Today's Travus T. Hipp @ www.leighm.net
News:
War Zone News: Laura Bush in Afghanistan - $20 Million
for Women's Health & Ed Visits Karzai
Syria - Out by May,
Lebanon: Prime Minister Resigns (again)
US News: CDC Drops "Downwind" Nevada Nuke
Atmospheric Study Due to Budget Cuts
The Schiavo Tragedy: 11th Circuit Court to Hear and to Decide Whether to Hear (!) on the Medical Condition of Terri Schiavo
Boy Scout Exec in FBI Investigation of Child Porn
No Mention of Type Male/Female...Other...
More
Commentary:
If You Can't Win by the Rules: Republican Hubris - A Short History of the Filibuster, and the Implications of Changing Senate Rules
-0-
IT TAKES A LONG TIME
http://www.free-definition.com/Ethnocide.html
"Some of our chiefs make the claim that the land belongs to us.
It is not what the Great Spirit told me!
He told me that the lands belong to Him, that no people owns the land; that I was not to forget to tell this to the white people when I met them in council."
--Kanekuk - Kickapoo prophet http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Wisdom/Kanekuk.html
One of the least mentioned, unique things about the Red Lake reservation in Minnesota is the fact that the tribe never parceled land to settlers, therefore the tribe has pretty much sovereign claim to it's land and resources.
<...> Total area (none permanently allotted, all tribal): 837,736 acres; Scattered: 156,000 acres, up to the Canadian border area Total labor force: 871 Total enrollment: 2,761 Total unemployment: 39%
http://www.kstrom.net/isk/maps/mn/redlake.htm
Red Lake consistently resisted all attempts at allottment of their land, whenever they were able to do so, using formal rejections and informal methods such as running off surveyors, social workers, lawyers, missionaries.
Other Minnesota Ojibwe tribal bands failed to do this and as a result, although boundaries are drawn around their reservations, their lands are very heavily checkerboarded by non-Indian ownership.
Red Lake alone of Minnesota tribes rejected Public Law 280, so unlike other Minnesota reservations, Red Lake retained criminal and civil jurisdiction (except for the federal Major Crimes Act) over its remaining lands and its citizens. Red Lake governs itself and does not belong to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Federation, which has various economic and other powers over its members, the other Ojibwe reservations in Minnesota, who all belong to the MCT.
Red Lake rejected this, and goes it alone, though there are many relationships and intermarriages among Anishinaabe peoples of Red Lake and the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe (federation).
The results of Red Lake's consistent, long-time strategy are best seen in comparing the land they have kept to the land other, more cooperative-with-whites tribes have lost. <...>
Even still... Progress takes it's toll.
<...> Fishery nearly failed as a local industry due to the effects of acid rain pollution killing off most of the lakes' whitefish -- but some reductions and control of distant industrial air pollution, and a hatchery to restock the lake, have helped restore the fish. In 1982 (most recent figures I've got), the co-op handled 1,880,671 lbs of fish (the beginning of the rebuilding of the fish population, which was decimated in the 1970's). <...>
Other bands weren't quite as lucky... The land went away, and when portions of it *did* come back, something was missing...
Sovereign rights.
http://news.findlaw.com INDIAN LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE
City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., No. 03-855
(U.S.S.C. March 29, 2005)
Defendant-Indian Tribe's reacquisition of historic reservation land
does not prohibit the imposition of property taxes since defendant
*cannot*[emphasis added] unilaterally revive its ancient sovereignty
over the parcels at issue.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/03-855.html
Jump to: [Opinion] [Concurrence] [Dissent]
CITY OF SHERRILL, NEW YORK v. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 03-855.Argued January 11, 2005--Decided March 29, 2005
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-855
Respondent Oneida Indian Nation of New York (OIN or Tribe) is a direct descendant of the Oneida Indian Nation (Oneida Nation), whose aboriginal homeland, at the Nation's birth, comprised some six million acres in what is now central New York State (State). See, e.g., Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y. v. County of Oneida, 414 U. S. 661, 664 (Oneida I).
In 1788, the State and the Oneida Nation entered into a treaty whereby the Oneidas ceded all their lands to the State, but retained a reservation of about 300,000 acres for their own use. See County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y., 470 U. S. 226, 231 (Oneida II).
The Federal Government initially pursued a policy protective of the New York Indians.
In 1790, Congress passed the first Indian Trade and Intercourse Act (Nonintercourse Act), barring s ales of tribal land without the Government's acquiescence. And in the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua, the United States "acknowledge[d]" the Oneidas' 300,000-acre reservation and guaranteed their "free use and enjoyment" of the reserved territory. Act of Nov. 11, 1794, 7 Stat. 44, 45, Art. III.
Nevertheless, New York continued to purchase reservation land from the Oneidas.
Although the Washington administration objected, later administrations made not even a pretense of interfering with New York's purchases, and ultimately pursued a policy designed to open reservation lands to white settlers and to remove tribes westward. Pressured by the removal policy, many Oneidas left the State.
Those who stayed continued to diminish in number and, during the 1840's, sold most of their remaining lands to New York.
By 1920, the New York Oneidas retained only 32 acres in the State. <...>
-30-
L http://www.leighm.net http://www.furl.net/members/leigh_m/rss.xml