"Like the miner's canary, the Indian marks the shift from fresh air to poison gas in our political atmosphere; and our treatment of Indians, even more than our treatment of other minorities, reflects the rise and fall of our democratic faith." --Felix Cohen, American Indian law scholar
Who is CERTAIN?
Our Mission Statement
This group has the
stated purpose of countering racially-based 'special rights' and 'termination'
discourse targeting American Indian Nations, Alaska Native Nations, and Canadian
First Nations.
The Makah whale hunt controversy has shown us that groups and
individuals with agendas far diverged from animal rights or whaling issues are
more than willing to use such issues as a springboard or smokescreen for their
wider anti-sovereignty and anti-Indian purposes; the alliances made by some
anti-whaling groups with individuals and groups with admitted anti-treaty rights
or racist agendas in Washington state are examples that speak for themselves.
How does CERTAIN define racism?
"Racism is an ideological,
structural and historic stratification process by which the population of
European descent, through its individual and institutional distress patterns,
intentionally has been able to sustain, to its own best advantage, the dynamic
mechanics of upward or downward mobility (of fluid status assignment) to the
general disadvantage of the population designated as non-white (on a global
scale), using skin color, gender, class, ethnicity or nonwestern nationality as
the main indexical criteria used for enforcing differential resource allocation
decisions that contribute to decisive changes in relative racial standing in
ways most favoring the populations designated as 'white.' A
Definition of Racism (submitted by Dr. Helan Enoch Page)
On what bases does CERTAIN say that some anti-whaling
activists, and their supporters, are racist? What are the statements and
actions CERTAIN identifies as racist?
Here are a few:
To what anti-whaling groups do the authors of the above quotes belong?
Among others,
Stop Whale Kill - Sea Shepherd -
We've come to the conclusion that we need to band together and form a
central coalition to initiate campaigns in defense of our cultures, our treaty
rights, and our rights to self-determination and existence as human
beings.
We hope that you'll join us and add your strength and effort to
turning back the tide of disinformation and misinformation put out against the
Makahs specifically and Indian peoples generally, particularly against treaty
rights and cultural relativism.
from
http://www.cocc.edu/karenk/about_lit/racism_def.htm
What is the
underlying racism in the anti-whaling activists' position?
The anti-whaling activists hold that all whales should be exempt from death
by all humans for food; and that Indians should be forced by law and public
opinion to act in accordance with this view. The anti-whaling
activists vigorously dispute the fact that Indians have, by treaty, law,
principles of governance, and policy, the right to live by a different set of
values. Republican Senator Slade Gorton called the Makah hunt an
"aggressive effort orchestrated by the tribes to show they can avoid the laws
that govern the rest of us," and said "I am more convinced today than ever
before that we must bring common sense back to the relationship between this
country, our laws and Native American tribes. All Americans should be subject to
the same laws" - The full letter will be found at
(For a list of
interest groups' ratings of Gorton and Metcalf, go http://www.vote-smart.org
.)
Why should this be troublesome to non-Indians?
The anti-whaling activists share an underlying racism with some
Republicans - notably the GOP of Washington state who passed a resolution
in their June, 2000 convention calling for an end to tribal government.
Around the country, many Americans have not yet learned of or thought about
the inherent racism of the anti-Indian sovereignty movement . CERTAIN
wants to nurture full, rigorous discussion of the fundamental public policy
issues underlying Indian sovereignty, treaty rights, and the distribution of
resources. As population grows worldwide and in the United States,
competition for resources increases also. In states around the country -
Connecticut, New York, Minnesota, Kansas, Colorado, Arizona, California,
Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii, to name a double handful - conflicts over the
distribution of resources have resurfaced recently. Racist
politicians confuse all Americans by inveighing against Indian tribes' rights to
determine their citizenship, calling this, as Skagit Republican John Fleming did
in his resolution, "non-republican forms of government".
All the above in "Racism in the Anti-Whaling Movement" by Michael Elm
http://www.certain-natl.org/mikeelm.html
That anti-Indian GOP resolution, its repudiation, and the unexamined
racism revealed in the repudiation.
At the June 2000 Washington Republican Convention, Skagit Republican John
Fleming offered a resolution, which the state party delegates voted for, calling
for the executive and legislative branches of the federal government to take
immediate steps to terminate non-republican forms of government on Indian
reservations and compensate non-Indians who had been injured through a denial of
their constitutionally guaranteed rights to representation.. (Fleming, a
non-Indian with property on a reservation, objects to his inability to vote for
tribal council members.) Fleming told a reporter that the federal government
should send in "the U.S. Army and the Air Force and the Marines and the National
Guard" to "battle back" if tribes resist . Yet Fleming insists he is
not anti-Indian. Denial is more than a river in Africa.
Swinomish Chairman Brian Cladoosby says Fleming has leased tribal trust land
for years but never approached tribal government with complaints about lack of
representation or any other consideration for that matter.
"I don't know the guy and I couldn't make him out in a crowd," Cladoosby
says.
Fleming does not want to acknowledge that Indian reservation property is
subject to the laws of the reservation, which are different from and accepted by
the laws of the United States. The fact that it is different and
allowed confuses and displeases him. It also displeases Washington Senator
Slade Gorton. "I think that it is perfectly appropriate for Indians to determine
their own future and their own form of government," Gorton said. "I don't
support their attempts to interfere with the lives of non-Indians" on the
reservations.
Indian and Democratic reaction was swift and clear. The Democratic
National Committee Chairman, Joe Andrew, criticized the Washington state
Republican party for anti-Indian rhetoric.
"That any political body, especially one claiming to work within a `republican form,' could write and pass such discriminatory rhetoric is unconscionable," said Andrew. "It is hard to believe that even Republicans could come up with something this inflammatory."
Andrew also lambasted the Washington Republicans for suggesting the use of U.S. Armed Forces to remove tribal government authority.
"The notion that the U.S. should send troops to overtake the Native Americans is incredibly offensive," said Andrew. "Maybe the Republicans need to send troops to rein in their out-of-control state parties and far-right wing leaders."
When the resolution
finally got the media's attention, 21 days after the Washington GOP passed it,
state and national GOP leaders tried to distance themselves from the resolution,
blame the media for putting it in a lurid light, ("The media has misquoted and
misrepresented the content of the resolution, while printing inflammatory
comments from individuals with NO authority to speak for the Republican Party,"
the state GOP's replacement resolution said) and apologize. Given
that George W. Bush has publicly stated his anti-Indian and mistaken belief that
states have full and final authority to make gambling compacts with tribes, and
given the mad political scramble or Indian casino campaign contributions, the
GOP probably sensed a racism issue brewing for its August convention, destroying
any potential credibility the Republicans may have had with minority
voters. State GOP Chair Don Benton sponsored a substitute resolution in an
emergency executive session after the state convention, and posted a public
apology and clarification, with accusations of media inflammation, to the
Seattle newspapers. In doing so, he revealed even more of the depths
of his own racism.
From Benton's editorial: "John Fleming, a Skagit County delegate to the state
party convention, submitted a resolution calling for the
"termination of all such non-Republican forms of government on Indian reservations." In this particular resolution, the intent of the word Republican, as understood by the platform committee (but misunderstood by the tribes and the news media), refers to having the quality of a Republic, which is defined as "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." It's the kind of government we have in the United States
.As a resident of a tribal reservation, Fleming finds, however, that it is not the kind of government that is recognized on Indian reservations. He finds himself being treated differently from tribal members, effectively being discriminated against. He is denied certain unalienable rights (as in, among others, certain voting rights) while being required to maintain certain responsibilities, such as paying taxes.
Taxation without representation is a phrase that comes to mind. Thus, he has attempted to highlight this disparity and change this situation through one of the few avenues available to him, given his inability to vote or hold office on the reservation.
The tribe, backed by other Native American groups, has told us in effect, that's tough. We are told those are the rules and if Fleming doesn't like it, he can move.
Discrimination is a terrible thing. It is terrible when practiced toward a member of a minority, but it is no less terrible when practiced by anyone else. What would the response be, for example, if Congress passed a parallel law denying Native Americans living outside a reservation the right to vote? Would it be OK if we told Native Americans what Fleming has been told: "That's tough. If you don't like it, move back to your reservations"? The outcry would no doubt reverberate throughout the United States as citizens rightfully and justifiably sought to overturn such an injustice.
Our Founding Fathers wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Why then are they not self-evident on tribal reservations?
This was the intent of the platform committee when it presented this resolution to guarantee the constitutional rights of ALL citizens of the United States are respected, protected and preserved."
http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com
Indians, allies,
Democrats, and civics teachers around the country responded swiftly and
pointedly.
In Toppenish, non-Indians living on the Yakama Nation reservation have
organized recently in opposition to the tribe's reservation-wide ban on alcohol,
scheduled to take effect in September. The group, called Stand-Up, also has
spoken out against the tribe's plans to start its own utility.
Herman Dillon, chairman of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, said the GOP's
apology Monday rang hollow since the party continues to blame the media, tribes
and other critics for misrepresenting the original resolution. "A
simple apology, instead of blaming the media," he said.
The Nebraska Democratic Party called for a formal resolution rebuking the GOP
position. Ed Penhale, spokesman for Washington Gov. Gary Locke's re-election
campaign, called the resolution a "slap in the face of Indian tribes." Deron
Marquez, chairman of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians in California, wrote
to Washington GOP Chairman Sen. Don Benton, saying
Non-Indian groups, such as the Northwest Coalition for Human Dignity, rushed
to make their voices heard in support of tribes. The coalition reaffirmed an
existing resolution calling on member organizations and associate members to
stand in support as allies to Indian nations.
Benton strove for spin control. He stressed that resolutions have little
power and should not to be mistaken for official party line.
GOP resolutions committee chairwoman Beth Jenson admitted that neither she
nor other committee members understood ramifications of the resolution but voted
for it because it appeared to be about "acts by the tribal governments that
weren't the way we do government in America."
And, despite fuzzy rhetoric to the contrary, some Republican officials still
seem to stand on the side of the resolution.
Open mouth, insert foot, chew vigorously. In response to Benton's
illumination, Chad M. Gordon, excecutive board member of the Native American
Caucus of the California Democratic Party, said
"Indian people were promised money for their ancestral lands with millions
of dollars in funds subsequently being pilfered away in trust accounts. Some
were forced to march half-way across the country to their 'new lands' with
elders and children dying at their sides."
"Others were promised they would be able to continue their culture on their
new reservations, only to have their children stripped from them and sent to
boarding schools where they were forbidden to speak their language in favor of
the 'white man's ways.' These Indian people would have much to say about
'citizens who have wrongly suffered loss.'"
"When Fleming can address these offenses upon Indian people, only then will
he have the moral standing to make such a demand." Gordon raged at the injustice and racism of "sending in the troops."
"Through our nation's history, Native people have served in
disproportionate numbers in the armed forces fighting and dying in America's
wars defending justice and human rights. It is even more remarkable that so
many Native people gave their lives in defense of these virtues when many were
not afforded the same at home on their reservations."
"Perhaps Fleming should continue his affront to Native veterans by
launching his directive for armed force against tribal nations through the
Navajo codetalkers -- American soldiers in World War II that provided an
invaluable service not only to America, but to the world by communicating
directives to Allied soldiers in the Navajo language." It was the only code that the Nazis were unable to decipher.
Since the end of World War II, the common call in response to crimes against
humanity has been "never again."
A sign went up in the museum at the Yakama Nation Cultural Center
saying: "We are a sovereign nation within the sovereign United States.
Washington state was created in 1889, 34 years after our treaty with the U.S.
government in 1855. Our treaty takes precedence over the state."
"The more sovereign we get, the more jealousies ... the whites
feel," said Norman Robinson Jr., 33, of Toppenish, "It's like this
alcohol ban. They live on our land. They have to realize they have to live by
our laws. We are a nation within a nation."
"The resolution by the Washington State Republican Party is, at
best, the result of a peevish voice that seeks basic constitutional change out
of a regard for their own self-interest. At worst, it is flagrant
racism."
"Clearly the resolution is appalling," says Leah Henry-Slaney,
coalition board member and member of the Nez Perce Tribe. "Our people have
suffered enough and have lost plenty and we don't need to lose what little is
left. That it got through the convention with only two people voting against
it sends a very bad signal. ... It shows the ignorance of society at-large.
They don't understand what treaty rights are and sovereignty is."
"My personal position on this issue is that we've got some work to
do in terms of trying to make people feel more included in the decisions that
affect their lives," Benton said. "I think it's similar to immigrants who come
to America who don't feel like they're part of the process that are guaranteed
by the Constitution. ... There are many tribes who do have republican forms of
government and some that do not. And we need to work for that."
"Is xenophobia any excuse for ignorance? If tribal
governments exist only to mimic the majority system, the work of colonization
and assimilation is complete."
Gordon said if John Fleming and
fellow Washington State Republicans are truly concerned about losses suffered by
citizens, perhaps they should start with the first inhabitants of this land.
"Unlike the Navajo language, Fleming's message is easy to
interpret: 'You are different, you will relinquish your difference, and if you
don't capitulate -- we will destroy you.'"
"For Native Americans, it appears the message is, 'This again? And
again? And again?'"
So what is the factual relationship between the United States and Indian tribal governments?
The United States
possesses a unique legal relationship with Indian tribal governments as set
forth in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, Executive
orders, and court decisions.
It is not a relationship based on race, but rather one forged through
recognition of separate political entities.
As distinct, independent political communities, tribes are qualified to
exercise powers of self-government not by virtue of any delegation of powers
from the federal government, but rather because of their original tribal
sovereignty.
Although the United States has not always recognized or respected the full
range of Indian nations' sovereign powers, it has never denied their existence.
While some within the Washington State Republican legislature may wish to
characterize treaties made with tribes as antiquated and therefore obsolete, the
facts are that these treaties involved bargained-for exchange with tribes ceding
land and giving peace for promises for a similar cessation of hostilities and
the establishment and recognition of a homeland free from the incursion of both
the states and non-Indian settlers. Legally enforceable under both U.S. domestic
law and international law, these treaties provide the primary doctrinal
grounding for the recognition of tribal sovereignty.
With these treaties came an implicit trust responsibility on the part of the
federal government with a unique fiduciary duty to safeguard Indian land and
natural resources as well as an ongoing responsibility to provide health,
education, and social services to Indian people.
As time and history have shown, the United States has not always lived up to
its part of the bargain.
GOP resolutions committee chairwoman Beth Jenson admitted that neither she
nor other committee members understood ramifications of the resolution. Jenson
said she and others voted for it because it appeared to be about "acts by the
tribal governments that weren't the way we do government in America."
Native Americans practiced their own forms of government for thousands of
years before the arrival of Europeans. These governments, as varied as the
tribes themselves, are shaped to meet each tribe's particular needs as defined
by their own economic, social, and geographic conditions.
The variance in tribal governments is testimony to tribes' rights to change
and grow and that they are not frozen in time and are permanent entities in the
American political system.
It is important that non-American Indian societies come to respect the
essential cultural and human reality that Native Americans inhabit. As Professor
Frank Pommersheim has written, 'it is a view that does not flatten Native
American human and cultural reality into some familiar assimilative ethos but
rather makes an informed, essentially imaginative reach of understanding that
preserves and honors a certain 'pride' of difference.'
While some tribal governments may be different in form, they are far from the
reckless specter of governmental anarchy that the resolution and Jenson imply.
Washington State tribes have enacted their own civil rights acts, as have many
tribal governments across the nation.
Within the resolution, Fleming calls for compensation to citizens who have
"wrongfully suffered loss due to a denial of their constitutionally guaranteed
rights to be governed by a republican form of government."
When treaties were signed with Indian nations, the federal government did not
insist upon "republican forms of government" for tribal people. If the federal
government had truly wanted this for Indian nations, it should have been
negotiated within these treaties.
As a non-tribal person living on the reservation, Fleming complains that his
inability to vote in tribal elections is unconstitutional. However, Fleming's
complaint is without merit.
As the Supreme Court has ruled, only tribes as independent nations have the
right to determine their citizenship and who will vote in their elections. The
Supreme Court has also ruled that only Indian people are eligible for
citizenship.
Furthermore, nowhere in the Constitution does it protect an individual's
right to vote in tribal elections. Taking Fleming's logic to task -- anyone
buying land or living in a foreign country should be able to vote.
In an effort to assuage opposition to the resolution, some moderate
Republican legislators have asserted that the resolution does not represent the
majority of party legislators or the national party line.
Native people should ask these same legislators whether George W. Bush, their
presidential candidate, shares their sentiments. After all, he has been quoted
recently in The (Syracuse) Post-Standard as stating, 'My view is that state law
reigns supreme when it comes to Indians, whether it be gambling or any other
issue'."
It is an important question that will have far-reaching effects upon Native
people in the years to come should he be elected.
These same Republicans who tout that the resolution does not represent the
party line also emphasize that the resolution was passed in the last hours of
the convention as part of a group of resolutions recommended by the resolutions
committee and therefore was not debated.
Even accepting this line of reasoning, what does this say about the
commitment of the Republican party to upholding the rights of Native Americans?
That such rights and promises by the federal government can be categorically
dumped into a resolution to be dispersed with at the party's whim is an insult
not only to Native people, but to the spirit of justice, integrity, and
Americans everywhere.
The great Indian law scholar Felix Cohen wrote "Like the miner's canary, the
Indian marks the shift from fresh air to poison gas in our political atmosphere;
and our treatment of Indians, even more than our treatment of other minorities,
reflects the rise and fall of our democratic faith."
The Washington State Republican resolution and Fleming's impudent remarks are
illustrative of the unfortunate fact that although more than half of a decade
has passed since Cohen's metaphor, the ether of injustice is still leaking.
For further information contact CERTAIN by e-mail at:
or by snail-mail to:
CERTAIN
3400 E. Speedway Blvd.
Suite 118-#259
Tucson AZ
85716-3954
Tel: 520 370-7136