With effort, Native businesses can succeed
DENVER – The promises and pitfalls of small business and the complex paths to success were described by two Colorado Natives concerned about commerce in a time of shrinking profits and budget shortfalls.
The Coloradoans are R. Carol Harvey, Navajo, executive secretary of the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs, a longtime energy sector attorney with federal contracting expertise, and Ernest House Jr., Ute Mountain Ute, former CCIA executive secretary and now director of government affairs for the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, where he works as a legislative liaison representing business concerns.
Both addressed the 6th Annual American Indian Business Expo conducted by the Denver-based Rocky Mountain Indian Chamber of Commerce April 12 – 13.
Harvey, the sixth of seven children, said she learned valuable lessons from her father, who did maintenance work, and her mother, a skilled cook who also ran a small business until she was 82, both of whom said to “get an education,” and to “learn to deal with difficulties.”
As a result, she earned graduate and law degrees and began teaching small business formation and government procurement. She also described learning from more traditional methods, when family members would go without food or water for periods of time “to learn we would be fine, anyhow,” a practice that built “personal strength and personal character.”
Harvey recalled the courage displayed by Navajo leader Manuelito in battle with American forces from 1860 – 1868, enabling Navajo people to remain in their homeland instead of being sent to Oklahoma with other tribes, as had been planned. These and other histories, if told to young people, would foster strength of character, she said.
Tribal nations could make it mandatory for their 18-year-olds to have small business training before they receive their per capita checks so they would have something to build on, she said, noting that businesses contracting with the federal government usually are expected to have working capital before contracts are awarded.
It is important for Native business leaders to have a “wide panoply of information,” in part because Indian businesses that operate in Indian country have different licensing, taxation, and employment and labor laws, she said.
Potential Native businesses dealing with the federal government should “be contract-ready but also shovel-ready,” she said. “Government contracting is not an easy area at all – it takes a lot of diligence and a lot of work.”
Harvey said five percent of federal prime contracts are to be set aside for 8(a) small businesses, which include those owned by Native and tribal entities; three percent are for businesses in HUBZone (Historically Underutilized Business Zone) areas, including Indian reservations; three percent are for service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses, and five percent are to go to woman-owned small businesses, although certain parts of that program are not in place at present. The programs are not mutually exclusive.
From the legislative side, House denounced current bills that could be harmful to business interests in the state and pointed out that Colorado has been in a “dire situation” financially, with a $1.3 billion shortfall remaining in the next fiscal year.
One piece of pending legislation could eliminate all the enterprise zones created for distressed areas including job-scarce Montezuma County, where the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation is located.
House, whose great-grandfather was the last Ute Mountain Ute traditional chief, said the tribe is focusing on renewable energy and water projects and on expanding opportunities for its Weeminuche Construction Authority company.
The Southern Ute Indian Tribe, also located in southwestern Colorado, is “known throughout Indian country as one of the top tribes” in business ventures, he said, noting that the tribe’s Red Cedar Gathering Co. is the third-highest natural gas-producing firm in its immediate area.
House also cited two other Southern Ute ventures in Colorado, including the multimillion-dollar, 500-unit Spire in downtown Denver, the largest residential high-rise condo development in the city’s history, according to developers, which is located across from the Colorado Convention Center.
The tribe also has a large investment in multimillion-dollar Belmar, a mixed-use community which provides an urban core for Lakewood, a Denver suburb and the state’s fourth-largest city.
Those investments, as well as others, are part of the tribe’s long-term investment strategy along the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, according to an asset manager for the tribe’s Southern Ute Growth Fund’s GF Properties Group.
Among other speakers at the business expo were Margo Gray-Proctor, Osage, president of Horizon Engineering Services Co., Tulsa, Okla., and chairwoman of the National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development.
Indian Country Today-April 23, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
TREATMENT OF WABANAKI NATIVES QUESTIONED, EPISCOPAL COMMITTEE FILES HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD CRITIQUE WITH UN
Treatment of Wabanaki questioned
Episcopal Committee files human rights record critique with UN
PORTLAND, Maine – The Episcopal Diocese of Maine Committee on Indian Relations has filed a hard-hitting critique with the United Nations Human Rights Council on Maine’s human rights record against the Wabanaki nations and the federal government’s failure to rein in state violations of domestic and international laws and standards meant to protect indigenous peoples.
The U.S. government’s human rights record is currently under assessment in a process called the Universal Periodic Review, which was created by the U.N. General Assembly in 2006 as a mechanism by which the human rights records of all 192 U.N. member states are reviewed every four years.
The committee’s report to the UPR is the latest action in its robust program of social justice activism.
After three years of groundwork initiated by committee member John Dieffenbacker-Krall, the national Episcopal Church last summer passed a landmark resolution repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery and urging the U.S. government to endorse the Declaration. Other churches have since passed similar resolutions.
The U.N. General Assembly adopted the UNDRIP in 2007. Of the four nations that voted against the Declaration, only the U.S. and Canada still have not endorsed the human rights-based Declaration. Australia endorsed it last year and New Zealand announced its limited endorsement at the Ninth Session of the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues April 19.
This is the committee’s first interaction with the U.N., said Dieffenbacker-Krall, who is the executive director of the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission.
“We have a strong feeling of the need to be in solidarity with the Wabanaki people.” The Wabanaki include the Aroostook Band of Micmacs, the Houlton Band of Maliseets, the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Indian Nation.
The opportunity to file the UPR report coincided with the committee’s completion of its new mission statement: “We are called by our Creator to deepen our relationship with the Wabanaki of Maine in order to stand with them in the pursuit of justice, the affirmation of their inherent sovereignty, and the preservation of Native languages and culture.”
Among the committee’s recommendations is the adoption of the Declaration “without any qualifying statements or conditions limiting its original intent.” Other recommends are that:
•The U.S. government “expunge” the Doctrine of Discovery from all regulations, policies, statutes and case law that rely on it, citing in particular the 1823 supreme court ruling in Johnson v. M’Intosh, which forms the foundation of U.S. Indian law.
•The U.S. Congress backed by the executive branch hold oversight hearings on the implementation and effectiveness of the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act and companion state legislation, the Maine Implementing Act, to examine how the agreements have complied with congressional intent, the negotiators’ understanding of the agreements, federal Indian law, treatment of other federally recognized tribes, and international human rights instruments as they pertain to indigenous peoples.
•The U.S. should actively participate in the MITSC, an inter-governmental body charged to “continually review the effectiveness of the MIA and the social, economic and legal relationship between the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, Passamaquoddy Tribe, the Penobscot Indian Nation, and the state to ensure that the legal and human rights of the Wabanaki are upheld.”
The committee’s report provides a concise history of Maine’s 160-plus years of racist paternalism toward the Wabanaki people, including violations of the Constitution’s Article I, section 8, clause 3, the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790 and other illegal land grabs.
“In addition to the constant encroachment on Wabanaki land, the State of Maine did not recognize nor respect inherent Wabanaki sovereignty. Maine treated the Wabanaki as if they were children requiring the state to manage their affairs,” the report says.
It quotes from an 1842 state Supreme Court decision involving the Wabanaki: “Imbecility on their part, and the dictates of humanity on ours, have necessarily prescribed to them their subjection to our paternal control; in disregard of some, at least, of abstract principles of the rights of man.”
But the committee’s harshest criticism is reserved for the state’s recent actions and neglect, resulting in vast discrepancies between the Wabanaki and the surrounding Maine population in income, life expectancy, health, education, and other “factors associated with societal well-being.”
The report details several “egregious violations” of the settlement acts by the state, such as exerting sole authority over Wabanaki waters and lands; collaborating with giant paper companies that polluted the nations’ aboriginal waterways and jeopardized their sustenance fishing rights; using state courts to strip the nations of sovereignty over “internal affairs;” efforts to coerce the Maliseets into waiving their settlement act rights, and more. In presenting their arguments, committee members cite numerous violations of particular articles of the Declaration.
“The committee did this in part in that we wanted to elevate before the eyes of our fellow Mainers, Americans, and the world that the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should be governing our relations with indigenous peoples,” Dieffenbacker-Krall said.
The federal government has not fulfilled its responsibility as a signatory to the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, the report says.
“The U.S. has failed to exercise proper oversight over its political subdivision the State of Maine, allowing it to violate U.S. law and international human rights standards applicable to indigenous peoples,” the report says. It calls on the federal government to fully participate in the MITSC, including attending its meetings and sharing responsibility for its funding.
“The federal government has an obligation to participate. The settlement act is akin to a treaty and the commission is akin to a treaty body, so the federal government should not just be ignoring it,” Dieffenbacker-Krall said. “It should be participating and maybe it would at times curb some of these outrageous violations the State of Maine does on Wabanaki sovereignty.”
Indian Country Today- Aprril 26, 2010
Episcopal Committee files human rights record critique with UN
PORTLAND, Maine – The Episcopal Diocese of Maine Committee on Indian Relations has filed a hard-hitting critique with the United Nations Human Rights Council on Maine’s human rights record against the Wabanaki nations and the federal government’s failure to rein in state violations of domestic and international laws and standards meant to protect indigenous peoples.
The U.S. government’s human rights record is currently under assessment in a process called the Universal Periodic Review, which was created by the U.N. General Assembly in 2006 as a mechanism by which the human rights records of all 192 U.N. member states are reviewed every four years.
The committee’s report to the UPR is the latest action in its robust program of social justice activism.
After three years of groundwork initiated by committee member John Dieffenbacker-Krall, the national Episcopal Church last summer passed a landmark resolution repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery and urging the U.S. government to endorse the Declaration. Other churches have since passed similar resolutions.
The U.N. General Assembly adopted the UNDRIP in 2007. Of the four nations that voted against the Declaration, only the U.S. and Canada still have not endorsed the human rights-based Declaration. Australia endorsed it last year and New Zealand announced its limited endorsement at the Ninth Session of the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues April 19.
This is the committee’s first interaction with the U.N., said Dieffenbacker-Krall, who is the executive director of the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission.
“We have a strong feeling of the need to be in solidarity with the Wabanaki people.” The Wabanaki include the Aroostook Band of Micmacs, the Houlton Band of Maliseets, the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Indian Nation.
The opportunity to file the UPR report coincided with the committee’s completion of its new mission statement: “We are called by our Creator to deepen our relationship with the Wabanaki of Maine in order to stand with them in the pursuit of justice, the affirmation of their inherent sovereignty, and the preservation of Native languages and culture.”
Among the committee’s recommendations is the adoption of the Declaration “without any qualifying statements or conditions limiting its original intent.” Other recommends are that:
•The U.S. government “expunge” the Doctrine of Discovery from all regulations, policies, statutes and case law that rely on it, citing in particular the 1823 supreme court ruling in Johnson v. M’Intosh, which forms the foundation of U.S. Indian law.
•The U.S. Congress backed by the executive branch hold oversight hearings on the implementation and effectiveness of the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act and companion state legislation, the Maine Implementing Act, to examine how the agreements have complied with congressional intent, the negotiators’ understanding of the agreements, federal Indian law, treatment of other federally recognized tribes, and international human rights instruments as they pertain to indigenous peoples.
•The U.S. should actively participate in the MITSC, an inter-governmental body charged to “continually review the effectiveness of the MIA and the social, economic and legal relationship between the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, Passamaquoddy Tribe, the Penobscot Indian Nation, and the state to ensure that the legal and human rights of the Wabanaki are upheld.”
The committee’s report provides a concise history of Maine’s 160-plus years of racist paternalism toward the Wabanaki people, including violations of the Constitution’s Article I, section 8, clause 3, the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790 and other illegal land grabs.
“In addition to the constant encroachment on Wabanaki land, the State of Maine did not recognize nor respect inherent Wabanaki sovereignty. Maine treated the Wabanaki as if they were children requiring the state to manage their affairs,” the report says.
It quotes from an 1842 state Supreme Court decision involving the Wabanaki: “Imbecility on their part, and the dictates of humanity on ours, have necessarily prescribed to them their subjection to our paternal control; in disregard of some, at least, of abstract principles of the rights of man.”
But the committee’s harshest criticism is reserved for the state’s recent actions and neglect, resulting in vast discrepancies between the Wabanaki and the surrounding Maine population in income, life expectancy, health, education, and other “factors associated with societal well-being.”
The report details several “egregious violations” of the settlement acts by the state, such as exerting sole authority over Wabanaki waters and lands; collaborating with giant paper companies that polluted the nations’ aboriginal waterways and jeopardized their sustenance fishing rights; using state courts to strip the nations of sovereignty over “internal affairs;” efforts to coerce the Maliseets into waiving their settlement act rights, and more. In presenting their arguments, committee members cite numerous violations of particular articles of the Declaration.
“The committee did this in part in that we wanted to elevate before the eyes of our fellow Mainers, Americans, and the world that the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should be governing our relations with indigenous peoples,” Dieffenbacker-Krall said.
The federal government has not fulfilled its responsibility as a signatory to the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, the report says.
“The U.S. has failed to exercise proper oversight over its political subdivision the State of Maine, allowing it to violate U.S. law and international human rights standards applicable to indigenous peoples,” the report says. It calls on the federal government to fully participate in the MITSC, including attending its meetings and sharing responsibility for its funding.
“The federal government has an obligation to participate. The settlement act is akin to a treaty and the commission is akin to a treaty body, so the federal government should not just be ignoring it,” Dieffenbacker-Krall said. “It should be participating and maybe it would at times curb some of these outrageous violations the State of Maine does on Wabanaki sovereignty.”
Indian Country Today- Aprril 26, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
US RE-EXAMINES OPPOSITION TO UN DECLARATION
United States re-examines opposition to UN Declaration
By Valerie Taliman, Today correspondent
NEW YORK – Political tides are turning as international support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples continues to grow, putting greater pressure on Canada and the United States to fully endorse it.
One day after New Zealand reversed its position and supported the Declaration, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice announced that the United States is undertaking a review of its opposition.
“I am pleased to announce that the United States has decided to review our position regarding the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” she said, addressing the Ninth Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
“During President Obama’s first year in office, tribal leaders encouraged the United States to re-examine its position on the Declaration – an important recommendation that directly complements our commitment to work together with the international community on the many challenges that indigenous peoples face. We will be conducting a formal review of the Declaration and the U.S. position on it.
“There is no American history without Native American history. There can be no just and decent future for our nation that does not directly tackle the legacy of bitter discrimination and sorrow that the first Americans still live with. And America cannot be fully whole until its first inhabitants enjoy all the blessings of liberty, prosperity, and dignity. Let there be no doubt of our commitment. We stand ready to be judged by the results.”
Many Native leaders view this as a positive sign that the United States is moving toward endorsing the Declaration. Critics say there is no need to delay it with additional reviews since the United States was part of negotiations for more than 25 years.
Tonya Gonnella Frichner, an Onondaga attorney and member of the Permanent Forum representing North America, said during his campaign President Barack Obama clearly stated to tribal leaders that he was committed to the adoption of the Declaration.
“We still feel very positive about it and hope that he will commit to that promise,” she told the forum, attended by nearly 2,000 registered delegates.
Others were disappointed that the United States – a country that postures itself as a champion of democracy and human rights worldwide – did not support it outright.
“We’ve already been there. It seems extraordinary to review it again since it has already been debated and adopted by the international community,” said Debra Harry, Indigenous People’s Council on Biocolonialism executive director. “We’d like to see the United States adopt it now, and then let’s talk about how to implement it domestically.”
A less formal meeting was scheduled on the third day of the forum to discuss elements of the review, and to allow time for Native delegates to dialog with members of the U.S. delegation led by Kimberly Teehee, the White House senior policy advisor for Native American Affairs; and Ambassador Rick Barton, U.S. representative to the Economic and Social Council.
Teehee said anytime new laws or policies are introduced, it triggers a process for review across federal agencies to evaluate how it will impact United States laws, policies and regulations. This must be done to properly plan for implementation, she said.
“We are a new administration and we care about what you think. Our approach has been to continue the president’s engagement and commitment to Indian country.
“In the spirit of consultation and partnership, we will engage tribal leaders, stakeholders and NGOs (non-governmental organizations.) We need to be thoughtful about that process. I assure you that your voices will be heard.”
When asked about the timeframe for the review, Teehee said the process was just beginning and she could not yet define how long it would take.
Cayuga Chief Karl Hill of the Haudenosaunee reminded the U.S. delegation that the Iroquois Confederacy negotiated the first treaties with the United States dating back to 1704.
“We have worked on this since its beginning more than 30 years ago, and we urge you to be expeditious in your review,” said Hill, who delivered a statement from the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus containing eight major recommendations for implementing the Declaration.
The Declaration has strong provisions for supporting treaty rights and affirms indigenous peoples’ collective rights to self-determination and control over their lands and natural resources. These rights will likely conflict with development plans by extractive industries and multinational corporations, but will provide greater protections for indigenous peoples.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon encouraged nation states to move forward with adopting the Declaration, and cited alarming statistics from the first-ever United Nations report on the State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples released in January.
“Indigenous peoples suffer high levels of poverty, health problems, crime and human rights abuses all over the world. You make up five percent of the world’s population – but one third of the world’s poorest,” he said. “Every day, indigenous communities face issues of violence, brutality and dispossession. In some countries, an indigenous child can expect to die 20 years earlier than his non-Native
compatriots.
“Indigenous cultures, languages and ways of life are under constant threat from climate change, armed conflict, lack of educational opportunities and discrimination.
“Elsewhere, your cultures are being distorted, commodified and used to generate profits which do not benefit indigenous people, and can even lead to harm. This is not only a tragedy for indigenous people. It is a tragedy for the whole world.”
Ban said that according to current forecasts, 90 percent of all languages could disappear within 100 years. The loss of these languages erodes an essential component of a group’s identity.
“Diversity is strength – in cultures and in languages, just as it is in ecosystems.
“The loss of irreplaceable cultural practices makes us all poorer, wherever our roots may lie. That’s why the theme this year is ‘Development with Culture and Identity.’ It highlights the need to craft policy measures that promote development while respecting indigenous peoples’ values and traditions.
“We need development that is underpinned by the values of reciprocity, solidarity and collectivity. And we need development that allows indigenous peoples to exercise their right to self-determination through participation in decision-making on an
equal basis.
“The United Nations will continue to support you.”
Indian Country Today- April 23,2010
By Valerie Taliman, Today correspondent
NEW YORK – Political tides are turning as international support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples continues to grow, putting greater pressure on Canada and the United States to fully endorse it.
One day after New Zealand reversed its position and supported the Declaration, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice announced that the United States is undertaking a review of its opposition.
“I am pleased to announce that the United States has decided to review our position regarding the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” she said, addressing the Ninth Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
“During President Obama’s first year in office, tribal leaders encouraged the United States to re-examine its position on the Declaration – an important recommendation that directly complements our commitment to work together with the international community on the many challenges that indigenous peoples face. We will be conducting a formal review of the Declaration and the U.S. position on it.
“There is no American history without Native American history. There can be no just and decent future for our nation that does not directly tackle the legacy of bitter discrimination and sorrow that the first Americans still live with. And America cannot be fully whole until its first inhabitants enjoy all the blessings of liberty, prosperity, and dignity. Let there be no doubt of our commitment. We stand ready to be judged by the results.”
Many Native leaders view this as a positive sign that the United States is moving toward endorsing the Declaration. Critics say there is no need to delay it with additional reviews since the United States was part of negotiations for more than 25 years.
Tonya Gonnella Frichner, an Onondaga attorney and member of the Permanent Forum representing North America, said during his campaign President Barack Obama clearly stated to tribal leaders that he was committed to the adoption of the Declaration.
“We still feel very positive about it and hope that he will commit to that promise,” she told the forum, attended by nearly 2,000 registered delegates.
Others were disappointed that the United States – a country that postures itself as a champion of democracy and human rights worldwide – did not support it outright.
“We’ve already been there. It seems extraordinary to review it again since it has already been debated and adopted by the international community,” said Debra Harry, Indigenous People’s Council on Biocolonialism executive director. “We’d like to see the United States adopt it now, and then let’s talk about how to implement it domestically.”
A less formal meeting was scheduled on the third day of the forum to discuss elements of the review, and to allow time for Native delegates to dialog with members of the U.S. delegation led by Kimberly Teehee, the White House senior policy advisor for Native American Affairs; and Ambassador Rick Barton, U.S. representative to the Economic and Social Council.
Teehee said anytime new laws or policies are introduced, it triggers a process for review across federal agencies to evaluate how it will impact United States laws, policies and regulations. This must be done to properly plan for implementation, she said.
“We are a new administration and we care about what you think. Our approach has been to continue the president’s engagement and commitment to Indian country.
“In the spirit of consultation and partnership, we will engage tribal leaders, stakeholders and NGOs (non-governmental organizations.) We need to be thoughtful about that process. I assure you that your voices will be heard.”
When asked about the timeframe for the review, Teehee said the process was just beginning and she could not yet define how long it would take.
Cayuga Chief Karl Hill of the Haudenosaunee reminded the U.S. delegation that the Iroquois Confederacy negotiated the first treaties with the United States dating back to 1704.
“We have worked on this since its beginning more than 30 years ago, and we urge you to be expeditious in your review,” said Hill, who delivered a statement from the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus containing eight major recommendations for implementing the Declaration.
The Declaration has strong provisions for supporting treaty rights and affirms indigenous peoples’ collective rights to self-determination and control over their lands and natural resources. These rights will likely conflict with development plans by extractive industries and multinational corporations, but will provide greater protections for indigenous peoples.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon encouraged nation states to move forward with adopting the Declaration, and cited alarming statistics from the first-ever United Nations report on the State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples released in January.
“Indigenous peoples suffer high levels of poverty, health problems, crime and human rights abuses all over the world. You make up five percent of the world’s population – but one third of the world’s poorest,” he said. “Every day, indigenous communities face issues of violence, brutality and dispossession. In some countries, an indigenous child can expect to die 20 years earlier than his non-Native
compatriots.
“Indigenous cultures, languages and ways of life are under constant threat from climate change, armed conflict, lack of educational opportunities and discrimination.
“Elsewhere, your cultures are being distorted, commodified and used to generate profits which do not benefit indigenous people, and can even lead to harm. This is not only a tragedy for indigenous people. It is a tragedy for the whole world.”
Ban said that according to current forecasts, 90 percent of all languages could disappear within 100 years. The loss of these languages erodes an essential component of a group’s identity.
“Diversity is strength – in cultures and in languages, just as it is in ecosystems.
“The loss of irreplaceable cultural practices makes us all poorer, wherever our roots may lie. That’s why the theme this year is ‘Development with Culture and Identity.’ It highlights the need to craft policy measures that promote development while respecting indigenous peoples’ values and traditions.
“We need development that is underpinned by the values of reciprocity, solidarity and collectivity. And we need development that allows indigenous peoples to exercise their right to self-determination through participation in decision-making on an
equal basis.
“The United Nations will continue to support you.”
Indian Country Today- April 23,2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
"NO MEANS NO!!"
'THE COMMITTEE OF NATIVE FAMILIES FOR THE SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN' :
URGES THE COMMUNITY TO TELL THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL TONIGHT AT OPEN FORUM: NO RIP-OFF SEWER RATE INCREASE!
NO SEWER TAX INCREASE!
NO $ 380,000,000 SCHOOL BOND!
We the People are FED UP!
To the Richmond City Council: 'LEAD US, DON'T BLEED US!'
http://www.teachingthevaluesofpeace.blogspot.com
Monday, April 19, 2010
CHEROKEE NATION TOURS CHINA
Cherokee meets China
While attending a cultural tour with the Cherokee Nation Feb. 20, faculty and staff from Southwest Jiaotong University in Chengdu, Sichuan, China, visited the Cherokee Female Seminary at Northeastern State University in Tahlequah, Okla.
Pictured, from left, are He Hongyun, director of research of Center of Intelligent Control and Simulation; Chen Chunyang, president of Southwest Jiaotong University; Lauren Jones, interpretive guide at Cherokee Nation Cultural Tourism; Yan Kaiyin, director of Undergraduate Office; Gao Shibin, dean of Electrical Engineering Scholl; and Zhao Yanling, director of President’s Office.
The Cherokee Female Seminary is a standing icon on the Northeastern State University campus today and was constructed in 1887 following a fire to the original Cherokee Female Seminary, which was the first institution of higher learning for women west of the Mississippi River.
Indian Country Today- April 16, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
THE PICTURE ESSAY OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF RICHMOND CALIFORNIA, OUT OF TOUCH AND OUT OF CONTROL! THEY OVERTAX OUR PEOPLE WHO CAN NO LONGER BE TAXED
THEY TOOK $150,000,000 MILLION DOLLARS OF THE RICHMOND TAXPAYERS MONIES TO BUILD THEIR NEW TAJ MAHAL CITY HALL.
NOW THEY WANT TO RIP US OFF WITH MORE TAXES WE CANNOT AFFORD!
WE THE PEOPLE OF RICHMOND ARE FED UP!
NO MEANS NO!
NO RIP-OFF SEWER RATE INCREASE!
NO $380,000,000 SCHOOL BOND!
NO MORE ECONOMIC SLAVERY TO THE CITY OF RICHMOND AND WEST CONTRA COSTA UNIFIED SCOOL DISTRICT!
LEAD US, DON'T BLEED US!
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
THE COMMITTEE OF NATIVE FAMILIES EXPOSES THE TRUTH ABOUT THE RIP-OFF SEWER RATE HIKE IN RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
THE SEWER TAX COMPARISION IN OTHER PARTS OF RICHMOND AND HOW THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF RICHMOND AND VEOLIA ARE RIPPING US OFF!!!
EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT(EBMUD) -rate payers consist of CITY OF RICHMOND'S RICHMOND ANNEX district (Stege Sanitary) Alameda,Albany,Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland Kensington, Piedmont. The EBMUD single family home monthly charge is $16.23. The yearly charge is $194.76
WEST COUNTY WASTEWATER DISTRICT(WCWD)- ALL NORTHERN SUBDIVISIONS OF RICHMOND,covers all of San Pablo, portions of Pinole, the communities of El Sobrante, East Richmond Heights, Tara Hills, Rollingwood and Bayview and portions of unincorporated County.
For single family home yearly charge is $226.00
RICHMOND MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT(VEOLIA)- this rip-off district serves central and south Richmond, North and East, Pt. Richmond, Marina Bay parts of East Richmond Heights and Richmond Annex.
It has raised it's rates 8% each year for the past 5 years and currently charges per house $506.10, the proposed rip-off increase will raise the yearly charge to $729.86 by 2015.
This month Veolia is asking for another 8% compounded rate increase for the next 3 years. It proposes to spend 35 million dollars half for the waster water treatment plant and half on the collection system.
Rate payers can demand that the treatment plant be closed and wastewater service be returned to EBMUD. Why pay for what we don't need. Richmond wastewater plant is small and not cost effective to maintain and repair.
EBMUD has a much larger treatment facility in Oakland with a huge capacity that can process Richmond's wastewater. When EBMUD takes over, we close the Richmond treatment plant and the costs of maintaining and repairing our collection system would be shared among a larger pool of other cities.
TELL THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 4TH, 2010:
* PUT THE NEW RATE PLAN ON HOLD IMMEDIATELY.
* HIRE A NEUTRAL PARTY TO REVIEW VEOLIA RATE INCREASE.
* DIRECT STAFF TO MEET WITH EBMUD, SO WE CAN PARTNER WITH THEM NOW.
* DIRECT STAFF TO NEGOTIATE OUT THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT WITH VEOLIA.
* REPAIR COLLECTION SYSTEM, SHUT DOWN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.
THE COMMITTEE OF NATIVE FAMILIES FOR THE SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN urges you to attend the City Council's Study session on April 27 and Public Hearing on May 4.
The rate hike will be defeated if 8,000 ratepayers express opposition, submit a written protest to:
City Clerk, PO Box 4046, Richmond, CA. 94804
NO MEANS NO!!
WE DON'T WANT YOUR STINKING SEWER RATE INCREASE
TO THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF RICHMOND, TO THEIR FINANCE AND WASTER WATER DISTRICT AND RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL!
THE HOME OWNERS OF RICHMOND DO NOT WANT YOUR STINKING SEWER RATE INCREASE!!
NO MEANS NO!
LEAD US, DON'T BLEED US!!
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
VOTER BACKLASH AGAINST RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL AND SEWER RATE INCREASE
"THERE WILL BE A VOTER BACKLASH FOR ANY INCUMBENTS WHO WILL VOTE FOR THIS SEWER RATE INCREASE!"
"I WOULD ADVISE THAT YOU NEED TO RETHINK HOW IMPORTANT THIS SEWER RATE INCREASE IS, AS OPPOSED TO COMING BACK TO YOUR COUNCIL SEAT!"
RICHMOND, CA- The Committee of Native Families for the Safety of Our Children has been organizing the Community for the past 3 months in a grassroots ANTI TAX REVOLT against the rip-off sewer rate tax increases.
The motto of the campaign has been 'NO MEANS NO!
What this sewer rate increase would mean to all home-owners in the City of Richmond is property taxes will go up. Richmond and West Contra Costa County has some of the highest property taxes in the 12 Western regional states.
If this measure were to pass, it would mean in the first year that thousands of homes would be put up for sale or go into foreclosure. And there would be a great exodus of what remaining little Middle Class that is currently in Richmond.
The City departments of Waste Water District and Finance are cold-blooded, uncaring, and just don't give damn about of how bad off we really are here in town. These individuals on City Staff that are promoting and demanding this unfair sewer rate increase should be fired by the City Manager for contributing to the economic hardship of the families of this community.
Simply translated:we cannot afford your god-damn tax. And we will fight you every step of the way.
The next stop will have to be a class action suit against the City Government of Richmond.
The Honorable City Council member Nat Bates had it right! Simply postpone this madness.
It was on the City of Richmond being sued and losing in a court of law to the Bay Keepers lawsuit.
It was on the City's Waste Water District for allowing raw sewage to spill into the Bay.
The City now needs to pimp the Richmond taxpaper's with this $40 million dollar sewer rate increase, to up grade the Waste Water District so Bay Keepers do not take the City back to court for failure to comply with the upgrade order.
Again this NOT THE ISSUE OF RICHMOND RESIDENTS!
The City got itself into this mess in the first place, let the City find other options to get out of this mess!
Just get the hell off our backs about your phony crisis and your BS sewer rate increase!
To the City Council: 'LEAD US, DON'T BLEED US !!' Be mindful this an election year for the Richmond City Council.
"THERE WILL BE A VOTER BACKLASH FOR ANY INCUMBENTS WHO WILL VOTE FOR THIS SEWER RATE INCREASE!"
"I WOULD ADVISE THAT YOU NEED TO RETHINK HOW IMPORTANT THIS SEWER RATE INCREASE IS, AS OPPOSED TO COMING BACK TO YOUR COUNCIL SEAT!"
Thursday, April 8, 2010
CREATOR SAYS IF YOU RESPECT SOMETHING, IT WILL RESPECT YOU BACK
"The very dust under your feet responds more lovingly to our footsteps than to yours, because it is the ashes of our ancestors, and our bare feet are conscious of the sympathetic touch, for the soil is rich with the life of our kindred."
Chief Seattle, SUQUAMISH
If you respect something, it will respect you back. If your ancestors respected something, the future generations will be respected back.
The Indian ancestors always showed great respect for the Earth. That's why the Earth is so respectful to Indians today.
Every Indian naturally feels connectedness to the Earth. We know the Earth holds our ancestors.
If we continue to respect Mother Earth, our children will benefit and so will our grand- children.
Today, we should think about and pray for our Mother Earth.
Chief Seattle, SUQUAMISH
If you respect something, it will respect you back. If your ancestors respected something, the future generations will be respected back.
The Indian ancestors always showed great respect for the Earth. That's why the Earth is so respectful to Indians today.
Every Indian naturally feels connectedness to the Earth. We know the Earth holds our ancestors.
If we continue to respect Mother Earth, our children will benefit and so will our grand- children.
Today, we should think about and pray for our Mother Earth.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
33 CULTURAL OBJECTS ARE REPATRIATED TO TLINGITS IN SOUTH EAST ALASKA
33 cultural objects repatriated
Sealaska Corporation has repatriated 33 cultural objects from a Massachusetts museum on behalf of Tlingit clans in southeast Alaska.
Most of the objects were repatriated on behalf of the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe and title will be officially transferred to them at a future ceremony, said Sealaska Heritage Institute President Rosita Worl, an anthropologist who assisted in the repatriation.
The collection underscores the creativity and talent of our ancestors, Worl said.
“I mean the pieces are extraordinary. It demonstrates the sophistication and the uniqueness of our art – but more than that – really the cultural values that gave rise to this artistic tradition.”
The objects were collected in the 19th century by Edward G. Fast and purchased by the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology in 1869. The collection comprises a wide range of objects, including a wooden warrior’s helmet, masks, rattles, tools and pipes. Most of the objects were used by shamans, Worl said.
“The pieces are mostly shamanic items, and of course shamanic items are very sensitive to our people. We have strict rules and protocols about the handling of shamanic objects,” said Worl, adding that Native people believe shamanic objects have powers that could harm people who do not respect the protocols.
Worl oversaw the repatriation at the museum with two Eagle and Raven members of the Council of Traditional Scholars, a panel founded by the institute to advise on programs. The objects, which arrived in Juneau in March, were repatriated through a grant from the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
The Yakutat Tlingit will decide whether to take the objects home or to sign a memorandum of agreement to leave them at SHI, which has expanded its holding facility through grants and donations from Sealaska Corporation, the Rasmuson Foundation and the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
SHI enlarged its facilities to accommodate a growing number of ethnographic collections and archival materials acquired in recent years. The institute employs a professional staff to care for cultural objects and archival materials. Staff hopes to eventually have additional space for public exhibitions of its collections.
Sealaska Heritage Institute is a Native nonprofit established in 1980 to administer educational and cultural programs for Sealaska, a regional Native corporation formed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The institute’s mission is to perpetuate and enhance Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian cultures.
Indian Country Today- April 6, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
ANTI TAX REVOLT STILL CONTINUES IN RICHMOND, CA.- NO MEANS NO!
THE COMMITTEE OF NATIVE FAMILIES FOR THE SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN CARRIES THE MESSAGE TO RICHMOND CITY OFFICIALS: NO MEANS NO!
RICHMOND, CA- The Committee of Native Families for the Safety of Our Children took a heavy political leadership role before a jam-packed Richmond City Council meeting to protest the Sewer Rate Increase.
Committee members passed out hundreds upon hundreds of flyers that read 'NO MEANS NO!!'
Speaker after speaker lashed out the certain Council members who are highly suspect that they will vote 'yes' on sewer rate increase show down night at on the April 20th Council meeting in Richmond.
The pro- sewer rate increase council members were totally caught off guard at how speakers lashed out them.
Some the Council members looked uncomfortable when they realised this had already election issue.
Some of the current Council members are up for re-election that currently support the sewer rate increase.
The Council audience gave a thunderous round of applause in support of the Committee's leadership role in confronting the Council about the sewer rate increase.
RICHMOND, CA- The Committee of Native Families for the Safety of Our Children took a heavy political leadership role before a jam-packed Richmond City Council meeting to protest the Sewer Rate Increase.
Committee members passed out hundreds upon hundreds of flyers that read 'NO MEANS NO!!'
Speaker after speaker lashed out the certain Council members who are highly suspect that they will vote 'yes' on sewer rate increase show down night at on the April 20th Council meeting in Richmond.
The pro- sewer rate increase council members were totally caught off guard at how speakers lashed out them.
Some the Council members looked uncomfortable when they realised this had already election issue.
Some of the current Council members are up for re-election that currently support the sewer rate increase.
The Council audience gave a thunderous round of applause in support of the Committee's leadership role in confronting the Council about the sewer rate increase.
PRINCIPAL CHIEF-THE HONORABLE WILMA MANKILLER RETURNS TO THE ANCESTORS
Wilma Mankiller, women’s rights heroine, walks on
By Rob Capriccioso
WASHINGTON – Wilma Mankiller, former principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, passed away at age 64 in the morning hours of April 6 after a battle with pancreatic cancer.
Mankiller was best known for her leadership of her tribe, at which she served 12 years in elective office, the first two as deputy principal chief followed by 10 years as principal chief.
During her time in office and beyond, she was viewed nationwide as a strong Native American advocate, and had many friends in the women’s rights movement.
Mankiller retired from public office in 1995, but was never far from the public eye, serving as a board member on various organizations, including the Women Empowering Women for Indian Nations nonprofit. She also shared her wisdom at several learning institutions, including the University of Arizona.
Among her many honors, she was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bill Clinton.
“Our personal and national hearts are heavy with sorrow and sadness with the passing this morning of Wilma Mankiller,” said Chad Smith, principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, in a release.
“We feel overwhelmed and lost when we realize she has left us but we should reflect on what legacy she leaves us. We are better people and a stronger tribal nation because her example of Cherokee leadership, statesmanship, humility, grace, determination and decisiveness. When we become disheartened, we will be inspired by remembering how Wilma proceeded undaunted through so many trials and tribulations.
“Years ago, she and her husband Charlie Soap showed the world what Cherokee people can do when given the chance, when they organized the self-help water line in the Bell community. She said Cherokees in that community learned that it was their choice, their lives, their community and their future. Her gift to us is the lesson that our lives and future are for us to decide. We can carry on that Cherokee legacy by teaching our children that lesson. Please keep Wilma’s family, especially her husband Charlie and her daughters, Gina and Felicia, in your prayers.”
Mankiller requested that any gifts in her honor be made as donations to One Fire Development Corporation, a nonprofit dedicated to advancing Native American communities.
Tax deductible donations can be made at www.wilmamankiller.com as well as www.onefiredevelopment.org. The mailing address for One Fire Development Corporation is 1220 Southmore Houston, TX 77004.
According to the Cherokee Nation, Mankiller’s memorial service will be held April 11 at the Cherokee Nation Cultural Grounds in Tahlequah, Okla.
Indian Country Today- April 6, 2010
THE COMMITTEE OF NATIVE FAMILIES FOR THE SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN STATES : " NO MEANS NO!
THE COMMITTEE OF FAMILIES FOR
SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN:
NO MEANS NO!!!
•No Sewer Rate Increase!
(TO BE VOTED ON APRIL 2OTH 2010- RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL)
•No $380,000,000 School Bond!
(TO BE VOTED ON JUNE 8TH 2010- SPECIAL ELECTION)
“ I don’t know what part the City Government isn’t getting; said resident Mike Ali, that we can’t afford it “(sewer rate tax increase)
Contra Costa Times- April 1, 2010
Committee Advocate Charlotte McIntire has stated the following observation: “Richmond has the highest unemployment rate of all cities in the San Francisco Bay Area. How can this Community afford such a tax burden”
‘Teaching the Values of Peace’ – April 5, 2010
http://www.teachingthevaluesofpeace.blogspot.com
SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN:
NO MEANS NO!!!
•No Sewer Rate Increase!
(TO BE VOTED ON APRIL 2OTH 2010- RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL)
•No $380,000,000 School Bond!
(TO BE VOTED ON JUNE 8TH 2010- SPECIAL ELECTION)
“ I don’t know what part the City Government isn’t getting; said resident Mike Ali, that we can’t afford it “(sewer rate tax increase)
Contra Costa Times- April 1, 2010
Committee Advocate Charlotte McIntire has stated the following observation: “Richmond has the highest unemployment rate of all cities in the San Francisco Bay Area. How can this Community afford such a tax burden”
‘Teaching the Values of Peace’ – April 5, 2010
http://www.teachingthevaluesofpeace.blogspot.com
Monday, April 5, 2010
MOHAWK NATION NEWS- 'STOP THE TRAINS'
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Mohawk Nation News: Stop the Trains
STOP THE TRAINS
Mohawk Nation News
http://www.mohawknationnews.com/
MNN. Mar. 29, 2010. We Indigenous know that we are being monstrously targeted. We are scattered throughout Great Turtle Island. The colonial government is trying to create a reason to remove and scatter us.
Our communities are deliberately being made unviable, unlivable and mismanaged to create weakness, hunger and thirst. Fierce restrictions, cutbacks, no jobs and no economy are being imposed to create hopelessness.
Resettlement is part of the strategy. Many of our people already have been removed to concentration-extermination camp conditions: Mohawk to Wahta, Innu to Labrador and Inuit to the high Arctic. Curfews and passes were imposed. Food and necessities were rationed. Many died. Our children were removed to residential schools. About half were killed.
In 2005 over 60 Australian Aborigine communities were placed under martial law run by the military.
For 500 years European invaders continue the genocide of Indigenous. They control the money, police, government, economy and military.
The corporate media does not expose these atrocities. Communication is controlled. The masses say little.
Many of our people join the aggressors or pacifist cults. Some support Canada and US extermination policies, especially the colonial band and tribal councils. They put down any resistance. They will be heroes for convincing us to go like lambs to the slaughter. Their Indian cops tell us it’s futile to resist and encourage us to be passive.
Our resources are being used to carry out the genocide. Hannah Arendt said that in WW II almost without exception Jewish leaders in Germany and worldwide cooperated with the Nazis to carry out the Jewish holocaust. They designed the camps, targeted resisters, compiled lists to send to the concentration camps, which properties to seize and distributed the yellow star ID badge that Jews had to wear. Their own money paid for their holocaust.
If the band and tribal councils do not help their masters, there will be unorganized chaos and less of us will be killed or affected. They will discourage resistance, sabotage rescue attempts and coerce us to re-settle. Our lands and properties are probably being promised to them. In the end, they will be put on the same trains with us. The Apache trackers who helped the US army capture Geronimo were all sent to the same prison in Florida.
Fascist thugs believe that natural law is based on violence and that brutal force can solve social problems; democracy is the enemy of the people because it inhibits brutality; life is a perpetual struggle for existence. Only the strong and brutal survive; and the world belongs to those who seize and control it. [Hitler: Main Kempf].
Anti-Indian racism, threats to our babies, young men and women are control tactics. Our interrelationship with the natural world must be renewed. Living in identifiable communities is necessary. Solidarity must be created between our families. Trusted supporters must be found.
In the end Hitler’s Jewish police were gunned down: “If you can do this to your own, what would you do to me?” Using our own against us is an old tactic. It‘s harder to resist when our own are trying to help eliminate us.
Kahentinetha, MNN Mohawk Nation News kahentinehta2@yahoo.com. For books on Mohawk issues, to donate and to sign up for MNN newsletters, to go http://www.mohawknationnews.com/
Sunday, April 4, 2010
NO MEANS NO MORE RIP-OFF SEWER TAXES! NO MEANS NO!
NO MEANS NO!!
NO MORE SEWER RATE HIKES!
NO MORE SCHOOL BONDS!
NO MORE ECONOMIC SLAVERY TO RIP OFF TAXES!
NO MEANS NO!
CITY OF RICHMOND CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS SAY PROPOSED SEWER-RATE JUMP STINKS
Richmond residents say proposed sewer-rate jump stinks
By Katherine Tam
Contra Costa Times
Sewer rates in parts of Richmond could increase 8 percent a year from 2012 to 2014 under a city plan to repair its deteriorating sewer system.
Rates in subsequent years would be adjusted based on inflation, with increases capped at 6 percent.
The money would fund repairs and upgrades to the Richmond Municipal Sewer District, which is about 100 years old.
"If we don't invest in our collection system, the (sewer rate) money people are paying will go into fines and environmental litigation," said Chad Davisson, wastewater manager. "This work has to be done."
Some say the cost to taxpayers is too high.
"I don't know what part of city government isn't getting that we can't afford it," said resident Mike Ali Raccoon Eyes Kinney, who said he'd consider selling his house.
The Richmond Municipal Sewer District collects and treats wastewater for about 16,000single-family homes and thousands of multifamily buildings and businesses in the central and south parts of the city and Point Richmond. Single-family homeowners pay $506 a year now and would pay $688 by 2014 if the increase passes.
Single-family homes in Stege Sanitary, which pay $123 a year, and the West County Wastewater District, which pay $226, are not affected. Stege covers El Cerrito and parts of Richmond, among other areas; West County Wastewater also covers parts of Richmond.
The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing Tuesday and vote on the fee hike.
Richmond's network of clay pipes is cracking. Some pipes are in such poor shape that crews can't get a camera through it. Water from the Bay pours into the sewer system at high tide. That, combined with rain, overwhelms the pipes, resulting in overflows from manholes onto streets and into waterways.
The nonprofits Baykeeper and West County Toxics Coalition sued the city and other agencies in late 2005, arguing that old infrastructure, poor management, inadequate maintenance and deferred upgrades resulted in raw or partially treated wastewater being discharged into waterways on more than 1,000 occasions since 2000 without permits.
The city agreed to make at least $20 million in repairs and reduce sewage spills under a 2006 settlement. The city also paid $538,000 to cover the environmentalists' legal fees.
Sewer rates went up 8 percent a year beginning in 2006 and continuing through 2011. The city previously issued $40 million in municipal bonds to repair pipes, rehabilitate the 57-year-old treatment plant and other work, Davisson said.
If new rates are approved for 2012 to 2014, the city would issue $35 million in bonds for repairs over the next three years, he said. These include expanding the capacity of sewer lines, fixing pipes and upgrading old equipment.
Projects to meet the Baykeeper settlement and state standards total $160 million for the next 20 years. The $35 million bond the city would issue would allow it to complete nearly 30 percent of the infrastructure needs, Davisson said.
Opponents can stop the rate hike if they submit written petitions from a simple majority of property owners by Tuesday. Frustrated residents at an informational meeting Wednesday evening said they received notice of the plan this week or learned about it from neighbors, leaving them little time to submit a written petition or rally like-minded people. They questioned whether everyone was notified and urged officials to delay a decision.
Single-family homeowners that fall under the federal definition of very low-income can apply for a rebate. A family of four earning $44,650 annually is considered very low-income. The city estimates 1,500 families fit this category.
Under the lawsuit settlement, the city must file annual reports to Baykeeper. Deb Self, Baykeeper's executive director, said the city's 2008 report was encouraging. The 2009 report is due this week. She said the city experienced 12 million gallons of sewage spills this past winter that her agency is looking into.
"We're very concerned about that," Self said. "The 12 million-gallon spill this winter tells us that they're not done yet" with fixing its sewer system.
Katherine Tam covers Richmond. Follow her at Twitter.com/katherinetam.
PROPOSED RICHMOND
SEWER RATE INCREASEs
Richmond sewer rates will increase 8 percent next year. Officials want to continue the annual 8 percent increase for the subsequent three years. Here's what a single-family homeowner would pay if the increase is approved:
Current rate: $506.10
Approved for 2011: $546.59
Proposed for 2012: $590.32
Proposed for 2013: $637.54
Proposed for 2014: $688.54
The City Council will hold a public hearing at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday at 440 Civic Center Plaza.
Contra Costa Times-April 1, 2010
Saturday, April 3, 2010
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN PREPARES TO RETURN REMAINS OF THE ANCESTORS
University of Michigan prepares to return remains
By Rob Capriccioso
WASHINGTON – A new rule involving the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act has one of the nation’s largest research institutions preparing to return a collection of more than 1,300 Native American human remains.
The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor announced March 26 that officials there have begun outlining a process for the transfer of Native American human remains to tribes.
The activity comes as a result of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s March 15 publication of a final rule clarifying how museums and institutions should handle Native American human remains that are under their control, but for which no culturally affiliated Indian tribe has been identified.
The rule says that after appropriate tribal consultation, transfer of culturally unidentifiable remains is to be made to a tribe from whose tribal or aboriginal lands the remains were excavated or removed. Civil penalties are proposed for museums that do not follow the law.
Until the rule was published, some university officials felt the 1990 law did not clearly lay out rules for the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains.
“It’s going to be a big job,” said Stephen Forrest, vice president for research at the institution, who is overseeing the process.
Top among his concerns is reaching out to tribes in the region, then the process of getting remains to their appropriate tribal caretakers can begin. Along the way, he plans to hire at least two individuals to work directly with tribes on the matter.
Forrest noted that the university’s holding of the remains has been unresolved for decades, and has dramatically harmed relations with tribes in the region.
“Our relationship with the Native American community has not always been as good as it could be, and I certainly hope this process will start us down a strong path.”
Native American faculty members and students were generally positive about the change in the university’s behavior.
“As one of the Ojibwe language instructors, it is a wonderful development to know the institution will be willing to talk to leaders in the communities where we are teaching,” said Margaret Noori, director of the university’s Comprehensive Studies Program.
“I look forward to the time when each of the individuals now held by the museum is properly returned to the Earth and allowed to complete their journey. We know that U of M supports our language through support of www.ojibwe.net. It’s good to also know the administration has growing respect for all aspects of our culture.”
Veronica Pasfield, a Bay Mills tribal citizen and graduate student leader, said the Native community on campus feels “very positive” about the dramatic shift in university policy.
“We have been advocating for this for years. For this to finally have happened is a big step forward.”
Alys Alley, co-chair of the Native American Student Association, said the situation has long caused “a lot of pain for the Native American community.
“As a Native American student, it has been hard and painful to walk campus knowing that my ancestors are being kept in the U of M Museum of Anthropology.
“I hope to see all of the 1,390 remains returned to their homes so that we can finally begin the healing process.”
For years, Native Americans have battled with some faculty members over the contentious issue. Even now, there are some professors at the institution who believe it is important to keep the remains for continued study.
Forrest addressed the issue, saying that scientific concerns are always taken into account, but, he added, “First and foremost we follow the law. … everybody has to follow the law.”
The conflict at Michigan has been complicated by the fact that some institutions housing Native Americans long ago gave back culturally unidentifiable remains, or at least began substantial tribal consultation processes – without ever needing the rule clarification.
Plus, some institutions, like Harvard, have been more proactive than Michigan in applying for NAGPRA grants meant to aid in tribal consultation.
Forrest noted that the university’s new path will not be easy, especially given the historical conflict between tribes and some faculty members.
“If we don’t do this right, it could set us back as well, so we are really going to try to do this right.”
One area that many Native Americans plan to watch to help measure progress is whether the university will return many of the sacred Native funerary objects it still holds.
The new rule does not clarify how to repatriate culturally unidentified funerary objects, yet some institutions have chosen to return these items in addition to human remains, given their sacred significance.
D. Bambi Kraus, director of the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, said the funerary objects issue is a “weakness in the new rule,” and one that many Native advocates would like to see addressed in the future.
Indian Country Today-April 2, 2010
By Rob Capriccioso
WASHINGTON – A new rule involving the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act has one of the nation’s largest research institutions preparing to return a collection of more than 1,300 Native American human remains.
The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor announced March 26 that officials there have begun outlining a process for the transfer of Native American human remains to tribes.
The activity comes as a result of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s March 15 publication of a final rule clarifying how museums and institutions should handle Native American human remains that are under their control, but for which no culturally affiliated Indian tribe has been identified.
The rule says that after appropriate tribal consultation, transfer of culturally unidentifiable remains is to be made to a tribe from whose tribal or aboriginal lands the remains were excavated or removed. Civil penalties are proposed for museums that do not follow the law.
Until the rule was published, some university officials felt the 1990 law did not clearly lay out rules for the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains.
“It’s going to be a big job,” said Stephen Forrest, vice president for research at the institution, who is overseeing the process.
Top among his concerns is reaching out to tribes in the region, then the process of getting remains to their appropriate tribal caretakers can begin. Along the way, he plans to hire at least two individuals to work directly with tribes on the matter.
Forrest noted that the university’s holding of the remains has been unresolved for decades, and has dramatically harmed relations with tribes in the region.
“Our relationship with the Native American community has not always been as good as it could be, and I certainly hope this process will start us down a strong path.”
Native American faculty members and students were generally positive about the change in the university’s behavior.
“As one of the Ojibwe language instructors, it is a wonderful development to know the institution will be willing to talk to leaders in the communities where we are teaching,” said Margaret Noori, director of the university’s Comprehensive Studies Program.
“I look forward to the time when each of the individuals now held by the museum is properly returned to the Earth and allowed to complete their journey. We know that U of M supports our language through support of www.ojibwe.net. It’s good to also know the administration has growing respect for all aspects of our culture.”
Veronica Pasfield, a Bay Mills tribal citizen and graduate student leader, said the Native community on campus feels “very positive” about the dramatic shift in university policy.
“We have been advocating for this for years. For this to finally have happened is a big step forward.”
Alys Alley, co-chair of the Native American Student Association, said the situation has long caused “a lot of pain for the Native American community.
“As a Native American student, it has been hard and painful to walk campus knowing that my ancestors are being kept in the U of M Museum of Anthropology.
“I hope to see all of the 1,390 remains returned to their homes so that we can finally begin the healing process.”
For years, Native Americans have battled with some faculty members over the contentious issue. Even now, there are some professors at the institution who believe it is important to keep the remains for continued study.
Forrest addressed the issue, saying that scientific concerns are always taken into account, but, he added, “First and foremost we follow the law. … everybody has to follow the law.”
The conflict at Michigan has been complicated by the fact that some institutions housing Native Americans long ago gave back culturally unidentifiable remains, or at least began substantial tribal consultation processes – without ever needing the rule clarification.
Plus, some institutions, like Harvard, have been more proactive than Michigan in applying for NAGPRA grants meant to aid in tribal consultation.
Forrest noted that the university’s new path will not be easy, especially given the historical conflict between tribes and some faculty members.
“If we don’t do this right, it could set us back as well, so we are really going to try to do this right.”
One area that many Native Americans plan to watch to help measure progress is whether the university will return many of the sacred Native funerary objects it still holds.
The new rule does not clarify how to repatriate culturally unidentified funerary objects, yet some institutions have chosen to return these items in addition to human remains, given their sacred significance.
D. Bambi Kraus, director of the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, said the funerary objects issue is a “weakness in the new rule,” and one that many Native advocates would like to see addressed in the future.
Indian Country Today-April 2, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
NO MEANS NO!!
'NO means NO!!!'
NO more SEWER TAXES!
NO more SCHOOL BONDS!
NO more SLAVERY TO TAXES!
'NO MEANS NO'
http://www.teachingthevaluesofpeace.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIVE COMMITTEE TAKES ON WATER MAFIA VEOLIA AND THE CITY OF RICHMOND EMPIRE AS THEY STRIKE BACK
WATER MAFIA VEOLIA AND THE CITY OF RICHMOND EMPIRE STRIKE BACK!!
They Still Want to Rip-off the City Taxpayers with Sewer rate hike taxes.
The Community ready to Mobilise! NO means NO!
By: Mike(Ali)Raccoon Eyes Kinney
Community Meetings on Proposed Wastewater Rate Increase
(Translated this garbage means we caught them with their pants down, You know folks, these clowns just don't get the idea this Community does not give a damn about paying their crappy little sewer taxes or the corporate gangsters of Veolia.)
(Just read this sorry piece of an excuse why their little pony and cart show, smoke-screen informational hearing didn't work)
The public hearing concerning the proposed changes to the sewer rates that was noticed for the City Council meeting of April 6th is being continued until Tuesday, April 20th.
The reason for this continuance is to allow more time to disseminate information regarding the rate increase intocommunity , and to have an additional community information meeting. The additional meeting will be on Wednesday, April 14th at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. An additional mailed notice regarding this meeting, together with questions and answers regarding the proposed sewer rate increase, should be received by all households in the service area by the middle part of next week.
This past week, staff from Engineering/Wastewater, Finance, the City Attorney’s Office and Veolia conducted an informational meeting related to the proposed sewer rate increase, which was attended by about 30 – 40 members of the community. Staff was concerned, however, that adequate notice regarding this meeting was not provided uniformly throughout the community, necessitating that an additional meeting be scheduled.
(Yeah right! Read the real story below.)
The Committee of Native Families for the Safety of Our Children hit these clowns hard. And that is only but a sample of the test taste their gonna get from this Community with regards for more of their proposed rip-off B.S. sewer taxes. NO means NO!!!
Next stop: class action suit in Court anyone???
TOWN HALL MEETING BY CITY OF RICHMOND STAFF FROM WASTEWATER DISTRICT AND FINANCE VIEWED AS BOTH A FAILURE AND BIGGEST JOKE IN TOWN
By Mike (Ali) Raccoon Eyes Kinney
RICHMOND,CA- On March 31st, 2010 the City of Richmond's departments of Wastewater District and Finance held a informational hearing to explain to Richmond residents why their wastewater/ sewer rates would be hiked up to what is viewed within the community as both unfair and a taxpayer rip-off.
The town hall meeting was a disaster from the very outset. Some 75 people who did attend said that the Finance Department failed to mail the notice in a timely fashion. Some attendees said they got nothing in the mail and only heard of word of mouth and others stated they had only received in the mail that very day.
While the meeting was to be held in the Bermuda Room of the Richmond Auditorium, scores of people who wanted to attend were locked out because there was no staff to admit people in to the building.
Numerous people were blown off by City Staff who had questions that were important to them with regards to the Sewer rate hike. City Staff was at a rush to deliver their power point presentation, they totally attempted a passive censorship to the audience's questions.
At this point the people in the audience be highly upset and angry with City Staff from both Wastewater and Finance for their attempts of ignoring and blowing off their questions.
All hell then broke loose, the angry crowd started demanding answers to questions. Staff was now catching the brunt of the chaos and confusion of a very badly planned and ill-prepared town hall meeting.
Some individuals walked out protesting and cursing Staff's failure to answer questions. People pointed out numerous times the Sewer fee hike would produce economic hardship and there was a strong sense people would sell their homes because they could not afford more tax burdens upon them.
Staff was both uncaring and indifferent to what citizens had to say at that point about homes up for sale.
People in the crowd rallied their collective contempt for the failure of the power presentation to again answer their questions.
At this point the crowd simply started to leave, both angry and disappointed that they had nothing to show for this badly-planned and ill-prepared town hall meeting.
http://www.teachingthevaluesofpeace.blogspot.com
JUST KEEP READING THE FOLLOWING UPDATES AT THE ABOVE LINK,
CANADA'S PROMISES QUALIFIED RECOGNITION OF UN DELCLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
Canada promises ‘qualified recognition’ of UN Declaration
By Gale Courey Toensing
Canada has promised to endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but a Mohawk journalist and consultant cautions that there’s no reason to rejoice just yet.
Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Australia – countries with large indigenous populations who have significant land claims – were the only four countries to vote against the Declaration’s adoption at the U.N. General Assembly Sept. 13, 2007. Canada’s change of heart and decision to adopt the Declaration was announced during this year’s Speech from the Throne by Canada’s Governor General Michaelle Jean March 3.
“We are a country with an aboriginal heritage. A growing number of states have given qualified recognition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Our government will take steps to endorse this aspirational document in a manner fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws.”
Echoing Jean’s words in his response to the Speech from the Throne, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the Canadian government “will take steps to endorse [the Declaration] in a manner fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws.”
Kenneth Deer, a lifelong Mohawk resident of Kahnawake, said language like “qualified recognition,” “aspirational,” and “in a manner fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws” raises red flags.
“We don’t know what it’s going to be yet. This paragraph that was in the Throne Speech only lets us know they intend to endorse the Declaration. They haven’t endorsed it yet, so we’re waiting to see how they want to qualify it.”
Deer served as the publisher and editor of The Eastern Door from 1992 – 2008, a newspaper and Web site serving the Mohawk community at Kahnewake. He sold the newspaper in 2008 and now owns and operates Deer Communications, a consulting firm for media and international relations, He is also on the board of trustees of the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations.
“But I still think of myself as a journalist.”
In a recent opinion piece published in The Eastern Door, Deer points to “ominous signs” in the Throne Speech that may not bode well for Canada’s indigenous peoples.
“The term ‘qualified recognition’ means that the Canadian government is not intending to accept the Declaration as a whole and fully implement it, as was urged in a motion adopted by the House of Commons in April 2008.
“Instead, the government intends to put limits on how it will interpret this human rights instrument. The government seeks to endorse the Declaration, only to the extent that is fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws. This would serve to perpetuate the status quo.”
Deer noted that the Canadian government unsuccessfully submitted a list of 30 amendments to the 46-article Declaration a month before the document was adopted that aimed to limit indigenous peoples’ collective rights, including the rights to land and territories, and free, prior and informed consent, among others. That action indicates the type of limitations the Canadian government is contemplating in its ‘qualified recognition.’
He also noted that the governor general’s comment that a “growing number of states” is giving “qualified recognition” to the Declaration is an exaggeration.
Only two countries have changed their position on the Declaration – Australia, which voted against it, and Colombia, which abstained.
“So to say a ‘growing number of states’ is misleading,” Deer said.
Australia supported the Declaration with only a slight qualification similar to Canada’s intent to endorse “to the extent consistent with Canadian law.”
“But that’s actually a redundant statement, because it’s the courts that will decide. The Declaration is still the international standard whether Canada votes for it or not, and as soon as courts start using the Declaration in their judgments, then it erodes Canada’s position because the courts have all the leeway to take into consideration international standards,” Deer said.
But can a country actually qualify its recognition of an international declaration that is already in place? Wouldn’t that be like saying, “We’re adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but we’re going to scratch Article 5 – the prohibition against torture?
“They can’t make amendments because (the Declaration) is already passed, but there were so many ridiculous changes that they wanted to make and Canada lost a lot of respect internationally because of their stand against the Declaration. It made it harder for Canada to be listened to on human rights issues by other countries. That’s the reason they’re going to endorse it. It isn’t because they love us so much, but because they’re trying to repair their international reputation.”
Deer also said the term “aspirational document” implies that the Declaration is a lofty goal that one tries to meet and is the highest limit of the rights in the Declaration.
“This is not true. It is true that, as a declaration, it is not binding like a convention. But what is also true is that the Declaration has legal effect. The rights that are elaborated in the Declaration are inherent or pre-existing rights. They are not new rights,” he said.
While the Assembly of First Nations and other large indigenous organizations will likely lobby Ottawa to endorse the Declaration with “honor” – meaning without limiting qualifications – Deer said his mission is different.
“The object of the article was really to educate indigenous people about the announcement and its implications, and although it’s a step in the right direction, we should be cautious. I’m not celebrating Canada’s decision to endorse the Declaration right now. I’m waiting to see the wording. I encourage Canada to be magnanimous about it and not qualify its endorsement.”
If the constitution and laws of a state conflict with international human right standards, then those laws must change, Deer said.
“Canada now has an opportunity to go from the back of the bus of human rights to the front by showing how the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples can be applied in a positive and effective way.”
Indian Country Today- March 24, 2010
By Gale Courey Toensing
Canada has promised to endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but a Mohawk journalist and consultant cautions that there’s no reason to rejoice just yet.
Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Australia – countries with large indigenous populations who have significant land claims – were the only four countries to vote against the Declaration’s adoption at the U.N. General Assembly Sept. 13, 2007. Canada’s change of heart and decision to adopt the Declaration was announced during this year’s Speech from the Throne by Canada’s Governor General Michaelle Jean March 3.
“We are a country with an aboriginal heritage. A growing number of states have given qualified recognition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Our government will take steps to endorse this aspirational document in a manner fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws.”
Echoing Jean’s words in his response to the Speech from the Throne, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the Canadian government “will take steps to endorse [the Declaration] in a manner fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws.”
Kenneth Deer, a lifelong Mohawk resident of Kahnawake, said language like “qualified recognition,” “aspirational,” and “in a manner fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws” raises red flags.
“We don’t know what it’s going to be yet. This paragraph that was in the Throne Speech only lets us know they intend to endorse the Declaration. They haven’t endorsed it yet, so we’re waiting to see how they want to qualify it.”
Deer served as the publisher and editor of The Eastern Door from 1992 – 2008, a newspaper and Web site serving the Mohawk community at Kahnewake. He sold the newspaper in 2008 and now owns and operates Deer Communications, a consulting firm for media and international relations, He is also on the board of trustees of the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations.
“But I still think of myself as a journalist.”
In a recent opinion piece published in The Eastern Door, Deer points to “ominous signs” in the Throne Speech that may not bode well for Canada’s indigenous peoples.
“The term ‘qualified recognition’ means that the Canadian government is not intending to accept the Declaration as a whole and fully implement it, as was urged in a motion adopted by the House of Commons in April 2008.
“Instead, the government intends to put limits on how it will interpret this human rights instrument. The government seeks to endorse the Declaration, only to the extent that is fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws. This would serve to perpetuate the status quo.”
Deer noted that the Canadian government unsuccessfully submitted a list of 30 amendments to the 46-article Declaration a month before the document was adopted that aimed to limit indigenous peoples’ collective rights, including the rights to land and territories, and free, prior and informed consent, among others. That action indicates the type of limitations the Canadian government is contemplating in its ‘qualified recognition.’
He also noted that the governor general’s comment that a “growing number of states” is giving “qualified recognition” to the Declaration is an exaggeration.
Only two countries have changed their position on the Declaration – Australia, which voted against it, and Colombia, which abstained.
“So to say a ‘growing number of states’ is misleading,” Deer said.
Australia supported the Declaration with only a slight qualification similar to Canada’s intent to endorse “to the extent consistent with Canadian law.”
“But that’s actually a redundant statement, because it’s the courts that will decide. The Declaration is still the international standard whether Canada votes for it or not, and as soon as courts start using the Declaration in their judgments, then it erodes Canada’s position because the courts have all the leeway to take into consideration international standards,” Deer said.
But can a country actually qualify its recognition of an international declaration that is already in place? Wouldn’t that be like saying, “We’re adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but we’re going to scratch Article 5 – the prohibition against torture?
“They can’t make amendments because (the Declaration) is already passed, but there were so many ridiculous changes that they wanted to make and Canada lost a lot of respect internationally because of their stand against the Declaration. It made it harder for Canada to be listened to on human rights issues by other countries. That’s the reason they’re going to endorse it. It isn’t because they love us so much, but because they’re trying to repair their international reputation.”
Deer also said the term “aspirational document” implies that the Declaration is a lofty goal that one tries to meet and is the highest limit of the rights in the Declaration.
“This is not true. It is true that, as a declaration, it is not binding like a convention. But what is also true is that the Declaration has legal effect. The rights that are elaborated in the Declaration are inherent or pre-existing rights. They are not new rights,” he said.
While the Assembly of First Nations and other large indigenous organizations will likely lobby Ottawa to endorse the Declaration with “honor” – meaning without limiting qualifications – Deer said his mission is different.
“The object of the article was really to educate indigenous people about the announcement and its implications, and although it’s a step in the right direction, we should be cautious. I’m not celebrating Canada’s decision to endorse the Declaration right now. I’m waiting to see the wording. I encourage Canada to be magnanimous about it and not qualify its endorsement.”
If the constitution and laws of a state conflict with international human right standards, then those laws must change, Deer said.
“Canada now has an opportunity to go from the back of the bus of human rights to the front by showing how the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples can be applied in a positive and effective way.”
Indian Country Today- March 24, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
TOWN HALL MEETING BY CITY OF RICHMOND, CA. STAFF FROM WASTEWATER DISTRICT AND FINANCE VIEWED AS BOTH A FAILURE AND BIGGEST JOKE IN TOWN.
TOWN HALL MEETING BY CITY OF RICHMOND STAFF FROM WASTEWATER DISTRICT AND FINANCE VIEWED AS BOTH A FAILURE AND BIGGEST JOKE IN TOWN
By Mike (Ali) Raccoon Eyes Kinney
RICHMOND,CA- On March 31st, 2010 the City of Richmond's departments of Wastewater District and Finance held a informational hearing to explain to Richmond residents why their wastewater/ sewer rates would be hiked up to what is viewed within the community as both unfair and a taxpayer rip-off.
The town hall meeting was a disaster from the very outset. Some 75 people including The Committee of Native Families for the Safety of Our Children,who did attend said that the Finance Department failed to mail the notice in a timely fashion. Some attendees said they got nothing in the mail and only heard of word of mouth and others stated they had only received in the mail that very day.
While the meeting was to be held in the Bermuda Room of the Richmond Auditorium, scores of people who wanted to attend were locked out because there was no staff to admit people in to the building.
Numerous people were blown off by City Staff who had questions that were important to them with regards to the Sewer rate hike. City Staff was at a rush to deliver their power point presentation, they totally attempted a passive censorship to the audience's questions.
At this point the people in the audience be highly upset and angry with City Staff from both Wastewater and Finance for their attempts of ignoring and blowing off their questions.
All hell then broke loose, the angry crowd started demanding answers to questions. Staff was now catching the brunt of the chaos and confusion of a very badly planned and ill-prepared town hall meeting.
Some individuals walked out protesting and cursing Staff's failure to answer questions.
People pointed out numerous times the Sewer fee hike would produce economic hardship and there was a strong sense people would sell their homes because they could not afford more tax burdens upon them.
Staff was both uncaring and indifferent to what citizens had to say at that point about homes up for sale.
People in the crowd rallied their collective contempt for the failure of the power presentation to again answer their questions.
At this point the crowd simply started to leave, both angry and diappointed that they had nothing to show for this badly-planned and ill-prepared town hall meeting.
http://www.teachingthevaluesofpeace.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mike (Ali) Raccoon Eyes Kinney
RICHMOND,CA- On March 31st, 2010 the City of Richmond's departments of Wastewater District and Finance held a informational hearing to explain to Richmond residents why their wastewater/ sewer rates would be hiked up to what is viewed within the community as both unfair and a taxpayer rip-off.
The town hall meeting was a disaster from the very outset. Some 75 people including The Committee of Native Families for the Safety of Our Children,who did attend said that the Finance Department failed to mail the notice in a timely fashion. Some attendees said they got nothing in the mail and only heard of word of mouth and others stated they had only received in the mail that very day.
While the meeting was to be held in the Bermuda Room of the Richmond Auditorium, scores of people who wanted to attend were locked out because there was no staff to admit people in to the building.
Numerous people were blown off by City Staff who had questions that were important to them with regards to the Sewer rate hike. City Staff was at a rush to deliver their power point presentation, they totally attempted a passive censorship to the audience's questions.
At this point the people in the audience be highly upset and angry with City Staff from both Wastewater and Finance for their attempts of ignoring and blowing off their questions.
All hell then broke loose, the angry crowd started demanding answers to questions. Staff was now catching the brunt of the chaos and confusion of a very badly planned and ill-prepared town hall meeting.
Some individuals walked out protesting and cursing Staff's failure to answer questions.
People pointed out numerous times the Sewer fee hike would produce economic hardship and there was a strong sense people would sell their homes because they could not afford more tax burdens upon them.
Staff was both uncaring and indifferent to what citizens had to say at that point about homes up for sale.
People in the crowd rallied their collective contempt for the failure of the power presentation to again answer their questions.
At this point the crowd simply started to leave, both angry and diappointed that they had nothing to show for this badly-planned and ill-prepared town hall meeting.
http://www.teachingthevaluesofpeace.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BELOVED WOMAN OF THE CHEROKEE- NANCY WARD
Beloved Woman of the Cherokee - Nancy Ward c. 1738-1824
The role of Ghighua, or Beloved Woman, among the Cherokee was an influential one indeed. The most noted of the Cherokee Beloved Women was Nancy Ward, or Nan'yehi. Closely related to such leaders as Old Hop, the emperor of the Cherokee nation in the 1750s, Attakullakulla, the Wise Councillor of the Cherokee, and Osconostato, the Great Warrior of the Cherokee nation, Ward won the honored title of Ghighua and her own leadership position after displaying great bravery in battle. But Ward was not merely a warrior. She spoke on behalf of her people with U.S. representatives and wisely counseled the tribe against land cession. She did not live to see her warnings become reality as the Cherokee were dispossessed of their eastern lands.
Earns title Beloved Woman
Born about 1738 at Chota, a "Peace Town" or "Mother Town" in the Overhill region of the Cherokee Nation, Ward came into the world at the beginning of a crucial era in Cherokee history. Raised by her mother, Tame Deer, and her father, Fivekiller (who was also part Delaware or Lenni Lenap‚), Nan'yehi realized at a young age that her people were in turmoil. Missionaries, Moravians (Christians who seek to persuade others to accept their religion and follow the Bible as their rule of faith and morals) in particular, were trying to gain access to the Cherokee people in order to convert them. Still very conservative (resistant to change), preserving their traditional customs and religion, the Cherokees had a mixed reaction to the missionaries. Many regarded them as a threat, others saw them as a blessing.
One of those who straddled this fence was Nan'yehi's very influential maternal uncle, Attakullakulla ("Little Carpenter"). He eventually struck a deal allowing Moravians into Cherokee territory, but only if they would build schools to instruct Cherokee youth in English and the ways of the white man. Later critics would see this as evidence of Attakullakulla's desire for the Cherokee to accept European ways; others saw this as a tactic to teach the tribe more about their enemy. Like her uncle, Nan'yehi too would try to find the middle ground between tradition and innovation.
Ward married a Cherokee man named Kingfisher while in her early teens. Kingfisher was a great warrior, and Nan'yehi was at his side in battle, helping prepare his firearms and rallying Cherokee warriors when their spirits flagged. In 1755, the Cherokees fought the Creeks at the Battle of Taliwa. During the fighting, Kingfisher was killed. Nan'yehi, about 18 years old at this time, took up her slain husband's gun and, singing a war song, led the Cherokees in a rout of the enemy. Out of her loss was born a decisive victory for her people and a title of honor for her: "Beloved Woman."
The Cherokee were a matrilineal (tracing family relations through the mother) society, and thus their fields had always been controlled by women. Women of great influence became known as Beloved Women, often working behind the scenes in shaping decisions. The role of Ghigau or Beloved Woman was the highest one to which a Cherokee woman could aspire. It was unusual for one as young as Nan'yehi to be so named, but since the name also translates as "War Woman" and was usually awarded to women warriors (or warriors' mothers or widows), Nan'yehi had duly earned it. Much responsibility went with the many privileges of the rank, and, although young, Nan'yehi showed herself capable.
Among the privileges accorded Nan'yehi as a Beloved Woman were voice and vote in General Council, leadership of the Women's Council, the honor of preparing the Black Drink — a tea used in ceremonies to purify — and giving it to warriors before battle, and the right to save a prisoner already condemned to execution. Nan'yehi would exercise all these rights and would serve as her people's sage (wise person) and guide.
Another of the Beloved Woman's duties was as ambassador, or peace negotiator. It is through this role that Ward became a figure in non-Cherokee history. Ward, who had been "apprenticed" as a diplomat at her uncle's side, was a shrewd negotiator who took a realistic view of how to help the Cherokee people survive. She had grown up during a time when continued white settlement on Cherokee lands, in violation of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, in which the British Empire had recognized the rights of Native people, created constant tension in Indian-white relations.
When militant Cherokees prepared to attack illegal white communities on the Watauga River, Ward disapproved of intentionally taking civilian lives. She was able to warn several of the Watauga settlements in time for them to defend themselves or flee. One of the settlers unfortunate enough to be taken alive by the Cherokee warriors was a woman named Mrs. Bean. The captive was sentenced to execution and was actually being tied to a stake when Ward exercised her right to spare condemned captives. Taking the injured Mrs. Bean into her own home to nurse her back to health, Ward learned two skills from her which would have far-reaching consequences for her people.
A Time of Change
Mrs. Bean, like most "settler women," wove her own cloth. At this time, the Cherokee were wearing a combination of traditional hide (animal skin) clothing and loomed cloth purchased from traders. Cherokee people had rough-woven hemp clothing, but it was not as comfortable as clothing made from linen, cotton, or wool. Mrs. Bean taught Ward how to set up a loom, spin thread or yarn, and weave cloth. This skill would make the Cherokee people less dependent on traders, but it also Europeanized the Cherokee in terms of gender roles. Women came to be expected to do the weaving and house chores; as men became farmers in the changing society, women became "housewives."
Another aspect of Cherokee life that changed when Ward saved the life of Mrs. Bean was that of raising animals. The white woman owned dairy cattle, which she took to Ward's house. Ward learned to prepare and use dairy foods, which provided some nourishment even when hunting was bad. However, because of Ward's introduction of dairy farming to the Cherokee, they would begin to amass large herds and farms, which required even more manual labor. This would soon lead the Cherokee into using slave labor. In fact, Ward herself had been "awarded" the black slave of a felled Creek warrior after her victory at the Battle of Taliwa and thus became the first Cherokee slave owner.
From these accommodations to European-based ways of life, one might get the idea that Ward was selling out the Cherokee people. But her political efforts proved the contrary. She did not seek war, but neither did she counsel peace when she felt compromise would hurt her tribe. In 1781 Ward entered into peace talks with Tennessee politician and soldier John Sevier at the Little Pigeon River in present-day Tennessee, she had called for peace but warned Sevier to take the treaty back to "his women" for them to ratify. It did not occur to the Cherokee that women did not decide matters of war and peace in the white man's world, as they did in many southeastern tribes. Ward was also a negotiator for the Cherokee at the 1785 signing of the Treaty of Hopewell, the first treaty the Cherokee made with the "new" United States.
By the turn of the nineteenth century, it was already becoming apparent to the Cherokee that the Americans intended to get as much Cherokee land as possible and that the day might come when the Natives would be forced off their homelands. Ward, by now called "Nancy" by the many non-Indians she had befriended, feared that each time the Cherokee voluntarily handed over land, they were encouraging the settlers' appetite for it. She feared that someday their hunger for land would destroy her people. In 1808, the Women's Council, with Ward at its head, made a statement to the Cherokee people urging them to sell no more land. Again, in 1817, when Ward took her seat in council, her desperation was ill concealed. She told the younger people to refuse any more requests for land or to take up arms against the "Americans" if necessary.
The Road Back to Chota
When she became too aged to make the effort to attend further General Council meetings, Ward sent her walking stick in her place thereafter. Some contemporary sources say she "resigned" her position as Beloved Woman with this action, but the mere absence from council did not indicate the end of her term. Ward was well aware that Cherokee "removal" west of the Mississippi River was almost a foregone conclusion. Rather than face the sorrow of leaving her homeland, she decided to find a way to blend in to the white world.
Nan'yehi had become Nancy Ward when she married the Irish (or Scots-Irish) trader Bryant Ward. By now, her three children were grown, so she was accorded the indulgence of "modern conveniences" because of her advanced age and the great integrity with which she had long discharged her duty to her people. Therefore, when she and Ward took to the innkeeping trade, there was no disrespect voiced toward the Beloved Woman. Their inn was situated near the Mother Town of Chota, on Womankiller Ford of the Ocowee River, in eastern Tennessee.
Ward returned to Chota, her birthplace, in 1824. She was cared for by her son, Fivekiller, who reported seeing a white light leave her body as she died. The light was said to have entered the most sacred mound in the Mother Town. Ward was spared the sight of her people's exile to Indian Territory in 1838, but because her spirit was present at Chota, they knew she had preserved that connection to their eastern home. The last woman to be given the title of Beloved Woman until the late 1980s, Ward remains a powerful symbol for Cherokee women. She is often referred to by feminist scholars as an inspiration and is revered by the Cherokee people of Oklahoma as well as the Eastern Band Cherokees of North Carolina.
Further Reading
Allen, Paula Gunn, The Sacred Hoop, Beacon Press, 1992.
American Indian Women: A Research Guide, edited by Gretchen Bataille and Kathleen Sands, Garland Publishing, 1991.
Green, Rayna, Women in American Indian Society, Chelsea House, 1992.
Native American Women, edited by Gretchen M. Bataille, Garland Publishing, 1993.
Pat Alderman, Nancy Ward, Cherokee Chieftainess (1978)
Ben H. McClary, "Nancy Ward: The Last Beloved Woman of the Cherokees," Tennessee Historical Quarterly 21 (1962): 352-64.
Source
U·X·L® Biographies, U·X·L, 1996.
http://www.manataka.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
