THE DAY OF ALL DAYS HAS ARRIVED

COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

EXAMINATION OF THE UNITED STATES 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th PERIODIC REPORTS

OF APRIL, 2007

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

IN THE UNITED STATES

CONSOLIDATED INDIGENOUS SHADOW REPORT

Submitted by Alberto Saldamando

International Indian Treaty Council

2390 Mission Street, Suite 301

San Francisco, California, 94110 USA

Tel: + (415) 641-4482

Fax: + (415) 641-1298

Email: alberto@treatycouncil.org

http://www.treatycouncil.org

Dedicated to Floyd Redcrow Westerman

American Indian Movement Statesman, Warrior,

IITC Spokesman, Leader and Guide

Who passed into the Spirit World on December 13, 2007

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge all of the testimonies provided by Indigenous Peoples, Nations, Organizations and individuals that, in their own words, make up the substance of this Shadow Report. Although not all could be included, all contributed to whatever richness and scope it may have. Contributions and testimonies are cited in the body of the report.

This Shadow Report is an enlargement of the US National Indigenous Shadow Report. Contributors include: Alberto Saldamando, Working Group Co-coordinator, International Indian Treaty Council; Julie Fishel, Working Group Co-coordinator, Western Shoshone Defense Project; Hope Clark, Candidate for Masters in Intercultural Service, Leadership, and Management from the School for International Training; Manuel Pino, Professor, Scottsdale Community College; Josh Clark; Jaime Arsenault; Roxanne Ornelas, University of Minnesota; Sakura Saunders, CorpWatch; and, Andrea Carmen, International Indian Treaty Council.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 1

Introduction – Major Concerns and the UN Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples 3

The Obligation to Report on Indigenous Peoples 5

I.Omissions of the US Periodic Report 5

II.Un-recognized Indigenous Peoples 6

III.Indian Reservation Apartheid 7

A. Life Expectancy on the Indian Reservation 8

B. Unemployment and Poverty in Employment 9

C. Disproportionate Victimization, Incarceration and Sentencing 10

Racially Discriminatory Constitutional Foundations 13

I.The Marshall Trilogy: The Origins of Racist Constitutional Doctrine 13

A. The Plenary Powers Doctrine 14

B. The “Trust” Relationship 15

II.Current Application of Racist Constitutional Doctrines 16

A. The Termination of Recognized Indian Tribes 17

B. The Abrogation of Treaties between the United States and Indigenous Peoples 20

C. The Continuing “Taking” of Indian Lands 22

D. The Corruption of the “Trust” Doctrine 24

E. The Continuing Denial of the Right of Self Determination: “Criminal” Jurisdiction 26

III.The Failure of Recognition of Indigenous Peoples as Peoples 28

A. “Unrecognized” Indigenous Tribes 28

B. Alaskan Native Peoples 29

C. Native Hawai’ians 31

D. The Indigenous Peoples of Puerto Rico and Guam 32

Sacred Lands and the Right of Spiritual Practice 33

I.Sacred Lands 34

A. Recognized Tribes and Treaty Rights: The Lakota Nation and Bear Butte (Mato Paha), Black Hills, South Dakota: 36

B. Dishonored Treaty, Seeking Recognition: The Winnemmem Wintu of Northern California, McCloud River: 38

C. Indigenous but with No Recognized Rights: the Native Peoples of Hawai’i, Mauna Kea: 39

D. No recognition and no rights at all: The Taino, Native Peoples of Puerto Rico, The Sacred Caguana Ceremonial Center in Utuado, Borikén: 39

II.The Religious rights of Prison Inmates 41

Environmental Racism and its effects on Indigenous human rights 44

I.The Right to Life: The Nuclear Fuel Chain and Environmental Racism 46

II.Environmental Racism and the Right to Food 48

III.Health and Environmental Racism 49

The Denial of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the Political, Economic, Social, Cultural or any Other Field of Public Life 51

I.The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health 51

II.Freedom from Violence - Violence against Indigenous Women 54

III.Racism in “Homeland Security” 55

A. Death along the Border: 55

B. Desecration and Denial of Access to Sacred Places: 56

C. The confiscation of Indigenous lands: 58

IV.Voting Rights 59

Racist Science and the Collective Right of Free, Prior and Informed Consent 60

I.The Indigenous Human Genome 60

II.The Wild Rice Genome: 1Manoomin and the Anishinaabeg 63

Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention 65

I.Boarding Schools 65

II.Textbooks 69

III.Racist Sports Mascots and Logos 72

United States and its Transnational Companies Violations of the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples Abroad 73

I.US Transnationals Abroad 73

II.United States Complicity: the Manufacture and Exportation of Banned Pesticides 77

III.Direct US Government Environmental Racism Abroad: 82

IV.US military bases on Indigenous communities in the Philippines 84

Conclusion and Recommendations 84

Executive Summary

The Introduction reviews the standards by which compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) should be measured, reviewing the recent passage of the United Nations Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples and the lack of recognition and respect of the rights of many Indigenous Peoples and Nations within the jurisdiction of the United States (US). Many rights contained in the UN Declaration are already customary international law and recognized by the US itself but only with reference to “recognized” tribes. The Introduction also points out that the US takes the attitude that recognition of Indigenous rights, particularly political rights, are a form of “racial preference” and not a matter of rights.

The US fails in its Obligation to Report on Indigenous Peoples. We cite data on the overwhelming disparities in income, life expectancy, poverty and unemployment, as well as disproportionate victimization, incarceration and sentencing suffered by Indigenous Peoples on Indian Reservations, not reported by the United States. The data contained in this section as well as others (see, e.g., Violence Against Women, The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health) reflect what can only be describe as a system of Apartheid and forced assimilation, by purpose or effect, on many if not most Indian Reservations, where Indigenous people are warehoused in poverty and neglect, their only option being to abandon their lands, families, languages and cultures to search for a better life.

The United States Racist Constitutional Foundation, Legal Structure is examined, as is the current application of racist constitutional doctrine established by the United States Supreme Court in the 1830s. Incuded in current application are the threat of termination of the Cherokee Nation, Treaty abrogation, corruption of the so-called “Trust Doctrine” and the continuing negation of Indigenous Peoples’ right of self determination.

Considerable attention is paid to Sacred Lands and the Right of Spiritual Practice, as it continues to be of paramount importance to Indigenous Peoples, whether recognized by the US or not. The Addendum, Sacred Lands, incudes Indigenous Peoples’ own testimony on the negation of religious rights in all parts of the United States. Given the disfavor in international law to the extinguishment of Aboriginal Title, and the fact that most of these Sacred Lands are owned and administered by agencies of the United States, a major recommendation of this Shadow Report is the recommendation to the United States of the return to Indigenous Peoples of these Sacred Lands, still in use by them for Spiritual and religious practice in spite of great obstacles posed by the US and its agencies. Environmental Racism and its effects on Indigenous human rights is examined as it permeates all aspects of Indigenous life, including Spiritual Practice examined above, as well as means of subsistence, health and well-being, culture and religion.

Other current and particularly discriminatory policies and practices are examined in The Denial of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the Political, Economic, Social, Cultural or any Other Field of Public Life, including the right to health, violence against women, so-called “Homeland Security” and the lack of protection for the right to vote.

Racist Science and the Collective Right of Free, Prior and Informed Consent describes how scientific inquiry in th United States particularly attacks Indigenous Peoples in their own human genome and identity and that which they hold Sacred.

US compliance with Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention is examined particularly with regard to the lack of any reparation or apology for Indian Boarding Schools (the kidnapping of children in order to “kill the Indian and save the man), as well as texbooks in public schools and the use of racist logos and mascots by US sports teams.

United States Racial Discrimination against Indigenous Peoples Abroad describes racism in the conduct of US foreign policy negatively affecting the human rights of Indigenous Peoples abroad. Domestic US policy, the allowing of the manufacture for export of pesticides banned in the United States affecting the life, health and well being of Indigenous Peoples abroad is also documented. The conduct of US transnational Corporations is examined, with another major recommendation that the US be held accountable for its own behavior as well as the behavior of its corporations, as they affect the rights of Indigenous Peoples abroad.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 1

Introduction – Major Concerns and the UN Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples 3

The Obligation to Report on Indigenous Peoples 5

I.Omissions of the US Periodic Report 5

II.Un-recognized Indigenous Peoples 6

III.Indian Reservation Apartheid 7

A. Life Expectancy on the Indian Reservation 8

B. Unemployment and Poverty in Employment 9

C. Disproportionate Victimization, Incarceration and Sentencing 10

Racially Discriminatory Constitutional Foundations 13

I.The Marshall Trilogy: The Origins of Racist Constitutional Doctrine 13

A. The Plenary Powers Doctrine 14

B. The “Trust” Relationship 15

II.Current Application of Racist Constitutional Doctrines 16

A. The Termination of Recognized Indian Tribes 17

B. The Abrogation of Treaties between the United States and Indigenous Peoples 20

C. The Continuing “Taking” of Indian Lands 22

D. The Corruption of the “Trust” Doctrine 24

E. The Continuing Denial of the Right of Self Determination: “Criminal” Jurisdiction 26

III.The Failure of Recognition of Indigenous Peoples as Peoples 28

A. “Unrecognized” Indigenous Tribes 28

B. Alaskan Native Peoples 29

C. Native Hawai’ians 31

D. The Indigenous Peoples of Puerto Rico and Guam 32

Sacred Lands and the Right of Spiritual Practice 33

I.Sacred Lands 34

A. Recognized Tribes and Treaty Rights: The Lakota Nation and Bear Butte (Mato Paha), Black Hills, South Dakota: 36

B. Dishonored Treaty, Seeking Recognition: The Winnemmem Wintu of Northern California, McCloud River: 38

C. Indigenous but with No Recognized Rights: the Native Peoples of Hawai’i, Mauna Kea: 39

D. No recognition and no rights at all: The Taino, Native Peoples of Puerto Rico, The Sacred Caguana Ceremonial Center in Utuado, Borikén: 39

II.The Religious rights of Prison Inmates 41

Environmental Racism and its effects on Indigenous human rights 44

I.The Right to Life: The Nuclear Fuel Chain and Environmental Racism 46

II.Environmental Racism and the Right to Food 48

III.Health and Environmental Racism 49

The Denial of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the Political, Economic, Social, Cultural or any Other Field of Public Life 51

I.The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health 51

II.Freedom from Violence - Violence against Indigenous Women 54

III.Racism in “Homeland Security” 55

A. Death along the Border: 55

B. Desecration and Denial of Access to Sacred Places: 56

C. The confiscation of Indigenous lands: 58

IV.Voting Rights 59

Racist Science and the Collective Right of Free, Prior and Informed Consent 60

I.The Indigenous Human Genome 60

II.The Wild Rice Genome: 1Manoomin and the Anishinaabeg 63

Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention 65

I.Boarding Schools 65

II.Textbooks 69

III.Racist Sports Mascots and Logos 72

United States and its Transnational Companies Violations of the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples Abroad 73

I.US Transnationals Abroad 73

II.United States Complicity: the Manufacture and Exportation of Banned Pesticides 77

III.Direct US Government Environmental Racism Abroad: 82

IV.US military bases on Indigenous communities in the Philippines 84

Conclusion and Recommendations 84

Executive Summary

The Introduction reviews the standards by which compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) should be measured, reviewing the recent passage of the United Nations Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples and the lack of recognition and respect of the rights of many Indigenous Peoples and Nations within the jurisdiction of the United States (US). Many rights contained in the UN Declaration are already customary international law and recognized by the US itself but only with reference to “recognized” tribes. The Introduction also points out that the US takes the attitude that recognition of Indigenous rights, particularly political rights, are a form of “racial preference” and not a matter of rights.

The US fails in its Obligation to Report on Indigenous Peoples. We cite data on the overwhelming disparities in income, life expectancy, poverty and unemployment, as well as disproportionate victimization, incarceration and sentencing suffered by Indigenous Peoples on Indian Reservations, not reported by the United States. The data contained in this section as well as others (see, e.g., Violence Against Women, The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health) reflect what can only be describe as a system of Apartheid and forced assimilation, by purpose or effect, on many if not most Indian Reservations, where Indigenous people are warehoused in poverty and neglect, their only option being to abandon their lands, families, languages and cultures to search for a better life.

The United States Racist Constitutional Foundation, Legal Structure is examined, as is the current application of racist constitutional doctrine established by the United States Supreme Court in the 1830s. Incuded in current application are the threat of termination of the Cherokee Nation, Treaty abrogation, corruption of the so-called “Trust Doctrine” and the continuing negation of Indigenous Peoples’ right of self determination.

Considerable attention is paid to Sacred Lands and the Right of Spiritual Practice, as it continues to be of paramount importance to Indigenous Peoples, whether recognized by the US or not. The Addendum, Sacred Lands, incudes Indigenous Peoples’ own testimony on the negation of religious rights in all parts of the United States. Given the disfavor in international law to the extinguishment of Aboriginal Title, and the fact that most of these Sacred Lands are owned and administered by agencies of the United States, a major recommendation of this Shadow Report is the recommendation to the United States of the return to Indigenous Peoples of these Sacred Lands, still in use by them for Spiritual and religious practice in spite of great obstacles posed by the US and its agencies. Environmental Racism and its effects on Indigenous human rights is examined as it permeates all aspects of Indigenous life, including Spiritual Practice examined above, as well as means of subsistence, health and well-being, culture and religion.

Other current and particularly discriminatory policies and practices are examined in The Denial of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the Political, Economic, Social, Cultural or any Other Field of Public Life, including the right to health, violence against women, so-called “Homeland Security” and the lack of protection for the right to vote.

Racist Science and the Collective Right of Free, Prior and Informed Consent describes how scientific inquiry in th United States particularly attacks Indigenous Peoples in their own human genome and identity and that which they hold Sacred.

US compliance with Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention is examined particularly with regard to the lack of any reparation or apology for Indian Boarding Schools (the kidnapping of children in order to “kill the Indian and save the man), as well as texbooks in public schools and the use of racist logos and mascots by US sports teams.

United States Racial Discrimination against Indigenous Peoples Abroad describes racism in the conduct of US foreign policy negatively affecting the human rights of Indigenous Peoples abroad. Domestic US policy, the allowing of the manufacture for export of pesticides banned in the United States affecting the life, health and well being of Indigenous Peoples abroad is also documented. The conduct of US transnational Corporations is examined, with another major recommendation that the US be held accountable for its own behavior as well as the behavior of its corporations, as they affect the rights of Indigenous Peoples abroad.

MEGWEETCH.

Now will you PLEASE Let Leonard Peltier out of jail.

We all need to walk in dignity after all these decades.

And should you find this and be concerned with Canada,

please act on the behalf of Paula Sherman, Robert Lovelace and Shawn Brant

Have you done something for aboriginal peoples today?

The full report can be obtained at:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bo.../usa/ USHRN8.doc.

Grassy Narrows update - mini-Victory (???)

Native Canadians Win Mini-Victory over Big Loggers

Haider Rizvi
OneWorld US

Fri., May. 16, 2008

NEW YORK, May 16 (OneWorld) - Pressure is mounting on the Canadian government to take actions against private loggers and other business concerns that encroach upon indigenous peoples' territories.

At the 2008 World Summit of Indigenous Cultures in Taipei. © davidreid (flickr)

Opposition by a native tribe in the province of Ontario against a major logging company forced authorities this week to reconsider their policies on forest management and planning.

On Tuesday, the provincial government declared it was ready to work with local indigenous communities to protect the Whiskey Jack Forest, which covers about 1 million hectares and is home to the native Grassy Narrows First Nation people.

The native communities have relied on the forest reserve for hunting, trapping, harvesting, and medical plants for thousands of years. They are opposed to commercial use of the forest not only because they own it, but also because it is sacred to them.

Grassy Narrows elders argue that a treaty signed with the Canadian government in the 1870s fully recognizes their people's right to "pursue their avocations of hunting and fishing" throughout their traditional territory.

Apparently not abiding by its treaty obligations and some recent court rulings, the government has allowed AbitibiBowater Inc., a logging company, to operate in the area and awarded the company a so-called "sustainable forest license." AbitibiBowater does its business in Ontario as a subsidiary of the U.S. lumber giant Weyerhaeuser Corporation.

On Tuesday, Grassy Narrows elders and their supporters welcomed the Canadian government's move to include their views in land-use planning, but said they still have reservations about the government's position on certain issues.

"We are pleased to see the government committing to better relations," said David Sone of the Rainforest Action Network (RAN), a nonprofit group that lobbies on behalf of indigenous communities living in forested areas worldwide. "But Grassy Narrows leaders have made clear that the community has not consented to logging or other industrial activity on its territory."

"Boise [Corp.] has done the right thing. It has set an example that we hope other companies and the province of Ontario will follow." - Craig Benjamin, Amnesty International

With support from the rights group Amnesty International and other organizations, RAN led a campaign against logging in the Whiskey Jack forest, persuading a major paper-manufacturing company to stop buying wood from AbitibiBowater.

In February, the U.S.-based Boise Corporation announced it would not purchase any wood fiber logged from Grassy Narrows forest if loggers did not seek the indigenous peoples' permission for clearcutting. In return, the company earned a lot of respect and praise from international activists.

"Boise has done the right thing," said Craig Benjamin, Amnesty International's campaigner for the human rights of indigenous peoples. "It has set an example that we hope other companies and the province of Ontario will follow."

Like Boise, the Canadian House of Commons recognizes the principle that governments and companies must seek "prior and informed consent" of indigenous peoples before using their lands and resources for development and commercial purposes.

Just last week, the House of Commons passed a resolution calling on parliament and the government of Canada to "fully implement the standards contained" in the Universal Declaration of Indigenous Peoples Rights.

The Declaration, which contains the "prior and informed consent" dictate, was adopted by the UN General Assembly last September, in a historic vote by an overwhelming majority of member states. But, along with the United States and a few other countries, the conservative Canadian government rejected it.

The UN document affirms minimum human rights standards necessary for the "survival, dignity, and well-being of the Indigenous peoples of the world." These include indigenous peoples' right of self-determination, protections from discrimination and genocide, and recognition of rights to lands, territories, and resources.

During the House of Commons debate over the resolution, government spokespeople claimed that the Declaration would undo centuries of Canadian treaties with indigenous peoples.

"This government's latest arguments against the Declaration show just how ridiculous their position has become," said Chief Wilton Littlechild, international chief for Treaty Six, which is the 1876 document that first codified the rights and responsibilities of native Canadians and the Canadian government.

"The [UN] Declaration explicitly states that treaties and other agreements with Indigenous peoples are to be honored and respected," added Littlechild. "We just want the Canadian government to live up to that promise."

Despite the government's opposition, indigenous leaders say, the vote in the House of Commons is an important step in the implementation of the Declaration.

"Canada's reputation as a human rights advocate continues to suffer as a result of its ongoing opposition to the Declaration," said Grand Chief Edward John, political executive member of the First Nations Summit.

In order to draw attention to the cause of saving their forest, Grassy Narrows activists recently embarked on a 1,250 mile journey on foot. On reaching the provincial capital, Toronto, they are due to participate in the "Gathering of Mother Earth Protectors."

The gathering, which begins May 26, will take place in front of the Parliament building.

OneWorld TV: The Sarayaku Resist

MNN Update
Click here for more information.

© MNN: Mohawk Nation News. Subscribe--Be Informed--Be Aware

11.11.2007 23:30:00

PARTNERS IN CRIME! PARTNERS IN GENOCIDE!

This story by Brenda Norrell was immediately posted on Nov. 9 on "Narco News" & "Google Breaking News". MOHAWKS INFLAMED OVER TOHONO O’ODHAM TRIBAL COUNCIL COMPLICITY IN “BORDER” OPPRESSION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE - U.S. Welcomes the rich and kills the poor THE GATE, TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION (Arizona) Nov., 8, 2007 --Indigenous delegates to the border on Tohono O'odham Nation land were outraged by the federal agents, hovering customs helicopter, profiteering contractors, federal spy tower, federal "cage" detention center and watching the arrest of a group of Indigenous Peoples, mostly women and children, by the US Border Patrol on an Indian Nation. "We saw it all firsthand in America ," said Bill Means, Lakota and cofounder of the International Indian Treaty Council on Nov. 8, when an Indigenous delegation went to the [so called] "US/Mexico" border here, south of Sells, to document human rights abuses [including murders, rapes, torture, deaths] for a report to the United Nations. "We are going to take this wall down," Means said, after viewing the construction of a "border vehicle barrier" by contractors and National Guard on Tohono O'odham land. [This wall is something to see. It is iron posts filled with cement, sunk 5 ft. into the ground and 6 1/2 ft. high. it is going to be electrified.] Speaking a few hours later to the Indigenous Peoples Border Summit of the Americas II in San Xavier, Means called for solidarity of Indigenous Peoples throughout the world to halt the arrests of Indigenous Peoples who are walking north in search of a better life, and solidarity to bring down the US/Mexico border wall. "One inch of intrusion into our land is not acceptable!" Mohawk Mark Maracle told the Border Summit. "I became very angry when I saw those guys rounding up our people. It is a violation of our Great Law to witness what we saw today and do nothing about it." [We felt so powerless. What could be do. They had all the guns!] The delegation included Mohawks, Oneida , Navajo, Acoma Pueblo , Hopi and O'odham. Near the border, at the scene of the arrests of a group of Indigenous Peoples, Mohawks stood before US Border Patrol agents and yelled at them about the illegality of their actions. They held their fists high in solidarity, as the Border Patrol packed nearly a dozen Indigenous Peoples into one vehicle. The delegation also viewed the federal spy tower next to Homeland Security's migrant detention center known as "the cage" on the Tohono O'odham Nation. The first stop, however, was the abomination of the new wall being constructed on O'odham land. Kahentinetha Horn of the Mohawk Women Title Holders said she saw the callousness of the Tohono O'odham district official [Marla Henry mhenry_ckd@yahoo.com] standing before them and speaking in favor of the border barrier. [Marla asked, "What people are your talking about?" "Your People", we all said. She smiled the whole time]. "This is completely illegal," Kahentinetha said, adding that it violates human rights and international law. She was outraged at the arrests of the group of Indigenous Peoples, who appeared to be young Mayans from Oaxaca , Chiapas or Guatemala . "We stood in front of the Border Patrol yelling at them," she told the Indigenous Border Summit. She described how the Mohawks stood with fists held high in solidarity with the Indigenous Peoples who were arrested earlier in the day. "We tried to pass some of our strength on to them to fight." The Indigenous delegation documenting the abuses planned to intervene in the arrests, but the Border Patrol crowded the group into a vehicle and left quickly. Mohawk warrior Rarahkwisere, among those disheartened to see the arrest of fellow Indigenous Peoples on Indian land with the help of Indigenous people, was shaking with anger. He pointed out, “These brothers and were not drug runners or criminals. These were men, women and children walking in search of a better life”. [They have the same rights as anyone else? This fence is being erected by people who claim to support a "free market society". They really want cheap labor. Today some can live well and others are pushed to starve. These people are not just economic migrants eager to get into the US to sponge off welfare. They are being forced to flee. The multinational corporations are spraying toxic chemicals on their homeland.] Jay Johnson Castro of Del Rio Texas , leading protests against the imprisonment of migrant children at Hutto prison in Texas and the border wall in Texas , was in the delegation. "I hear 'sovereign nation,' but I didn't see sovereign actions” [by the Tohono O'odham]." Castro said the buildings near the border on the Tohono O'odham Nation are labeled "Homeland Security and Tohono O'odham Nation. They are partners [in crime! Partners in genocide!] Maracle said the atrocities that the US government is falsely accusing migrants of doing, is what the invaders did when they arrived on Turtle Island : rape, robbery and murder. [We do not believe that toddlers and 9 year olds are committing such crimes]. "If we don't stop and grab hold of our destiny, there is not going to be one for our children." Maracle said. "All the nations need to come together and stop what is happening here. I know from past experience with the Mohawk Warrior Society where our power lies. It is with the people. Don't ever forget that." Chris George, Oneida from Canada , said, "When the Border Patrol came up, they treated us like as enemies." The Border Patrol immediately asked the summit delegation “Who authorized this delegation to be at the border and who is your leader?” [Did they think we were a bunch of Martians or something?] "No one authorizes us to do anything. Creation brought us there”. George warned, “Don't let the United States government tell us who we are. We are Haudenosaunee, People of the Longhouse." Lenny Foster, Dine' (Navajo) and advocate for Native ceremonial rights for inmates, said that what he witnessed was "brutal, vicious and evil." He said Dine' know that all human beings have five fingers. He said that he did not recognize the district official and federal agents as having five-fingers. "They were robots." Foster said that the Tohono O'odham district official [Marla Henry] who led the tour was defending the [colonial] policies of genocide. Describing how the Indigenous Peoples were arrested and quickly rushed into a small vehicle, Foster said, "It reminded me of Gallup , N.M. and how they round up our people, stacked them up like cords of wood." Foster was at the dirt path leading to Mexico , also known as The Gate, years ago when the American Indian Movement protested the violation of human rights there. He remarked on the heavy buildup of police and agents, from the BIA, Tohono O'odham Nation, US Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs agents and the National Guard. They were all working with the contractors constructing the wall, while a white customs' helicopter menacingly overhead. At the same time, on the Mexico side [of the “imaginary line”], two men sat under a tree. An attorney for the O'odham in Mexico was prevented from crossing into the United States portion of Tohono O'odham land by the US Border Patrol. This man held a letter from Tohono O'odham Nation Chairman Ned Norris requesting to meet with him today. Norris stated that the attorney could enter the Nation by way of “The Gate” that we were at. The Border Patrol officer at the scene refused to allow the attorney to enter, over-ruling Chairman Norris. He said the attorney must have a US visa and not just a letter from Norris. [This goes to show how some Indians are letting themselves be puppets of the low ranking "foot soldiers" of the U.S. government.] The attorney waited there in the company of a Tarahumara who held a US visa. Foster pointed out that the Mexican federales or police, who arrived on the other side, could do anything with the se two people who were left there. "They could even be torturing them right now." Means also pointed out that the delegation was "tailed" or followed from the tribal capitol of Sells. Means also said that the Berlin Wall had come down, but now there are other walls to divide the people [that are being built all over the world]. At the border wall, Means said one of the workers announced proudly, "The Israelis are helping us put up the wall." Border wall contractor Boeing has hired a subcontractor, Elbit Systems, an Israeli defense contractor, who helped build the Apartheid Wall in Palestine . Means said the U.S. "gated communities" have expanded into a "gated country" where the government welcomes the rich [and kills the poor]. [We were down there during the "Remembrance Day" weekend. Is this the world the soldiers died and sacrificed for?] Posted by brendanorrell@gmail.com at 9:01 PM MNN Note: An international summit must be called immediately. These kinds of borders are allegedly being planned worldwide. We've been informed that a wall is being planned on the "imaginary line" known as the Canada-U.S. border. This is a violation of Indigenous law, human rights and international law. This plan to control all of mankind and the natural world must be stopped immediately! Direct your criticisms to: Marla Henry mhenry_ckd@yahoo.com; Verlon Jose, Chairman of Tohono O’odham Legislative Council, Box 837, Sells, Arizona 85634, verlon.jose@tonation-nsn.gov; and to your local Congressmen, Senators, media, file international complaints; To help, contact: Mike Flores MNN Mohawk Nation News www.mohawknationnews.com kahentinetha2@yahoo.com & katenies20@yahoo.com

Rawiri Taonui:

Unburdening future generations

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, passed recently by an overwhelming majority of 143-4 at the United Nations General Assembly, is a far-reaching statement on human rights.

The document's 45 articles set out the rights of 400 million indigenous people in 70 countries to their self-determination, cultures, traditions, languages, institutions, world views and life ways.

It calls on states to prevent and redress theft of land and natural resources and forced assimilation, while establishing minimal standards to eliminate racism, discrimination, marginalisation and exploitation that inhibits their development.

Indigenous communities constitute a special category of peoples descending from the earliest occupants of a region who suffered under colonisation. Some, as in New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the US, exist as minorities. Others have achieved sovereign independence.

They are among the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in the world today. Almost all have endured loss of sovereignty and land, and forced assimilation.

Others experienced forced, mass migration. Many have been wiped out. Some remain in danger of extinction. Governments routinely violate their rights.

Indigenes have consistently resisted oppression. Their modern advocacy has its origins when colonised people, witnessing the immense destruction and violence of World Wars I and II, began questioning notions that European civilisations were superior. A wave of anti-colonial and nationalist movements sprang up.

Gains were made, firstly under the UN International Labour Organisation Conventions 107 and 169, and then when the Working Group on Indigenous Peoples was formed in 1982. Maori were involved at the outset. The group produced a first draft of the declaration in 1993. The now defunct UN Commission on Human Rights redrafted that annually. A reconstituted and more effective UN Human Rights Council adopted a formal draft in 2006. Last month's passage affirmed that process. One of the reasons the declaration took so long to formulate was that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the US have consistently impeded its progress, something the indigenous community has widely condemned.

This Canzus group claims to be acting in the interests of indigenous peoples, yet none of the four properly consulted the indigenous people they claimed to represent. New Zealand facilitated six meetings over 20 years and then only with interested individuals.

Canzus also argued the declaration was fundamentally incompatible with democracy. This ignores the fact that current constitutional arrangements were originally imposed and that while equality under democracy is an admirable goal, the reality is that historically, mono-cultural democracies in pluri-cultural contexts have always favoured dominant groups and have disadvantaged minorities.

New Zealand said the declaration created special rights for Maori in a manner unfair to other citizens and was inconsistent with the principles and protection afforded to Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi. The Crown forgets that it created different classes when it treated Maori as second-class citizens and cleared them off their lands and suppressed their culture and language. Maori weren't accepted as equal. They were an underclass.

And, while the Treaty does afford Maori some protection, for the most part the Crown unilaterally decides Treaty policy.

The UN declaration provides balance by delineating a baseline of rights for all indigenous peoples. This is one root of the opposition from New Zealand, Canada, Australia and the US. These countries have baggage. They don't want further examination of colonial or current injustices. Canzus also objected to articles affirming indigenous people's rights to political self-determination; economic development of original traditional lands and natural resources; and free, prior, and informed consent before those rights are impeded upon - as separatist and threatening to lands now legally owned by others.

Never mind that this doesn't acknowledge that most non-Maori, lawfully-owned land derives from an initial theft, and that the four governments fail to appreciate that empowering indigenous peoples to help themselves is the best way forward.

The stance is duplicitous because the declaration clearly recognises that much lost land will never be returned.

Herein lies a second rub. The declaration urges land be returned where possible, but where that is not feasible it recommends compensation at full value. The real issue is that New Zealand has forced Maori to accept very much less, usually one to two per cent of losses. The Crown does not want to admit that New Zealand's restitutive processes and standards are sometimes lacking.

The declaration is helpful because it reminds us to focus on full justice lest we encourage a greater sense of injustice that will burden future generations. And, there are implications for the future. The declaration allows claims on loss of identity and culture. At some time in the future, it will lead to the forming of a long overdue international tribunal on indigenous claims.

This will have implications for how we interpret and apply the Treaty. The document will remain, but in future we will be more honest about the past. The gang of four governments will cease to dictate the falsehood that colonisation occurred by free and intelligent cession of sovereignty. Indigenes will be equal, Maori more self-determining and greater compensation due.

Canzus is a backward coalition. It is time we joined the rest of the world.

* Dr Taonui is head of school of Maori and indigenous studies and Kaiarahi (joint Maori adviser) College of Arts, University of Canterbury

very interesting link HERE on the history of NZ and OZ

In Canada’s case to recognize the right of self-determination and the territorial rights of indigenous nations would mean that Canada’s claims over millions of hectares of land–they call “Crown land”– are potentially null and void. Canada might have to respect the original owner’s and their right to freely use and dispose of their land and resources according to THEIR wants and needs–not Canada’s wants and needs. Canada is attempting to “legally steal” First Nation territories through a bogus “treaty process” with First Nations it started more than fifteen years ago. First Nations leaders have begun to see through Canada’s treaty charade and balk at giving away their land for Canadian dollars (called Loonies strangely enough). More than two-thirds of what Canada claims as its territory actually belongs to the original owners–the First Nations.

'Mother Earth has issued a red alert'

Several noted speakers, including Daniel Wildcat, delivered messages

on indigenous ways of caring for the natural world during ''Mother

Earth,'' a concert at the National Museum of the American Indian in

Washington, D.C., July 7.

Tremendous knowledge and wisdom resides in American Indian and Alaska

Native traditions. Right now the planet requires that humankind

listen to what indigenous people are saying. Indigenous people -

those who take their instructions for living from the sacred powers

of this creation, the environment, ecosystems and climates - possess

useful knowledge much needed today. Mother Earth has issued a red

alert. And indigenous peoples have been echoing this alert a very

long time.

In order to appreciate this red alert, the prejudices and stereotypes

that have kept people from paying attention to indigenous thinkers

and their life ways must be set aside. One of these prejudices is

instructive: the idea that civilization results from the human

control and manipulation of nature has had deadly consequences for

life on our planet. Native peoples around the world can speak

directly to this point. The same logic that established a war between

nature and so-called civilized humankind too often continues to

justify wars against Native peoples so they and their lands can be

controlled.

Modern societies are too infatuated with the powerful technologies

humankind produced to serve OUR ends of comfort, convenience and

control of nature. Too many of our leaders unrealistically think

humankind stands above and independent of the rest of the natural

world. This misguided notion holds that humankind can always rise

above the forces of nature through our rationality and use of

technology.

This is wrong.

Fortunately, tribal elders possess worldviews and life ways

(including technologies) closely tied to the unique environments

where they have lived. Many Native peoples continue to find their

identities, cultures, in the broadest sense, and most important life

lessons in the landscapes and seascapes that they call home: their

indigenous knowledge emerges from their natural environments. Their

main message is that nature and culture cannot be divorced - that

biological diversity and cultural diversity are inextricably

connected.

Look inside the magnificent building behind me - the National Museum

of the American Indian. Here, scholars and scientists curate objects

of material tribal cultures that reflect great symbolic meaning and

the finest of talent. It is full of examples of the integration of

power and place and peoples emergent from the constant nexus of

nature and culture.

Amazingly, indigenous peoples are still here. This museum is not

about dead Indians - it is the embodiment of living traditions - but

traditions now threatened throughout the Americas, and around the

world, as a result of what might honestly be called global burning.

As new ways to thrive in life-enhancing cultures are sought out,

Native traditions and worldviews must be acknowledged. Many

scientists now recognize the knowledge of indigenous peoples. Groups

like the American Indian and Alaska Native Climate Change Working

Group are encouraging Native students to play to their strengths as

indigenous ''holistic'' thinkers and enter scientific fields. Tribal

colleges and universities are working to ensure that our indigenous

tribal knowledge of landscapes and climates are valued and

incorporated into geosciences education and research.

Oren Lyons, Faithkeeper of the Turtle Clan of the Onondaga Nation,

and many of our elders remind us that if we see the natural world as

full of relatives - not resources - good things will happen.

American Indian and Alaska Native wisdom is a cooperative

construction built on generations of attentive interaction between

humans and the diversity of life found in the unique ecosystems and

environments which we call home. How will we protect our homes and

homelands? Why not through indigenous life-enhancing systems of

knowledge promoting homeland maturity - a human maturity that shows

we respect our mother, the Earth.

Daniel R. Wildcat, Ph.D., is a Yuchi member of the Muscogee Nation of

Oklahoma. He is co-director of the Haskell Environmental Research

Studies Center and American Indian Studies faculty member at Haskell

Indian Nations University in Lawrence, Kansas

On the 10th anniversary of RCAP,

NDP demands Conservatives support Indigenous rights

Related Links
NDP MPs support historic Snuneymuxw Protocol »
Time to act on 'Canada's national disgrace' »
Justice for Aboriginal Canadians »
Where is the plan for Kashechewan? »
NDP appalled by Canada's vote against UN declaration on Indigenous peoples' rights »
Jean Crowder's Statement on National Aboriginal Day »

Tue 21 Nov 2006
OTTAWA – On the 10th anniversary of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, NDP Critic for Aboriginal Affairs Jean Crowder (Nanaimo-Cowichan) and federal NDP leader Jack Layton are calling on Stephen Harper’s Conservatives to reverse their stance against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and to move forward on the solutions identified by the Royal Commission.
"Canada was a driving force behind the drafting of this declaration, " said Crowder. "Dozens of aboriginal organizations in Canada contributed to the wording. It was one of the recommendations of RCAP that Canada support and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2.3.1(e)),” said Crowder.
“The Liberals ignored the Royal Commission report for ten long years while it gathered dust and successive Liberal administrations refused to act on the recommendations. Now the Conservatives are one-upping them by further disgracing Canada by its treatment of aboriginal peoples on the international stage,” said Layton. “The time is long overdue for the government of Canada to treat First Nations, Métis and Inuit with the respect they deserve. A good first step would be to vote in favour of the UN’s Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Rights and then the Conservatives must move forcefully on the Commission’s recommendations.”
“We’ve heard the Prime Minister insist that other countries, like China, must respect human rights. When will he show how his own government respects human rights by supporting the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. And when will he start implementing the RCAP recommendations?” said Crowder.
Layton and Crowder will be attending an Assembly of First Nations ceremony commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Royal Commission at the Museum of Civilization in Hull Tuesday evening.

On the 10th anniversary of RCAP,

NDP demands Conservatives support Indigenous rights

Related Links
NDP MPs support historic Snuneymuxw Protocol »
Time to act on 'Canada's national disgrace' »
Justice for Aboriginal Canadians »
Where is the plan for Kashechewan? »
NDP appalled by Canada's vote against UN declaration on Indigenous peoples' rights »
Jean Crowder's Statement on National Aboriginal Day »

Tue 21 Nov 2006
OTTAWA – On the 10th anniversary of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, NDP Critic for Aboriginal Affairs Jean Crowder (Nanaimo-Cowichan) and federal NDP leader Jack Layton are calling on Stephen Harper’s Conservatives to reverse their stance against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and to move forward on the solutions identified by the Royal Commission.
"Canada was a driving force behind the drafting of this declaration, " said Crowder. "Dozens of aboriginal organizations in Canada contributed to the wording. It was one of the recommendations of RCAP that Canada support and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2.3.1(e)),” said Crowder.
“The Liberals ignored the Royal Commission report for ten long years while it gathered dust and successive Liberal administrations refused to act on the recommendations. Now the Conservatives are one-upping them by further disgracing Canada by its treatment of aboriginal peoples on the international stage,” said Layton. “The time is long overdue for the government of Canada to treat First Nations, Métis and Inuit with the respect they deserve. A good first step would be to vote in favour of the UN’s Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Rights and then the Conservatives must move forcefully on the Commission’s recommendations.”
“We’ve heard the Prime Minister insist that other countries, like China, must respect human rights. When will he show how his own government respects human rights by supporting the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. And when will he start implementing the RCAP recommendations?” said Crowder.
Layton and Crowder will be attending an Assembly of First Nations ceremony commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Royal Commission at the Museum of Civilization in Hull Tuesday evening.

Indigenous People Demand More Over Medicinal Plants

(an oldie but informative)

(The Monitor (Uganda) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)Indigenous peoples and peasant farmers who have helped develop the world's plant genetic resources through their traditional knowledge say negotiations aimed at the commercial exploitation of plants must involve them from the very start.

But their demands have turned into a long-running dispute over sovereignty, national boundaries and ownership of knowledge. As the Curitiba meeting of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) drew to a close in Curitiba recently, the men and women who nurture the world's biodiversity struggled to make their voices heard.

Although the Convention itself was supportive of traditional knowledge and so-called benefit sharing, many government delegations did not include members of indigenous populations. And those indigenous peoples who were able to make it to Curitiba want to maintain an independent voice that recognises their special position.

"There is a proposal to include indigenous people as part of country delegations. But there is a problem: in the Philippines there are 110 indigenous peoples groups but the government would only allow one or two onto the delegation," said Victorino Saway, a representative of the Panagtagbo people who live on Mindanao Island.

He added: "When you are part of a delegation, you speak their language. You will be controlled - your language will be controlled."

At the CBD negotiations, the issue was termed Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS), but the official title masked potentially difficult aspects relating to economics, politics and culture.

Indigenous peoples and smallholder farmers, through their traditional knowledge, innovation and practices have over centuries developed and nurtured plant species for agricultural and medicinal use, contributing not only to 'development' but also to cultural and biological diversity.

But now companies are developing medicines and crops that take advantage of these plant genetic resources.

Keen to protect their financial interests - and recoup the investment made into research and development - companies usually protect their products with patents. This means that from time to time, a new product comes on the market and reaps massive profits for the company.

Indigenous people and some developing countries with high levels of biodiversity are now demanding ownership over what they claim are their genetic resources. And they want to be part of negotiations about how these resources are used, by whom, and on what terms.

A central issue is the concept of Prior Informed Consent (PIC) - an approach supported by the CBD. "The prior informed consent of knowledge-holders must be attained before their knowledge can be used by others," the CBD says.

Saway agrees: "If prior informed consent is ignored, there will be no basis for negotiations. It provides a basis for saying yes or no to access."

Perhaps the most contentious issue surrounding ABS is that of national sovereignty. As with other international agreements signed by governments on behalf of their peoples, national sovereignty forms the very basis of the CBD.

So when an indigenous group claims knowledge of a plant, or demands to be involved in negotiations, their government can say that the knowledge belongs to the country as a whole, and will therefore be negotiated by the national government.

Sylvester Rogers from Senegal, who works for the Community Biodiversity Development Conservation Network, told the meeting: "We believe that recognition and protection of the rights of indigenous and local communities with regard to agro-biodiversity and their traditional knowledge is non-negotiable and integral to any strategies and efforts towards the sustainable management and use of biodiversity."

Without that recognition and protection, he said, the utilisation of biodiversity will be nothing more than economic and commercial transactions, reducing indigenous people and local communities to "mere vendors of biological resources without respect to deeply held spiritual, cultural and socio-economic connections to the earth and biodiversity."

Indigenous people have a powerful backer in Tewolde Egziabher, an Ethiopian environmentalist and scientist who heads the African Group at CBD negotiations. He supports an international regime which includes PIC and certificates of origin of knowledge.

Such a regime, some campaigners say, would not only lead to fair and equitable sharing of the world's biological wealth, but also result in fewer patent disputes, some of which have grabbed headlines in recent years.

One such case involved the Hoodia plant, which pitted the San population of southern Africa - supported by a coalition of NGOs - against western and other pharmaceutical firms.

The Hoodia is a succulent plant - found in the Kalahari Desert - that can suppress appetite, and could potentially be used as an anti-obesity drug.

The plant's active ingredient was patented by a South African research institute in the late 1990s. It gave a license to a British company, which in turn sold additional development and marketing licenses to Pfizer, the multinational drug company, and the food giant Unilever.

After a protracted dispute, a deal was struck with the South African research institute in 2003 whereby the San people of South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Zambia and Angola would receive a percentage of the royalties from the sales of any future drugs produced from their knowledge of the Hoodia plant.

The San based their claims on a CBD provision, which says should get a share of benefits resulting from the commercial use of local genetic resources and traditional knowledge. But there are countless examples where indigenous populations have lost out, as Ujalla Masdik, an Indian campaigner, reminded the conference.

She referred to a case involving an energy-giving plant used by Kani tribal people in the southern Indian state of Kerala. "Discovered" accidentally by members of an Indian scientific expedition in the early 1990s, the plant, known by the Kani as arogyapacha, was tested by a local research institute.

The institute then obtained a license from the Kerala Drug Control Department to produce and market a tonic based on the plant. It was named Jeevani (derived from the Sanskrit word meaning 'life').

The product was patented in 1996, following which the research institute transferred the production license to a local drug manufacturer. Although the Kani Trust received half the license fee and royalty, they were not involved in the negotiations.

"Some countries have made local or national laws about indigenous people, but others don't recognise them, or say 'we are all indigenous people'," said Saway of the Philippines.

Saway and his colleagues, working in the Mount Kitanglad region of the Philippines, have drawn up an inventory of plants based on their traditional knowledge, which the community "claims as our own".

As a precaution, the inventory has been written in the community's language and the plants' uses have not been explained. "We also have our cultural guards who will apprehend anyone taking our customary rights without our consent," he added.

The biotechnology industry, the usual target of attacks by NGOs and activists working on biodiversity issues, backs an access and benefit sharing system that is workable and provides value for use of genetic resources.

Alwin Kopse, a spokesman for the biotech corporation, Syngenta, said he supported national regimes that were "practical and transparent". Certificates of origin, he said, might be easier to obtain for products derived directly from plants, rather than those that were indirectly derived.

Another problem with issuing certificates of origin, Kopse said, was that certain genetic resources are shared across different countries or indigenous peoples. "What we want is a workable benefits access regime" - one that is not loaded with technocratic stamps, which, he argued "may turn out to be costly".

He accepted that the industry should now be prepared to pay for access to genetic resources but said Syngenta prefers to offer "other benefits" rather than hard cash.

If the CBD protocol on access and benefit sharing is to work, Kopse pointed out, it would be important to define the nature of benefits and who should receive them - a complex set of issues in his view.

Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media. (allafrica.com)

Answer to BuZh and Harper on failure to ratify the UN Declaration of Indigenous Peoples

Indigenous Alliance of the Americas

on

500 Years of Resistance

Declaration of Quito, Ecuador

July 1990

The Continental Gathering "500 Years of Indian Resistance," with representatives from 120 Indian Nations, International and Fraternal organizations, meeting in Quito, July 17-20, 1990, declare before the world the following:

The Indians of America have never abandoned our constant struggle against the conditions of oppression, discrimination and exploitation which were imposed upon us as a result of the European invasion of our ancestral territories.

Our struggle is not a mere conjunctural reflection of the memory of 500 years of oppression which the invaders, in complicity with the "democratic" governments of our countries, want to turn into events of jubilation and celebration.

Our Indian People, Nations and Nationalities are basing our struggle on our identity, which shall lead us to true liberation.

We are responding aggressively, and

-commit ourselves to reject this "celebration. "The struggle of our People has acquired a new quality in recent times.

This struggle is less isolated and more organized.

We are now completely conscious that our total liberation can only be expressed through the complete exercise of our self-determination. Our unity is based on this fundamental right.

Our self-determination is not just a simple declaration.

We must guarantee the necessary conditions that permit complete exercise of our self-determination; and this, In turn must be expressed as complete autonomy for our Peoples.

Without Indian self-government and without control of our territories, there can be no autonomy.

The achievement of this objective is a principal task for Indian Peoples however, through our struggles we have learned that our problems are not different, in many respects, from those of other popular sectors. We are convinced that we must march alongside the peasants, the workers, the marginalized sectors, together with intellectuals committed to our cause, In order to destroy the dominant system of oppression and construct a new society, pluralistic, democratic and humane, in which peace Is guaranteed.

The existing nation states of the Americas, their constitutions and fundamental laws are judicial/political expressions that negate our socio-economic, cultural and political rights.

From this point in our general strategy of struggle, we consider it to be a priority that we demand complete structural change; change which recognizes the inherent right to self-determination through Indian own governments and through the control of our territories.

Our problems will not be resolved through the self-serving politics of governmental entities which seek Integration and ethno-development. it is necessary to have an Integral transformation at the level of the state and national society; that is to say, the creation of a new nation.

In this Gathering It has been clear that territorial rights are a fundamental demand of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas.

500 Years Commission

From our point of view, 1492 marked the beginning of the Invasion of our peoples by European empires. Colonization and the installation of an exploitative, oppressive regime were the consequences of these invasions.

However, ~ resistance movement and Indigenous offensive also emerged In an effort to repudiate the occupation, pillage and elimination of entire peoples.

Neither the invasion, nor the regime has come to an end.

Both continue to affect not only Indigenous Peoples, but all the societies within the nations. Thus, the resistance and the struggle of our peoples for freedom continues.

Resolutions*

That the 12th of October be declared a day of mourning and destruction of our cultures rather than a "Dia de la Raza" or day of discovery.

## #

Letter from Dr. Michael Yellow Bird

I think this might be the best article I have EVER published on this blog.

Sent to me by a First Nations diplomat ... after I sent him the article.
He's a member of the Pidgeon clan.

As the true negotiore of peace are the clan women sending members of "Nations" probably men can accomplish little. If there were any Clan Mothers consulted there could've been some hope. As we should sadly know most "Nations" have their hands in the pockets of B.I.A. or in Canada D.I.N.A. and have been sending their children to die for money for a very long time.

++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++

I am sending this article to every Maori member of parliament regardless of party affiliation. I've suggested to a Maori friend that he does likewise & asks his Maori friends to take like action.

Historically, Polynesian peoples have been warriors [still are!] which I think influences them to e.g., enter the N.Z. armed forces. Of course, N.Z's armed force is described as a "defence force" - our govt. resorts to Orwell-speak as does any/all other govts.

From my perspective, Yellow Bird's writings apply to every real human being - not only indigenous Americans. - From a New Zealand healer

And another comment from someone whose opinion I value:

Thanks Virginia! This is awesome. A better way.

** It's 58,209 killed, we think. I've written to Dr. Yellowbird ... we'll see what he says.

From: http://www.landscaper.net/timelin.htm

Total deaths - U.S. of A. armed forces: 58,148

From: http://www.militaryfactory.com/vietnam/casualties.asp

Total deaths - U.S. of A. armed forces: 58,193

Why Are Indigenous (American Indian) Soldiers

Serving in Iraq?

Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 6:15 pm (PDT)

Why Are Indigenous (American Indian) Soldiers Serving in Iraq?

By Dr. Michael Yellow Bird, Ph.D.

Open Letter to all Indigenous Peoples:

As the United States prepares for its annual Independence Day celebrations, I strongly urge all of our nations to hold critical and independent discussions on why we are committing our young people to serve the U.S. military in its occupation of Iraq.The recent reporting (including revelations of a cover-up) of the murders, executions, and massacres of innocent Iraqi citizens by United States troops prompts me to ask, "Why are Indigenous (American Indian) soldiers serving in Iraq?"

I wonder why our tribal communities have not had critical debates on the immorality of this war, on the lies of the present Bush Administration that got us into this war, and on the spiritual, economic, social, and psychological costs that both our people and the Iraqi people will pay for this war.

It is clear from the history of many of our tribes that our people understood the grave costs of war and so took this act very seriously.

Before engaging in war, many of our tribes initiated peace councils andsent emissaries to negotiate goodwill and friendship with the "enemy" in order to avoid war. As sovereign Indigenous nations, we did not do this before or during the invasion of Iraq. We instead let the United States make the decision for us as to whether we should or should not enter into this war. I wonder when was the last time that the United States asked our people for our opinion about war and its costs.

Our history tells us that because war was so destructive on many different levels, many of our tribal nations before committing to war against another tribe consulted our elders, peacemakers, women, youth, philosophers, intellectuals, spiritual leaders, children, warriors, and veterans to weigh the costs of war. This is something that many of our nations have not done for some time. Many of us have "outsourced-our-thinking" to the United States with respect to when and why we should or should not go to war. We are sovereign nations with very intelligent and moral people who do not need to rely on this country to interpret for us the meaning and the costs that war will bring to our communities. Most of us already know the answer to this. And we know that we should decide for ourselves, after careful, deliberate, and intelligent discussions, whether we must commit our people and resources to the wars of the United States.

Along with the U.S. invasion of the lands of our respective nations, the last two major conflicts of the United States, Vietnam and now Iraq, were based on lies created by the U.S. government. Their track record makes it even more imperative that we rely upon our own thinking, experiences, and morality when we enter into discussions on why our tribal nations should compel our people to go to war. The Vietnam lie was very expensive and horrific; it was responsible for the deaths of 58,191,000 American soldiers and 153,303 wounded. One million Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians were killed for this American lie. The missing in this war includes approximately 2,300 American soldiers and 200,000 Vietnamese. In Iraq, over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since 2003. After so many lies told to our people by the United States, do we trust this nation to be honest with us? Do we trust it to care about life as much as we do?

If we are to have discussions about this war, topics must include:

Our belief that all people and beings are related to us so what does itmean to make war on our relatives;

The fact that we value all life so, therefore, war truly must be a last resort;

The fact that we value MotherEarth as a living being and the fact that the United States military is contaminating the lands, waters, trees, plants and people in Iraq throughthe use of biowarfare, landmines, and depleted uranium which will kill innocent people and will poison much of their territory for many years;

The fact that we believe in the great circle of life (e.g., what goes around comes around and what we are doing to the Iraqi people is what the U.S. did to our ancestors);

What are the effects that all of the killing, maiming, poisoning, and torturing will have upon our people, especially on the psychic and cosmological levels;

How the U.S. has treated us in the past and the present, and how it has conscripted our minds and hearts so that we are participating in their same oppressive behavior of another group/race of humans;

What other nations has the United States overthrown for its own interests?

How many innocent non-U.S. peoples have been killed by this country's covert operations, and who is it planning to attack in the future? Why?

Who benefits most from war and who are the biggest losers?

Finally, there are many other reasons that we can discuss and analyze.

It seems that we cannot rely on corporate media or the U.S. government to tell us the truth or to give us the facts about why we should go to war or who we should consider our enemy. John Stockwell, the highest-ranking CIA official to leave the agency and go public with information about CIA-sponsored activities, once said that the U.S. neither does "bloody, gory operations" in Europe nor does it spend its time attacking these countries. Rather it performs such operations in countries that are filled with people of color who do not have the military strength and resources to protect themselves from U.S. invasions. I am convinced that Stockwell is suggesting that the U.S. government has a clear racist war ideology and readily employs it against people or races that are not white. So, we must use all the available evidence to independently decide for ourselves if and when we should go to war and who is our enemy. An enemy should not be invented because of the color of its skin or religious beliefs.

I believe that it is time for us to demand that our tribal governments call for critical and independent discussions, and we need to tell the United States to immediately call for withdrawal of its military forces from Iraq.

Most importantly and independently of their decision or indecision we must immediately pull our people out of this quagmire. Countries such as Japan, Honduras, Tonga, Nicaragua, Spain, Dominican Republic, Philippines, Thailand, New Zealand, Portugal, and Moldova already have pulled out their troops and many other nations are planning to reduce their troop commitment in the near future. So why are we still in Iraq fighting the U.S.'s illegal war?

It also is time for our tribal leaders and communities to impose a moratorium upon any further enlistments of our young men and women into the U.S. military. The United States has abused our trust and has coerced us to fight its illegal, immoral wars long enough.

Many things about this war trouble me to the very core. One of the most disturbing questions is why does it seem that of all the countries that have been, or continue to be, in this war, it is only U.S. soldiers who are committing the murders of, and atrocities against, innocent Iraqi citizens (the unarmed, the disabled, the defenseless elders, the women, and the children)? Is it because the U.S. is serving in larger numbers?

Is it because the U.S. is serving in more hazardous situations? Is it because the U.S. is more trigger happy? Is it because of poor oversight and supervision by the upper ranks of the military? Is it because U.S. troops are a more violent group and enjoy killing more than do other soldiers? Is it because the architects of this war, including President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, care more about profit than "just war" principles? Is it all of the above?

As I write this, two national guardsmen are being investigated for killing an innocent Iraqi man earlier this year; seven Marines and one Navy corpsman were charged with the shooting death of an Iraqi man, whom they had kidnapped from his home, forced into a hole, and shot to death they then left a stolen AK-47 near his body to make it look like he was firing at them; three soldiers and one non-commissioned officer were charged with killing (in May 2006) three unarmed Iraqis who were in military custody. And many more Iraqi people have been abused and tortured to death in U.S. custody (especially in the military prisons). Many of these atrocities have been covered up or are "under investigation."

The story currently receiving the most press is the November 2005 massacre of the twenty-four innocent civilians (including women and children) in Haditha by U.S. Marines. This mass killing is being in compared to the 1968 My Lai massacre in Vietnam.

A "Washington Post" article reported that "Aws Fahmi, a Haditha resident said he watched and listened from his home as Marines went from house to house killing members of three families, recalled hearing his neighbor across the street, Younis Salim Khafif, plead in English for his life and the lives of his family members. 'I heard Younis speaking to the Americans, saying: "I am a friend. I am good," Fahmi said. But they killed him, and his wife and daughters.' The girls killed inside Khafif's house were ages 14, 10, 5, 3 and 1" (Saturday, May 17, 2006).

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a former Marine who maintains close ties with senior Marine officers despite his opposition to the war stated, "Marines overreacted . . . and killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Murtha already has called for the withdrawal of the U.S. military from Iraq and has called the war "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion" (Larry Downing, Reuters, Nov 18, 2005).

There are many reasons why we must immediately get our people out of this war:War is not a moral act. The occupation, torture, mutilation, killing, and murder of innocent Iraqi people are acts of immorality. Our people should not be complicit in atrocities. The invasion of Iraq was based on lies. Iraq was accused of having weapons of mass destruction by the Bush administration; it did not. Iraq was accused of having ties with Osama Bin Laden; it did not. Our people should not be complicit in lies.

The war against Iraq does not meet the standards of a "Just War" that evolved among "civilized" societies. Our people have enough struggles and battles, and should not be complicit in unjust global activities on behalf of the United States. The war on Iraq was for "regime change" which is not legal under international law, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.

Our people should not be complicit in lawlessness.

After two decades of wars, invasions, and sanctions, Iraq did not have the military power to pose a clear and present danger to the U.S. before or after being invaded in 2003. Our people should not be complicit in oppressing and occupying a nation that never attacked us. Many people in the U.S. and throughout the world oppose this war. Our nations should exercise their right to voice their opposition to U.S. military operations, conflicts, wars, and occupations. The U.S. soldiers who have murdered Iraqi civilians must now stand trial. Several of them could receive the death penalty. Will more death and life sentences follow or will the deaths of innocent Iraqis be ignored or covered up? Do we want our men and women involved in situations that might conclude in such trials or cover-ups? Our people should mentor their young into just and moral activities that benefit their nations, while encouraging conflict-resolution when possible.

This war is creating new "terrorism" and retribution that will be directed at the U.S. for its invasion of Iraq and its torturing and killing of innocent people. Our people should not contribute to U.S. creation of hatred.

There is no end in sight for a U.S. military exit out of Iraq. Many sources report that the U.S. is establishing permanent military bases in Iraq which would keep troops in Iraq for many years. Our people should not contribute to the expansion and maintenance of U.S. militarization, colonization, and occupation.

Invading Iraq is extremely financially costly and takes resources away from many badly needed priorities at home. At present, it costs nearly one billion dollars a week to wage this "War on Terrorism." Our people should not be complicit in U.S. activities that waste money.

Billions of dollars have been authorized by the U.S. congress to be used for occupation and reconstruction. There is evidence that billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been lost through waste, abuse, and fraudulent billing. In a June 8, 2006, article published in "The Baltimore Chronicle," Dave Lindorff reported that twenty-one billion dollars "has gone missing without a trace in Iraq." Who is responsible for this? I am reminded that our people are fighting for, in part, accountability of billions of lost dollars in the Eloise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior lawsuit in the United States. Our people should never be complicit in U.S. theft, fraud, and dishonesty.

The U.S. is supposed to be rebuilding Afghanistan but it is not; rather, it is targeting most of its focus and resources on Iraq. Our people should not contribute to unilateral U.S. policy and doctrines.Despite billions of U.S. dollars spent in Iraq after its invasion, very little promised rebuilding of the Iraqi infrastructure has beenaccomplished. Our people "who are familiar with broken promises andtreaties" should never be complicit in the lies of the United States.

The rebuilding of Iraq is not happening. Many U.S. firms that went to Iraq to perform reconstruction services have been accused of "bilking" funds intended for reconstruction. In an April 16, 2006 news story, the "BostonGlobe" reported that "American contractors swindled hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraqi funds." For instance, in March 2006, a Rhode Island-based company called, The Custer Battles, was found "liable for $3 million in fraudulent billings in Iraq." Stories such as this are outrageous and numerous. Many of these companies had/have ties to the current Bush administration, especially Dick Cheney, the current Vice President of the United States. Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000. Halliburton has made hundreds of millions of dollars from this war and occupation. Our people should not be complicit in helping the rich, like Cheney, get richer.

We must no longer allow our nations to remain in the fog of war, participating in the U.S. continued colonization and destruction of the world. What this country has done and continues to do to the Iraqi people is unconscionable and must stop. The U.S.-led war in Iraq is wrong, immoral, illegal, unjust, a lie; it is about profiteering for a very small, corrupt, elite sector of the U.S. population. Our people, many of whom occupy some of the lowest levels of decision making in the U.S. military, are considered expendable and are being used for cannon fodder so that the rich, especially in the United States, can become richer.

We must realize that many of the people in the highest levels of the United States government suffer from an addiction to war, power, and colonization. Many, but not all, Indigenous Peoples have become co dependent in this addiction as demonstrated by not holding public meetings and councils that question the U.S. invasion, and by allowing our people to participate in this unjust, illegal war that is creating suffering for untold numbers of innocent Iraqi people. In the Fall of 2004, the academic journal Wicazo Sa Review published a paper I wrote entitled "Cowboys and Indians: Toys of Genocide, Icons of American Colonialism."? In that article, I stated that "it took me some years to understand that colonialism is a sickness, an addiction to greed, power, and exploitation....Colonialism has taught many Indigenous Peoples to be silent, passive, compliant victims who participate in, excuse, enable, or ignore the colonizer's addictive behaviors. Left unchecked, colonialism hascontinued to flourish, devastate, and suppress Indigenous Peoples, keeping them in a the perpetual role of 'the Indian,' causing many to say, do and think things they never would if their minds and hearts were free from American colonial rule."

Today this addictive behavior or the drug of choice of this country is its illegal, dishonest, and brutal invasion of Iraq. I urgently ask each and every Indigenous Person to quit enabling the addictive behavior of the U.S.

In this same article, I also wrote that there are "antidotes to colonialism that Indigenous Peoples can and must employ: courage, intelligent resistance, development of a counterconsciousness and discourse, and a fierce critical interrogation of American colonial ideology." It is incumbent upon our peoples to employ these antidotes in order to condemn and get our people out of this war. We must commit all of our intellectual and truth-seeking energies to this objective and not let any one, Indigenous or non Indigenous, hijack our need for such critical and independent discussions. A key democratic principle of our peoples was our willingness to allow our people dissent from popular opinion so that we might consider all of our options. We must not let accusations that our "honor and courage as warriors is on the line" prevent us from deciding to leave Iraq and the U.S. military. After generations of service in the U.S. military and its numerous wars our people have repeatedly proven that we are brave and courageous beyond compare. However, our ability to think morally, critically, and independently about our participation in this war is another matter that we now must undertake ever so seriously.

Maybe, just maybe, if we act using our traditional Indigenous forms of morality that value truth, intelligence, honesty, life, and dignity and refuse to be a enabler to the U.S. addiction to greed, war, power, andcolonization we can help it overcome its unhealthy, destructive obsession for war, conquest, and killing of others. And, as it recovers from this addiction, maybe we also can help it overcome its two greatest phobias: dikephobia (the fear of justice) and hypegiaphobia (the fear of responsibility).

I pray that that you will take this open letter (or a statement of your own) to your tribal leaders and communities and immediately begin the important critical and independent discussions that will promote and act upon the well-being of all of our people.

All the best,

Michael

Dr. Michael Yellow Bird, Ph.D.

Founder and Director,

Center for Indigenous Peoples' Critical and

Intuitive Thinking (CIPCIT) and Associate Professor,

Indigenous Nations Studies

Indigenous Nations Studies Program

1410 Jayhawk Blvd, Room 105

The University of KansasLawrence, KS 66045

Email: mybird@ku.edu

www.ku.edu/~insp