Loading ...Archive for indigenous
Arizona Native Americans Oppose New Nativist Law
Posted by: | Comments
I’ll bet Arizona’s mostly white nativists, including right-wing Republicans, did not see this one coming. Native American groups in Arizona have made it clear they will not enforce the new Arizona anti-immigrants law. An Arizona Capitol Times report by Evan Wyloge states:
Native American tribes are charging that the law was written without considering their unique circumstance and that it will violate their sovereignty and their members’ civil rights. Despite a request by Gov. Jan Brewer’s office to comply with the new law, Native American tribes will continue to oppose it and seek ways to avoid its implementation, said John Lewis, executive director of the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, which represents 20 tribes in the state. [and a fifth of the lands]
One reason is that the new law will
lead to disproportionate stops and detentions for tribal members, violate their sovereignty and negatively impact the tribal economy.
Police officers, especially white officers, are likely to target Native Americans, because they often look Latino. I wonder why that is? Could it be because a majority of Mexicans and Mexican Americans have substantial Native American (indigenous) ancestry?
And that raises another point. Aren’t most European Americans in Arizona and elsewhere the descendants of undocumented immigrants who came into a country without the permission (and often against the opposition) of the existing indigenous inhabitants? (We had no general exclusionary immigration laws until 1920-1924, so requiring immigration documents for all is fairly new in this country’s history.)
Hmmm. Does that also mean that a majority of current Mexican immigrants have deeper historical and ancestral roots in North America, and in what used to be northern Mexico (e.g., Arizona), than European Americans?
Navajo Nation Councilmember Delegate Kee Allen Begay Jr. has commented on the implications of the law:
“What if we had a law that said whenever a white person is traveling through the Navajo Reservation, we have reasonable suspicion that they’re carrying drugs? Where would the outcry on that be? ….We were here before anyone else, before any white people, and now we’re going to be questioned about being here legally?”
What if, indeed!
On 24 June 2010, encircled by a substantial police presence, 1,500 indigenous activists and their allies marched through downtown Toronto under the slogan “Canada can’t hide genocide,” openly contesting Canada’s authority in negotiating on the global stage. Shouting “No G20 on stolen native land!” the marchers carried placards, banners, Mohawk Nation flags, and an inverted Canadian flag. The group altered the Canadian national anthem’s opening lines “O Canada! Our home and native land!”, singing instead “O Canada! Our home on native land!” They hoped to bring international awareness to aboriginal issues via media coverage of the G8 and G20 summits. The demonstrators urged the Canadian government to investigate the disappearance of some 500 aboriginal women , demanded self-determination, complete political recognition of past treaties, and nation-to-nation negotiations with Canada on equal terms.
On 25 June 2010 ‘Shout Out for Global Justice,’ sponsored by the Council of Canadians, organized an incredible line-up of speakers to challenge the G20 and demand trade, water, and climate justice. The event was sold out. 2,700 people attended, as well as many others who watched the forum by web-cast in communities across Canada and at the U.S. Social Forum in Detroit. The line-up of speakers included Clayton Thomas-Müller of the Mathais Colomb Cree Nation in Northern Manitoba and tar sands campaigner with the U.S.-based organization Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN).
The five First Nations in the region of the tar sands in Alberta, Canada, rely on traditional food sources, like moose, fish, beaver, and muskrat, all of which have become contaminated by mining pollution. A community of only 1,200 has seen more than 100 deaths in the last decade from rare cancers and autoimmune diseases. The tar sands leases also breach aboriginal treaty rights; they were sold by the provincial government without the prior informed consent of local communities.
There is no scarcity of examples of native resistance in recent Canadian history. In 1990, an historic armed standoff between Mohawks and the Canadian army near Oka, Québec lasted more than two months when the provincial government tried to convert a native burial ground into a golf course. Five years later, the Canadian government employed helicopters, armoured personnel carriers, improvised explosives, and more than 77,000 rounds of ammunition during a three-month standoff over land title at Gustafsen Lake in British Columbia. In 2007, the Mohawk community at Tyendinaga, 200 kilometres east of Toronto, blocked the trans-continental rail line, and Canada’s largest highway, in protest at the government’s failure to address land rights and basic issues of survival within First Nations – including safe drinking water, which the community lacked. Despite the exposure of such injustices, a foremost concern in 2007 appeared to be how to circumvent a roadblock. (See here and here.)
Aboriginal peoples living in Canada have lower life expectancy, less access to education, a much lower average income, and a much higher suicide rate than the rest of the country. The UN has stated that if Canada were “judged solely on the economic and social well-being of its First Nations” peoples, the country’s human development ranking would drop from 7th to 48th out of 174 countries. Organizations like Amnesty International have sharply criticized Canada’s treatment of aboriginals, calling the country’s reserves a third world problem in one of the world’s richest countries.
One final thought. Press coverage of issues related to aboriginals clears the way for government actions that “reproduce material and social inequality between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people” (including subtle sanitized ethno-genocide). This is a major cause of concern because it promotes an environment in which social injustice is tolerated and Canadians are less likely to be sympathetic to aboriginal resistance movements.
Tessa M. Blaikie, Nicole R. Gordon, and Natalia T. Ilyniak are sociology honours students at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba, Canada. Kimberley A. Ducey is a faculty member in the Department of Sociology, University of Winnipeg.
U.S. Takes a Step Towards Righting the Wrong
Posted by: | Comments
On September 17, 2007, after 30 years of debate and discussion, the United Nations passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Only 4 countries voted against the resolution, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Since then New Zealand and Australia have endorsed the resolution. In March, Canada’s Governor General, in the Speech from the Throne (the Canadian equivalent of the State of the Union) endorsed the resolution and committed Canada’s official support.
The United States, now the only nation still in opposition, has announced a series of hearings through the Secretary of State’s office to review the U.S. position. These hearings began June 21 and will continue through October. After three plus decades, one has to wonder what there is left to discuss for the better part of another year. Every nation in the U.N. has now conceded at least a neutral position on this basic affirmation of human rights to indigenous peoples. Eleven nations abstained on the original vote and most of these have since expressed support.
The hearings target tribal leaders, non-governmental organizations and federal agencies for input. There is no explanation as to why NGO’s should be consulted on granting basic human rights to an entire group of people. For that matter, the question remains as to why federal agencies should have the power to withhold those rights or abridge them.
It is fashionable in liberal circles to blame so many things on the Bush Administration, and they rightfully deserve much of that blame. However, these tactics began long before that and continue beyond it. The current progressive leadership in the House, Senate and White House have certainly drug their feet in righting the wrong where indigenous people are concerned. Last fall, the Interior Department announced the settlement of the Cobell case for mismanagement of Native funds. The suit was settled for less than 10 cents on the dollar of what was owed and still has yet to be paid out.
Now, the United States, standing alone in opposition to human rights for First Nations wants another year to discuss the resolution. My friends in Indian Country are cautiously hopeful. They are also cognizant of the propensity for this country to issue politically correct press releases while withholding meaningful action.
This review is a long overdue step in the right direction. It is, however, only a step. It must be followed by many more steps. As the ceremony season continues across Indian Country many prayers and sacrifices are being offered up for a sincere and true completion to this matter.
Pressing for Enforceable Human Rights in All Nations: The 2048 Rights Project
Posted by: | Comments
I just learned today about the 2048 project on international human rights, which has bold goals that in my view would make for a much more human, humanitarian, rights-oriented world:
Our mission is to educate students and the public about the evolution of human rights, and to provide a process to draft an international framework for enforceable human rights that can be in place by the year 2048, the 100th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
There is lots of good stuff on the site about human rights, and about teaching about human rights issues, nationally and internationally.
The site also has some excellent links to many good resources on U.S. and international human rights issues, like this listing on the U.S.’s spotty record on signing and not signing (or signing with major reservations) various important international rights agreements.
Interestingly, too, the U.S. government under President Obama is just now rethinking our official and hostile position (developed under George W. Bush and other previous administrations) against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Indian Country Today summarizes our “outlaw state” record:
UNDRIP was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly Sept. 13, 2007, in a historic vote by an overwhelming majority of 143 states in favor to four against, with 11 abstentions. Canada, the U.S., Australia and New Zealand – all countries whose sizeable indigenous populations can claim large areas of land – were the only four states that voted no.
Interesting: 143-4! Here is the Obama administration recent statement:
Welcome to the Department of State’s website for the U.S. review of its position on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Administration recognizes that for many around the world, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provides a framework for addressing indigenous issues. Tribal leaders and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have recommended that the United States reexamine its position on the Declaration. In response, the Department of State and other Federal agencies will be conducting a review of the Declaration’s provisions.
Thanksgiving and Racism: Link Roundup
Posted by: | CommentsIt’s that time of year again, the U.S. celebration of gratitude and turkey and colonialism. Whether that holiday means tryptophan and football, or trying to avoid conversations about religion and politics with the relatives, I thought that readers here might be interested in a roundup of what people are saying around the web about Thanksgiving and racism:
- Thanksgiving costumest – cute or racist? Momlogic wonders about the costumes in a traditional Thanksgiving school pageant. Would you let your kids dress this way?
- “The Lie of Thanksgiving” - a blog post from the Colorado American Indian Movement (AIM) breaks it all down for you.
- ‘Headhunters,’ ‘Thanksgiving,’ and other racist control myths. Kyle at DMZ Hawai’i writes about the ways that Westerners project their fears, anxieties and hatreds onto indigenous peoples, when it should be white people considered the real ‘headhunters.’ He has a point; he discusses the repatriation of 22 skulls of native Hawaiians from the Stockholm antiquities museum.
- “Once a year.” In another link roundup, Resistance has some resources for the ‘once a year’ that most Americans think about native peoples.
- “Remembering Two-Spirits this Thanksgiving” – Rev. Irene Monroe calls on us to remember “my Two-Spirit Native American brothers and sisters who struggle with their families and tribes not approving of their sexual identities and gender expressions as many of us do with our families and faith communities.”
Robert Jensen, author of Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege (City Light Books, 2005) has several pieces critical of this most American of holidays, each worth a look:
- “Give Thanks No More: It’s Time for a National Day of Mourning” – a 2005 piece in which Jensen calls for an end to this holiday.
- “Raining on the Thanksgiving Day Parade” - a follow-up to the previous piece, in which Jensen takes another tack [thanks Curmudgeon]: “rather than mount another attack on the national mythology around Thanksgiving — a mythology that amounts to a kind of holocaust denial, and which has been critiqued for many years by many people — I want to explore why so many who understand and accept this critique still celebrate Thanksgiving, and why rejecting such celebrations sparks such controversy.” Jensen refuses to participate in the holiday gatherings at all.
- “How I Learned to Stop Hating Thanksgiving and Be Afraid” - Jensen further reflects on his refusal to be complicit in this holiday and he writes: “In recent years I have refused to participate in Thanksgiving Day meals, even with friends and family who share this critical analysis and reject the national mythology around manifest destiny. In bowing out of those gatherings, I would often tell folks that I hated Thanksgiving. I realize now that “hate” is the wrong word to describe my emotional reaction to the holiday. I am afraid of Thanksgiving. More accurately, I am afraid of what Thanksgiving tells us about both the dominant culture and much of the alleged counterculture.”
Do you think Thanksgiving should, as Jensen suggests, become a “national day of mourning”? Leave a comment or take our new poll (top left, under the banner).
Commercial Images: Visual Racism from the Past and Present
Posted by: | CommentsOver at Slate, David Segal has posted a useful slide show of blatantly racist commercial images, mostly from the past, for African, Asian, Latino, and Native Americans. Uncle Ben, Aunt Jemima, and the racist Native American images used by baseball teams today are there.
If you have not seen these, or your students or friends have not seen them, do check them out. This slide show should be of substantial use to you for teaching purposes.
A Tale of Two Countries
Posted by: | CommentsIt is rare that indigenous peoples have the opportunity to celebrate the actions of governments. On February 13, one of those rare historical moments took place in Australia. Newly elected Prime Minister Kevin Rudd opened his first session of Parliament with an apology to the indigenous peoples of Australia:
To the stolen generations, I say the following: as Prime Minister of Australia, I am sorry. On behalf of the government of Australia, I am sorry. On behalf of the parliament of Australia, I am sorry. I offer you this apology without qualification. We apologise for the hurt, the pain and suffering that we, the parliament, have caused you by the laws that previous parliaments have enacted. We apologise for the indignity, the degradation and the humiliation these laws embodied. We offer this apology to the mothers, the fathers, the brothers, the sisters, the families and the communities whose lives were ripped apart by the actions of successive governments under successive parliaments.
You can listen to the exceptionally eloquent and impassioned speech, in its entirety here. And, you can read a synopsis of the history and speech excerpts here. The conditions for which the Prime Minister apologized are not Australian oddities, they are mirrored across the ocean in a land called the United States.
Two British colonies (actually Canada and New Zealand could be included in this tale as well but we will stick with a tale of two countries), inherited the racial frame and eradication policies of the British Empire. Two sets of “freedom” loving white populations threw off the yoke of British power from their own necks and created democratic governments, the United States in 1776 and Australia in 1901. Two sets of founding fathers continued policies that dispossessed indigenous peoples of their land and culture. Both formed policies to eradicate the indigenous peoples or assimilate them. These policies were designed to eradicate religious practices, languages, land claims, natural resources, and indigenous peoples themselves. As a final solution, the future was stolen as well. Children were forcibly removed from their families and sent to be raised in church missions. Rudd chronicles the Austalian genocidal legacy:
But should there still be doubts as to why we must now act, let the parliament reflect for a moment on the following facts: that, between 1910 and 1970, between 10 and 30 per cent of Indigenous children were forcibly taken from their mothers and fathers; that, as a result, up to 50,000 children were forcibly taken from their families; that this was the product of the deliberate, calculated policies of the state as reflected in the explicit powers given to them under statute…
The American numbers are significantly larger no matter which of the dozens of estimates one chooses to use. The following from Wikipedia :
An Indian boarding school refers to one of many schools that were established in the United States during the late 19th century to educate Native American youths according to Euro-American standards. These schools were primarily run by missionaries. It has been documented that they were traumatic to many of children who attended them, as they were forbidden to speak their native languages, taught Christianity instead of their native religions and in numerous other ways forced to abandon their Indian identity and adopt European-American culture. There are also documented cases of sexual, physical and mental abuses occurring at these schools.
Attendance in Indian boarding schools generally grew throughout the first half of the 20th century and doubled in the 1960s . Enrollment reached its highest point in the 1970s. In 1973, 60,000 American Indian children are estimated to have been enrolled in an Indian boarding school. From 1879 to the present day, hundreds of thousands of American Indians are estimated to have attended an Indian boarding school.
In 1973 alone, there were more indigenous children in boarding schools in the United States than in the entire time for which Prime Minister Rudd issues his apology in Australia. In discussing the Australian situation, Rudd notes that “the 1970’s is not exactly a point in remote antiquity.”
The apology does not offer reparation and indeed concedes that none could be adequate. It does not fix the problems of Australian unjust enrichment policies or indigenous unjust impoverishment realities. Rudd points out the “obscenity” of an indigenous infant mortality rate of 4 times the national average. Recall a recent post where we discuss a U.S. indigenous infant mortality rate of 3 times the national average and the promised veto by President Bush of funds to alleviate the problem. (See The Genocide that Never Ends). In Australia infanticide is obscene, in America it is unnoticed. Rudd’s apology though intensely symbolic is much more. He discusses the historical policy of denial and objectification of indigenous peoples:
…a view that, instead, we should look for any pretext to push this great wrong to one side, to leave it languishing with the historians, the academics and the cultural warriors, as if the stolen generations are little more than an interesting sociological phenomenon. But the stolen generations are not intellectual curiosities. They are human beings, human beings who have been damaged deeply by the decisions of parliaments and governments. But, as of today, the time for denial, the time for delay, has at last come to an end.
At least in Australia it has come to an end. Bravo, Minister Rudd, Bravo. In the United States, it has not even come to the radar screen. Some have suggested that a petition drive in the United States to ask for an apology to indigenous peoples in the wake of the Australian example might be a way to bring the subject to the table. What do you think? Should the U.S. apologize to indigenous peoples here? Drop a comment.
~ Shari Valentine
PhD Candidate, Sociology Department
Texas A&M University
