survival freind! And they proved themselves a greater warrior folk! No one loves being defeated, they just adapt to it! If it is any consequence to you I would rather it be like what I have come to learn of your preserved history! That promise of the ways of your life is what had drawn us here I am sure! That is why I will vote to keep it. I don't want to have to be now forced into paddling to and colonizing Mars away from Native Martians and surrender myself from being an American! I wish an end to this ever growing madness and a retrenchment back into being thankful for the bounty our world God allows us now that we agree we must harmonize our existence with Him once and for all!

Robert writes, "The fact is that First Nations and American Tribes, as tribal peoples once vanquished by miltary force and the weight of European populations, are in the best position to understand what the changes now occuring in North America mean--a changing of the guard that cannot be forestalled. In such a maelstrom of social change, only people who can think and act in tribal ways will survive."

I find this statement wholly unsupported by facts. We are all descendants of tribal people. Nomadic tribal people never burdened themselves with the legal fiction of sovereignty. They followed the food source through the changing seasons and either defeated or were defeated by competitors, animal, nature, or other tribes. When certain tribes began to master their environments they stopped their treks and created sustainable communities where food and materials were brought to them. Interjecting a defeatist bias against our country only clouds those facts. Propounding that one racially genetic tribal ancestory holds the key to survival over another is just not supported by the historical record to date.

It is not central to this article, when Todd mentions "introduced diseases" as part of the tragic fate of native peoples in North America, but this should not pass without comment or correction. The idea that the United States government introduced small pox deliberately through infected blankets was debunked (assuming that this is what Wilkinson is referring to). The myth was fabricated by the extremist Ward Chruchill, reportedly, and never had any basis except in his mind. If there is evidence that disease was in fact spread as "germ warfare" upon native peoples, it should certainly become part of the historical record. If no such evidence exists, the falsehood should not be repeated. Nor, of course, should the historical plight of native peoples be diminished because of one man's unscrupulous propaganda.

Also, I would like to note…
You state “Ever since the European colonization of North America began”,
And I would like to add, we have had nothing but, what you might refer to as:
“Gradual Encroachments” across Sovereign land.
For instance, The Cobell vs. Norton is the largest class action suit ever filed against the U.S. government. Ms Cobell is seeking between $40 and $176 billion to be paid to all Native Americans, one-third (1/3) of whom live in poverty. Unemployment is as high as 80 percent on some reservations.
http://www.indiantrust.com/
http://www.indiantrust.com/_pdfs/IndianTrustBrochure.pdf scroll down to pg 3
The film/movie is in the works.
This is how the reality is still stands to this day.

Dave Lewis: Whether or not the legendary tale of smallpox-contaminated blankets being distribted to Native Americans knowingly and deliberately is true, I don't know. I've never heard it conclusively debunked. The fact is that exotic diseases were introduced to native peoples here by having contact with invading Europeans. Similarly, to make a parallel, it doesn't matter who or how spotted knapweed reached this continent; the fact is that it and other exotic weeds are having a disasterous effect on native plant and animal communities. [No, I'm not comparing my European ancestors who came to this country to spotted knapweed]. Smallbox and other diseases had disasterous effects on natives. Please don't insult me by trying to make a connection with what I've posted above and Ward Churchhill. You know better than that. I don't know the man. I don't know what he has or hasn't said about anything. And I'm not spouting him here.
As food for thought, here's something that was published a few years ago by Cecil Adams who wrote a popular syndicated Q and A column distributed in weekly urban newspapers across the county. Readers may find it interesting.


Dear Cecil:

As a volunteer worker with PWAs (people with AIDS) I've been solemnly assured that AIDS was created in a lab by the CIA/KKK/KGB, etc., to kill off all the commies/blacks/capitalists, etc. Obviously this is just a modern take on that ancient and dishonorable tradition of blaming disaster and disease on your least favorite minority, as the Jews were blamed in the Middle Ages for the Black Death. It did bring to mind, though, the stories that some Native Americans tell about the deliberate introduction of smallpox as a form of genocide. One version I've read has Custer's cavalry handing out infected blankets on the reservations, and on the Pacific Northwest coast, where I live, some of the First Nations believe this sort of thing was going on as recently as the 1930s. I'm skeptical, not because I attribute any high morality to the Europeans, some of whom would have cheerfully infected natives if they thought they could get away with it, but precisely because of the boomerang effect. Even today it seems to me the only thing keeping a lid on biological warfare is the fact that it will potentially kill as many of your people as of the enemy. Bearing in mind that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, is there any "smoking gun" in the form of documents, eyewitness testimony recorded at the time, or guilt-wracked confessions, to indicate that whites ever really did attempt such a germical holocaust? --Philip Torrens, Vancouver

Dear Philip:

A common reaction to this story is that it has to be folklore. Giving infected blankets to the Indians--why, that's awful! That's disgusting! That's . . . ethnic cleansing. Hmm. Maybe this story bears a closer look.

Fact is, on at least one occasion a high-ranking European considered infecting the Indians with smallpox as a tactic of war. I'm talking about Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War (1756-'63). Amherst and a subordinate discussed, apparently seriously, sending infected blankets to hostile tribes. What's more, we've got the documents to prove it, thanks to the enterprising research of Peter d'Errico, legal studies professor at the University of Massachusetts at (fittingly) Amherst. D'Errico slogged through hundreds of reels of microfilmed correspondence looking for the smoking gun, and he found it.

The exchange took place during Pontiac's Rebellion, which broke out after the war, in 1763. Forces led by Pontiac, a chief of the Ottawa who had been allied with the French, laid siege to the English at Fort Pitt.

According to historian Francis Parkman, Amherst first raised the possibility of giving the Indians infected blankets in a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet, who would lead reinforcements to Fort Pitt. No copy of this letter has come to light, but we do know that Bouquet discussed the matter in a postscript to a letter to Amherst on July 13, 1763:

P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.

On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript:

P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present.

On July 26 Bouquet wrote back:

I received yesterday your Excellency's letters of 16th with their Inclosures. The signal for Indian Messengers, and all your directions will be observed.

We don't know if Bouquet actually put the plan into effect, or if so with what result. We do know that a supply of smallpox-infected blankets was available, since the disease had broken out at Fort Pitt some weeks previously. We also know that the following spring smallpox was reported to be raging among the Indians in the vicinity.

To modern ears, this talk about infecting the natives with smallpox, hunting them down with dogs, etc., sounds over the top. But it's easy to believe Amherst and company were serious. D'Errico provides other quotes from Amherst's correspondence that suggest he considered Native Americans subhumans who ought to be exterminated. Check out his research for yourself at http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html

He not only includes transcriptions but also reproduces the relevant parts of the incriminating letters.

--CECIL ADAMS

Mr. Marino ,

I suppose it makes sence the attitude that you have. Given that you likely actually want to see Columbus as a hero. Never mind he was a killer who smiled even as he planed to enslave the Carbo people who were kind enough to help him and his crew of criminals. That is not even taking into account the actins that they did to those same peoples. History tells us that like Columbous they were the trash of Europe. Then again with few exceptions that is what drifted across to this land. Not the poor huddled masses yearning to be free that some drunken frenchman put one a rotting piece of copper and dared call a statue of liberty. That damn thing has caused us more headaches then we should have to endure. While certainly it encouraged europes trash to seek "Free Land: it never ever said that they would gain their freedom at he expence of ours. Note this comment is in English. Lets see why is that? Oh yeh I remeber now. I can barely speak my own language. You see I am one of those who you think it should not matter to be called "Indian." I will use that term as it fits in that I am Adopted. Some well meaning idiot in my home state put caucasain on my birth certificate. I mean it was better I be labled as "White" and Bright. Believe me I would break their neck if I knew who did that. I dont care about money or about profits. I care that I can not go home. I care that when I seek to learn about my heritige my own look at me with suspision and even fear. It hardly matters that my face is a mirror image of theirs. I dont have that paper to say I am Native. So I guess I am simpley "White" Such an honot to be that. How dare you suggest we have no rights. Treaties are legal documents. It says you are an attorney. I would think that was covered in law school?
We did not force the governments to sign anything. If any treaty was forced it was ussually the Zhoganash holding a gun on women and children that got the elders to sign. That or the fact that they were hungry having been driven away from their land be it huinting, fishing or farm lands. Guess what I would rather be Native and carry papers with that citizenship then the one I have. I was not asked if I wanted to be American. I am first last always native. I get highly annoyed when our concerns are pushed aside. We dont want charity we dont want welfare . What we need is freedom. The freedom to be the nations we are suposed to be. Read the constitution an other rather usesless document. It calls Indian Tribes Nations. If you value one part of that document then all must have value. If not it is worthless and what else will you toss away?

600 tribes? Once there were many more. once there were 500 languages and over a thousand tribes. 20 million people once inhabited this land. They loved their children and did not make distictions. A child of a tribal member was still a part of them. It did not matter if that child had been adopted and had blond hair and blue eyes. They were theirs. So if a tribe now recognizes a child that has not one drop of blood that is of their tribe they are still following what is tradtion.

Get over yourself and do not presume to tell us who and what we are. We have survived and in some cases prospered. Perhaps that is what people fear? Because All debts come due. Even those 500 plus years and owing.
We never vanished and we will grow strong and whole again even if it takes an other 500 years.

So kindly refrain from making comments about a thing you have no concept of.

When you endured what our elders did to preserve our language and culture then you may speak. Then again I bet you were not beaten or starved for speaking your native tounge. And I assume you were not forced to cut your hair or be molested by those that taught you to become christians? That is what they endured for us. Then many of those brave souls went to WWII and used that same language to help preserve this nation. YOu might have heard of them. "Code Talkers" The Navaho in the Pasific and Commanche in Europe. But I guess it was wrong of them to be indian. Or maybe they should have just forgotten they spoke a language that your country neeed.

Lisa, I was deeply moved by your argument. Talking about native peoples and being adopted into the culture of the land, I feel very "native" to our continent since I was born here as were many past generations of my ancestors. They did not arrive during the Ice Age over the land bridge but they came by wooden ships. From the best scientific evidence we have it appears that we all came from the craddle of humanity in Ethiopia. Therefore, we are all native to this earth. Please correct me if I am wrong but my experience with First Nations people is that they did not recognize legalistic boundaries but embraced the concept of being children from Mother Earth under our Great Spirit.

Dear Lisa. I am intriqued by your comment. Remember, it's great if you vent, but let's try and also keep this discussion civil and respectful. This should apply to all of us. Mr. Marino's piece was not posted to turn him into a punching bag. Personally, neither I nor New West, are saying we agree or disagree with his position. I think his essay and subsequent comments are articulate and thoughtful. He obviously is expressing his perspective through his personal experience. Mr. Marino: If you are reading, please elaborate on your experience.

As for your own experiences, Lisa, I would like you, too, to elaborate. You wrote, in the comments, above, to Mr. Marino: "Get over yourself and do not presume to tell us who and what we are. We have survived and in some cases prospered. Perhaps that is what people fear? Because All debts come due. Even those 500 plus years and owing. We never vanished and we will grow strong and whole again even if it takes an other 500 years. So kindly refrain from making comments about a thing you have no concept of. When you endured what our elders did to preserve our language and culture then you may speak. Then again I bet you were not beaten or starved for speaking your native tounge."

Lisa, you suggested that you are Native American but that you were adopted and listed as caucasian on your birth certificate. Is that right? Are you Native? Do you know what tribe or tribal ancestry you have? Do you, and have you, lived in Native communities? Is there anything you are doing now to correct the error on your birth certificate and what are you doing to reconnect with your roots? Your comments were heartfelt.

I am not asking these questions in an accusatory way to make you feel defensive. But I find your comments interesting and again, would greatly appreciate some elaboration. Please tell us about YOUR experience and give us a fuller picture about where you are coming from.

Todd; I currently practice law in a fairly narrow area of law. The California "casino Indians" (a name I did not coin but which was coined by a Commanche Indian who recieved his Phd at Yale) are essentially latinos who trace some fractional connection to early California Natives.

Since the enactment of the Indian Gaming Act in 1988 many of these tiny "tribes" first began operating small illegal casinos in California. After many years of foot-dragging and lawsuits it got to the point that the federal and state authorities threatened to shut them down and seize all money, equipment and assets of these illegal casinos. These "tribes" then presented a public initiative to legalize these casinos. Having worked as a consultant to a nearby Indian casino, I initially supported the idea, and actually circulated petitions, because it was presented as a way to legalize these small rural casinos and make the tribes self sufficient. The public eventually agreed and when the initiative appeared on the ballot in March of 2000, the majority of non-Indian Californians also supported it.

The handful of tribes that had illegal casinos spent millions on advertising for the Indian gambling initiative and spent millions to elect Gray Davis Governor. He then promptly negotiated a compact essentially in secret with these tribes and agreed to what amounts to a give-away compact by which the state gets nothing, the workers get no protections, the customers no protections and they now patronize these casinos and businesses at their own risk. In addition the communities, which have since been negatively impacted by the casinos, have no rights or say so in all of the many issues that affect the public safety, health and welfare (everyone in the community, Indians and non-Indians alike). None of these groups have any legal rights viz a viz the tribal governments and their business enterprises because of the doctrine of tribal "sovereign immunity"

Without going in to too much detail I represent a half a dozen communities that have had huge new and expanded Indians casino thrust into their midst against their will. These casinos were financed by outside non-Indian gambing interests happy to make profitable gambling inroads into California which previously had no casino gambling. One developer ran a full page add in the Palm Springs newspaper trolling for anyone who could claim some tribal heritage or owned land they could claim was Indian lands,urging them to call a toll free number and he would provide the backers.

Virtually no Californian understood that when they tried to help these "tribes" by approving the Constitutional amendment allowing them the exclusive right to conduct casino gambling on Indian lands, that the grant came with the antiquated court created doctrtine of tribal legal immunity from the laws, lawsuits and the taxes that everyone else has to abide by. They were unknowingly giving up their own legal and Constitutional rights in any delings with these tribes and Indian businesses. Neither did Californians understand the flawed federal processes and bureaucracy that created Indian tribes" and also determined (often by arbitrary fiat) exactly what they percieved was "Indian lands".

The result is that huge mega-casinos have disrupted and and negatively impacted many communities with increased crime, traffic, bankruptcy, divorce, child neglect and even suicide by those who gamble away money they cannot afford to lose in these unregulated casinos. They have created a host of injured patrons, and workers who have no recourse to any legal system. Then there are those who made contracts in good faith with tribal governments and their many business enterprises only to be stiffed for the bill and had the tribes thumb their noses at them and tell them they could'nt sue them because they have no legal recourse to speak of. When suits are filed these "tribes" have their lawyers make motions to dismiss the claims using this immunity and judges (often apologizing to the victims and shaking their heads) dismiss their lawsuits.

In addition, this same outdated doctrine of immunity is used by these tribal governments to surpress and deny the rights of their own tribal members who have no court in which to pursue their abuses at the hands of their own government or to demand accountings of funds and the use of tribal credit cards and other misappropriations of funds.

The lawyers making all the money work for the gambling "tribes" and businesses, fat with casino cash from the losses of the non-Indian gamblers. I represent many of the victims of these unethical and unjust events. e.g. employees and customers who were injured or cheated and have no recourse and tribal members seeking some measure of justice.

In one case a contractor I represented was stiffed for work he had done to the tune of over $500,000 dollars when the tribe thumbed it's nose and said you can't collect and you can't sue us. In a legal process to complicated to go into here I was ultimately successful in recovering his money. It took 7 years and in the interim he lost his home to creditors.

The most ironic thing about that particular "tribe" is that the members (151) each recieve over $30,000 every month in per capita profit distribution, yet the tribe still collects nearly $2,000,000 each year in federal grant and welfare monies that are monies badly needed by true Native Americans still living on remote reservations in conditions of abject poverty. That comes to about
$700 per month per member in welfare payments recieved from the federal government over and above their per capita.

One tribal member I represent, who was denied membership recognition because of familial nepotism, even had his health care benefits cut off. He is elderly, diabetic and in poor health. Meanwhile the tribal chairman is driving around in a $150,000 Mazerati.

I could write a book about my experiences with the injustice and arrogance of many of these people in California who call themselves Indian but who obviously have no concept of true Native values.

In a word, I represent the underdogs, the true victims of the casino Indians who are both Indian descendants and non-Indians alike and who are denied justice because of a 150 year old court made doctrine that the U.S. Supreme court said was created "almost by accident". The entire court concluded in 1998, that it was an outdated anachronism in need of elimination in todays business world.

Unfortunately the court then concluded that it was up to Congress to correct these injustices and suggested Congress could simply amend the Foreign Commerce Act to include Indian tribes subjecting them to all the laws, taxes and lawsuits that everyone else is obliged to comply with including all the states and even the United States government, whenever they operate or conduct any business with the public or that is open to the public, employs non-Indians and negatively impacts the surrounding non-Indian community. [ See Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma versus Manufacturing Technologies, Inc.]

The problem has only gotten worse in the past 8 years and Congress has done nothing. Never the less there are those of us working to insure that there is equal justice for all, and that Indian tribes doing business are not above all the same laws we all must live by in a civilized society.

Unfortunately the high paid lobbyists ferrying "contributions" made, [or profitable consulting jobs offered to politicians and family members] come from these Indian casino tribes and their non-Indian investors and are carried to cooperative politicians, for the benefit of casino Indians. Therefor it is difficult, at best, to limit the scandalous largesse' that exists today in most Indian casino operations in California and other states.

thanks for the detailed explanation above Jim, i for one appreciate you clarifying the point of your concerns, would i be considered naive if i conclude that it is not casino's native sovereignty here that are the crux of your concerns, but perhaps the way some minority groups claim native land and the laws that pave the way for them to do so?

One problem is that Yosemite National Park Service has gone into a 15 year agreement with a non-profit group called the Southern Sierra Miwuks. The are primiarly made up current and former Indian employees of Yosemite National Park. A lot of them are Casson Yokuts from Madera County, Central Miwoks from the bands that chased down the original Yosemite Indians and Paiutes claiming to be Miwoks. For decades the Yosemite National Park Service has been giving out the wrong information regarding the original Indians of Yosemite. They were actually Mono Lake Paiutes and here is the proof. http://esnips.com/web/YosemiteIndiansWebResearch You can see very quickly that the original Indians were not Miwoks, but Mono Paiutes. Another odd part is that most of the persons in the Southern Sierra Miwuks are already enrolled members of Paiute, Yokut, Washo and Miwok tribes. Tribes that already get services and per capita payments. Some even get gaming revenue money.

Disenrollment of Indians in California is undemocratic.
2005-09-26

There is a chill going over Indian country these days. It is called "Disenrollment". For you people who don't know what it means it is when an Indian tribe kicks out a member of their nation.
Years ago, when no one wanted to be Indian, California tribes were looking for members to join. They accepted just about anyone who could be identified as a member of their tribe.
There have always been two or three factions in most tribes, like the Democrats and Republicans, mainly families of the tribe fighting over leadership of the tribe.
Now the big "G" came along and things started to change. "G" or gaming has been a new factor that has been brought into the fray.
Before families fought over leadership, but nothing was ever done. When those who lost the election were just left alone and those in power continued on. Money, BIG money, has now changed the equation. Those who now speak out, question corruption, or were running against the current leadership have now been either disenrolled or threatened to be disenrolled to keep them quiet.
Up and down the state of California, from Pechanga down south to Lake County up north, Indian people are now facing disenrollment. It has had a "chilling" effect on free speech. Since tribes are basically nations within a nation they do not have to abide by the laws of the U.S. government concerning the 1st amendment.
Money from gaming has now afforded the chances to hire high priced lawyers to do battle against those who have been disenrolled and find loops holes to silence their critics. There is no chance that those who have been disenrolled to take them to court because tribes are sovereign nations. Most of those who are now disenrolled do not have the money to afford high priced lawyers.
Even though they are really Indians with direct bloodlines to California Indians, they are now not. Since those in power have disenrolled them. That is like one day you’re an American citizen and the next day you are not.
Disenrollment is undemocratic in the most democratic nation in the world. It is an ill wind that is gaining strength not only in California, but across the nation.

Here is an interesting article written by a Native person.

Corruption is not just a California concern. See the following article from the Missoulian regarding the Blackfeet. http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2004/06/16/news/mtregional/news06.txt

I applaud the efforts of Long Standing Bear Chief in starting the Piikani Sun.

Native American tribal governments representing a sovereign nation can do the same as the Congress of the United States enact and change the laws as they deem fit...The Native American Tribal leaders and governments have learned and follow the political system very well....

Sally Ryan; In response to your question there are at least two major problems. The first is the callous way the federal government creates or recognizes "Indian tribes" but at the same time allows such tribes to determine who is a member and in effect who is an "Indian". In the now infamous case of the Mashantucket Pequote "tribe" a community of Afro-Americans (the current vernacular) asserted a 1/32nd blood descent from a Pequote Indian women three or four generations ago. Under the existing system they were able to parlay that into tribal recognition then built what is now one of the biggest gambling casinos in the world in Connecticut, funded by non-Indian gambling investors. This casino takes in a Billion dollars a year from the losses of New England gamblers. Yet as I said earlier, true Native Americans, many who are 100 % full blooded descendants, still live on remote reservations in conditions of abject poverty. Then compare the recent actions of the Cherokees, one of the largest recognized tribes in America. They are trying to kick out the part Afro-Americans who became tribal members at the time of the American Civil War and for years thereafter as freed slaves. These mixed blood "Freedmen" had intermarried and been tribal members for over 150 years and have a much greater percentage of Indian blood than the Mashantucket Pequotes. Make sense out of that.

The second major problem is that over at least a century of trials and tribulations the states and federal government have enacted numerous laws which protect customers and consumers of all businesses (and of all races). There are also many laws created to protect workers from exploitation, harassment and discrimination in the workplace including wrongful termination. Similarly there have been numerous laws enacted to protect the communities, the health and welfare of its citizens and the quality of life for EVERYONE. These laws include food and health and drug standards, false advertising, fraud and misrepresentation. There have been laws passed for anti-corruption in government and regulation and reporting of political "contributions", anti-bribery and public hearing laws, as well as laws to create transparency within government, and to protect the environment and endangered species etc. and ultimately by all these laws, to protect the integrity of the democratic system itself.

Finally, in America, everyone that uses all the public services like police, fire, schools, doctors,nurses, paramedics, social workers, military forces etc. and who use the infrastructure like roads, schools, police and fire stations and equipment, libraries, bridges, airports, sewer and water systems etc. must pay their fair share of the cost of this infrastructure. Under current law, the court created doctrines of tribal sovereign immunity, these "tribes" evade all of these laws and taxes. Most importantly when they elect to open a business to the public, employ non-Indians and negatively impact their non-Indian neighbors there is NO sensible reason why they should be exempt from these laws, taxes and accountability in a real court of law ahould they violate any of them. If you profit from non-Indian labor and customers, and utilize these public services and infrastructure and exist in an integrated community, then any Indian tribe and its business enterprises should be obligated to obey such laws and pay their fair share of taxes just as everyone else is.

Americans seem to think that because they fell off a damned boat they matter. The truth is that Euorpe dumped it trash on American and Aftrica and the middle east. We all got stuck with the white trash that the countries in europe could not contain because they breed like rabbits. Now you think you have the right to deny us our lands. Not a chance in hell will we ever cease to be soveregn nations. We may be stuck with the larger american government but we are still our own people as well. Just be damned grateful we are not like the PLO though one wonders how long it will be before we lose our tempers.
We do not want special rights only what the treaties say no more no less and a chance to be free and enjoy the same priviliges you all do. You know little things like Freedom of Relgion.

To answer the questions. Genetics is a wonderful thing. DNA can prove bloodlines. Yes I am native but blood and by adoption. The blood that helped save a life of an other who also is of mixed heritige. But hey it not the paper so it does not count?

MY Adopted sister is a full blooded native. And before you ask yes I was legally adopted by my white parnets as well.

A very very Interesting paradox. If you catch me on a bad day you may well get my frustrations coming our full force. Call it a bad day at the boarder trying to come home after going to vist some family in Canada.

Now to the part about language. I have been to reserves, reservations and indian centers. I Have even lived on a few. I sat in Up State New York while state troopers aimed weapons at the people there. I watched helpless as OKA happened in Canada and I watched as a child as the second wounded knee took place. I learned from elders who have shown me badly healed fingers that were broken for speaking and praying in their tounge. I stayed with someone who still even now struggles to maintian their lands.I held an elder as she cried about the things that they did to her. Did I go through it personally. No, But then I have felt it throught her. Is it less valid the to see and know a thing is real. We do not have pictures like the surviviors of the death camps in Europe but the crimes still happened. When the church is accused by chior boys you believe them. Why is it so hard to see it has always been happenig but until it affected nonnative populations noone cared?

For personal experince..
I almost failed a government class for calling Leonard Peltier a hero. Ok maybe that is not as drastic as some examples but it was a trying experience. And yes I do know the white man's system enough to have won that argument. Though it was year ago. I learned that our heroes are called terrorists and butchers and men like Custer and Sheridon heros? Sorry a little twisted that.

I do not think we can be less then we are. On a good day I am slightly civilized. I can and do function well enough in the society I live in. I work, pay taxes, vote and sometimes even work on political campains. But First ,last always I am Native. I may love my adopted family but that first part never changes. So I am the savage too.

"What many legitimate Indian tribes do not understand is that these often ersatz "Indian tribes" that have only some fractional historic claim (maybe) to any true Native American have teamed up with outside non-Indian gambling interests to construct highly profitable and essentially unregulated class III gambling casinos which then make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from the losses of non-Indians and Indian gamblers alike.

Then, despite making all of this money and negatively impacting the communities in which they are located, these "tribes" are still collecting tens of millions of dollars in federal grant and welfare monies that are badly needed by true Native American still living on remote reservations in conditions of abject poverty.

Some readers may see this as an unfair bias but to someone who has never done anything but help true Native Americans these concerns seem to be not only important, but matters of common sense. The answer is not to find more ways to create more "tribes" claiming "sovereignty" and "sovereign immunity" from all of the laws and taxes every one else is obligated to obey and abide by, which is the essence of the Akaka bill. "

I have question? Who decides who is "Indian"? This is always going to be an issue. I mean lets put this into context that maybe even the fools in washington could understand.

If one suddenly suggested that one had to have a paper to
prove they were say Jewish (Ethnic) or say Africian American a large fireworks show would errupt. Now I think most native peoples feel the same way. We do not need papers to prove who we are. We are not dogs. Quizzi tribes perhaps there are a few. But the fact is not every person in a given tribe or clan is going to be in one spot or want to follow one governement. They move they pick their own leaders. It is like having someone in Californina decide and issue for Maryland.

In the past the clans and tribes and nations were spreadout. They may have had 10 member or a 1000. Councils came together to workout issues.

The fact is even if you do manage to get a voting block together they can only speak for themselves. They do not have the right to speak for me or for future generations. They do in fact have a duty to those generations to be wise and protect the land.

Now about welafare. If an indian is a citizen then they have the same rights to welafare as anyoneelse. Sorry to be so blunt but there it is. If the governement of the USA had not stolen the lands, resorces and profits then there be no need for welafare. If we not been broken and damaged we might be able to live and work and not need welfare.

Look at the history of the tribes read it up to even the 1980s. In Michigan the tribes had a compact. Gaming only on the reserves. Then they passed the lottery. The tribes still paid the state. Then the casino's in detroit.

"Surprise surprise a white man lied. "

It had to go to court and it finally was comprimised again. Whites got the casinos.

Sorry it seems like we get shot in the back when ever we make progress. So if a few questionable indians get money I can live with it. And by the way I dont make money off the casinos.

Excellent site, added to favorites!!h

Pretty nice site, wants to see much more on it! :)

Hispanic is a European term. One used to deny Native peoples their rights. A hispanic if you follow the definiton as origionally defined has several races. Black, Euopean and Indian in it. Without all three there is no hispanic person. It a created identiy to make native peoples forget who and what they really are. They are the children of the Maya, Inca. Toltec and many others not some so called hispanic. While that culture has become rich in its own right it is not the only one they can claim Best to rememeber who they came from and then maybe the world will be balanced again when the Condor and Eagle fly together once more.