Esoterica's avatar

Esoterica

Black Choctaws

adailyriot:

This list of surnames represent the names of the freedmen who were adopted through the Dawes Commission, between 1898 and 1916. Note that many of these names appear in other Indian nation lists, and their appearance here does not provide proof of Black Indian Ancestry. In addition to these items, it is recommended that the researcher obtain as much oral history as possible on the family, and then locate the Dawes records on the family, including the names of ancestors on the Enrollment Cards and other pertinent records.

This list of Black Choctaws represents the Choctaw freedmen from Oklahoma, and does not represent persons from among the Mississippi Choctaws.


A               Coleman         Harrison        McChristian          Roebuck
Abbott          Colly           Harvey          McClendon            Rogers
Abram           Conard          Hatley          McCloud              Rose
Adams           Cook            Hawkins         McCoy                Ross
Adamson         Cotton          Haywood         McCurtain            Russell
Ainsworth       Cox             Henderson       McDaniel
Alberson        Craig           Henry           McDonald             S
Alexander       Cravens         Hester          McGee                Sakki
Allen           Crawford        Hicks           McGilbry             Sams
Anderson        Cris            Hill            McGuire              Samuels
Arnold          Crittendon      Hilliard        McKee                Sandridge
Askew           Crooms          Hills           McKinley             Scott
Austin          Croons          Hines           McNeill              Seely
                Crutchfield     Hodges          McQuilla             Sell
B               Cubit           Hogan           Meadows              Severe
Bagley          Culver          Holford         McKinney             Sexton
Bailey          Cunford         Hollaway        Meggs                Shaw
Banks                           Hollin          Meighbors            Shelby
Barber          D               Holt            Merritts             Shelton
Bardner         Dana            Homer           Miles                Shephard
Barley          Dangerfield     Hoppy           Miller               Shield
Barr            Daniels         Horn            Mills                Shields
Barrett         Daugherty       Hornback        Milton               Shirley
Barrows         Davis           Horton          Minner               Shoals
Bary            Demps           Hotchkins       Mitchell             Sholes
Bassett         Demus           Hotchkiss       Moore                Short
Battie          Dizer           Howell          Moors                Sifax
Battiece        Dockins         Hughes          Morgan               Simmons
Battiest        Dodd            Humdy           Morotn               Simpson
Beams           Dodson          Humes           Moses                Sims
Bearden         Donegay         Humphrey        Mosley               Sindham
Beavers         Douglas         Hunter          Moss                 Smallwood
Beckwith        Douglass        Hutchins        Munn                 Smith
Beeson          Duckett         Hutchison       Murchison            Spencer
Belcher         Dumas           Hyatt           Murphy               Spring
Bell            Duncan                          Murray               Stakohaka
Belvin          Durant          I               Musgrove             Stanley
Benson                          Ingram                               Star
Bibbs           E               Irving          N                    Starly
Bidden          Eastman                         Nail                 Starr
Biggs           Easton          J               Nash                 Stephenson
Binks           Edd             Jackson         Neal                 Stevenson
Bird            Edwards         Jacob           Neioll               Stewart
Birdsong        Eights          Jamerson        Nelson               Striblin
Blackwater      Ellis           James           Newberry             Stribling
Blair           Ellison         Jeater          Newton               Stubblefield
Bledsoe         Elridge         Jeffers         Nolan                Suton
Blocker         Epps            Jefferson       Noland               Sutton
Blue            Ervin           Jeffries        Nolen
Blunt           Eubanks         Jeter           Norman               T
Boatwright      Evans           John            Norris               Taylor
Boldin          Everidge        Johnson         Nourvle              Teel
Bolding         Evrett          Johnston        Nunley               Thomas
Bonham          Ewing           Jolly           Nunnally             Thompson
Bordon          Ewings          Jones           Nunnely              Thurman
Bowers                          Jordon                               Timpson
Boyd            F               Joseph          O                    Tinkshell
Boyles          Factory         Judy            Oats                 Tis
Brack           Farris          Justice         Oliver               Titus
Bradley         Featherspoon                    Osborn               Triplett
Brady           Featherston     K               Oscar                Tucker
Brasco          Ferguson        Keel            Overton              Turner
Brashears       Fields          Keith           Owens                Tyler
Brewer          Finley          Kemp            Owles                Tyner
Briggs          Fisher          Kendrick                             Tyson
Briley          Flack           Kendricks       P
Brown           Fleeks          Kincade         Paris                V
Bruce           Flint           King            Parish               Valliant
Brumley         Floyd           Kingsbury       Parker               Vaughn
Bruner          Folsom          Kirk            Parkins              Vinson
Bryant          Foreman                         Partilla             Virgil
Buckman         Franklin        L               Patterson            Voryd
Buckner         Frazier         Larkin          Patton
Buffington      Freeman         Last            Payton               W
Bulger          Freeney         Lathers         Pearson              Wade
Burks           Freeny          Lawrence        Pendleton            Wagoner
Burris          French          Lawson          Perry                Waldron
Burton          Fullbright      Lee             Phelps               Walford
Busby           Fulsom          Leflore         Phillips             Walker
Butler                          LeFlore         Pickens              Walls
Byrd            G               Leftridge       Pierce               Walter
                Gables          Lenox           Pitchlynn            Walton
C               Gaffney         Leppord         Pitner               Walzer
Caephus         Galbert         Lewis           Poleon               Ward
Cahill          Galloway        Liggins         Powell               Ware
Cain            Gant            Lison           Pratt                Warner
Campbell        Garland         Littlejohn      Price                Warren
Carney          Gay             Livingsyton     Prince               Warrior
Carr            Gibson          Logan           Pryor                Washington
Carroll         Gidden          Looney          Pulcher              Waters
Carson          Givens          Love            Purdy                Watson
Carter          Glover          Lovelace        Pursley              Webb
Caruthers       Gooding         Low                                  Welch
Cass            Goodlow         Lowery          R                    West
Cennis          Graham          Lownen          Radford              Whitaker
Chalk           Graham          Lynch           Railback             Whitby
Chambers        Graves                          Read                 White
Chandler        Gray            M               Rechardson           Wilburn
Chapman         Grayson         Mabry           Record               Wilkins
Charry          Green           Mackey          Rector               Williams
Chatman         Greenwood       Mahardy         Reddick              Willis
Cheadle         Greer           Mann            Reed                 Wilson
Chester         Gross           Mackey          Reeder               Wimbley
Chilton         Grundy          Manning         Reeves               Wine
Chism           Guess           Mansfield       Rentie               Woods
Choate          Guest           Mat-ub-bee      Reynolds             Wooter
Christian                       Maturby         Rice                 Worthen
Clark           H               Maupin          Richards             Wright
Clay            Haley           Maxwell         Riddle
Clayton         Halford         May             Ridge                Y
Cleveland       Hall            Mayes           Riffington           Yocubby
Cochran         Hampton         Mays            Riley                Young
Cohee           Hardlan         Maytubbe        Riston
Cohes           Harkins         Maytuby         Roberts
Colbert         Harnage         McAfee          Robinson
Cole            Harris          McCarty         Roby

(via rematiration-deactivated2013111)

Flickr / rizzolo
queennubian:

alostbird:


Pow Wow Roger Williams Park, Providence, RI :: 1


OMG THE CUTE!!!!!

queennubian:

alostbird:

Pow Wow Roger Williams Park, Providence, RI :: 1

OMG THE CUTE!!!!!

(via blueklectic)

Harper Launches Major First Nations Termination Plan: As Negotiating Tables Legitimize Canada’s Colonialism - Gitxsan Unity Movement

adailyriot:

On September 4th the Harper government clearly signaled its intention to:

1) Focus all its efforts to assimilate First Nations into the existing federal and provincial orders of government of Canada;

2) Terminate the constitutionally protected and internationally recognized Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights of First Nations.

Termination in this context means the ending of First Nations pre-existing sovereign status through federal coercion of First Nations into Land Claims and Self-Government Final Agreements that convert First Nations into municipalities, their reserves into fee simple lands and extinguishment of their Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty Rights.

To do this the Harper government announced three new policy measures:

  • A “results based” approach to negotiating Modern Treaties and Self-Government Agreements. This is an assessment process of 93 negotiation tables across Canada to determine who will and who won’t agree to terminate Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights under the terms of Canada’s Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies. For those tables who won’t agree, negotiations will end as the federal government withdraws from the table and takes funding with them.
  • First Nation regional and national political organizations will have their core funding cut and capped. For regional First Nation political organizations the core funding will be capped at $500,000 annually. For some regional organizations this will result in a funding cut of $1 million or more annually. This will restrict the ability of Chiefs and Executives of Provincial Territorial  organization’s to organize and/or advocate for First Nations rights and interests.
  • First Nation Band and Tribal Council funding for advisory services will be eliminated over the next two years further crippling the ability of Chiefs and Councils and Tribal Council executives to analyze and assess the impacts of federal and provincial policies and legislation on Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

These three new policy measures are on top of the following unilateral federal legislation the Harper government is imposing over First Nations:

  • Bill C-27: First Nations Financial Transparency Act
  • Bill C-45: Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 [Omnibus Bill includes Indian Act amendments regarding voting on-reserve lands surrenders/designations]
  •  Bill S-2: Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act
  •  Bill S-6: First Nations Elections Act
  •  Bill S-8: Safe Drinking Water for First Nations
  •  Bill C-428: Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act [Private Conservative MP’s Bill, but supported by Harper government]

Then there are the Senate Public Bills:

  • Bill S-207: An Act to amend the Interpretation Act (non derogation of aboriginal and treaty rights)
  •  Bill S-212: First Nations Self-Government Recognition Bill

The Harper government’s Bills listed above are designed to undermine the collective rights of First Nations by focusing on individual rights. This is the “modern legislative framework” the Conservatives promised in 2006. The 2006 Conservative Platform promised to:

Replace the Indian Act (and related legislation) with a modern legislative framework which provides for the devolution of full legal and democratic responsibility to aboriginal Canadians for their own affairs within the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Of course “modern” in Conservative terms means assimilation of First Nations by termination of their collective rights and off-loading federal responsibilities onto the First Nations themselves and the provinces.

One Bill that hasn’t been introduced into Parliament yet, but is still expected, is the First Nations’ Private Ownership Act (FNPOA). This private property concept for Indian Reserves—which has been peddled by the likes of Tom Flanagan and tax proponent and former Kamloops Chief Manny Jules—is also a core plank of the Harper government’s 2006 electoral platform.

The 2006 Conservative Aboriginal Platform promised that if elected a Harper government would:

Support the development of individual property ownership on reserves, to encourage lending for private housing and businesses.

The long-term goals set out in the Harper government’s policy and legislative initiatives listed above are not new; they are at least as old as theIndian Act and were articulated in the federal 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy, which set out a plan to terminate Indian rights as the time.

Previous Termination Plans: 1969 White Paper & Buffalo Jump of 1980’s

The objectives of the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy were to:

  • Assimilate First Nations.
  • Remove legislative recognition.
  • Neutralize constitutional status.
  • Impose taxation.
  • Encourage provincial encroachment.
  • Eliminate Reserve lands & extinguish Aboriginal Title.
  • Economically underdevelop communities.
  • Dismantle Treaties.

As First Nations galvanized across Canada to fight the Trudeau Liberal government’s proposed 1969 termination policy the federal government was forced to consider a strategy on how to calm the Indian storm of protest.

In a memo dated April 1, 1970, David Munro, an Assistant Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs on Indian Consultation and Negotiations, advised his political masters Jean Chrétien and Pierre Trudeau, as follows:

… in our definition of objectives and goals, not only as they appear in formal documents, but also as stated or even implied in informal memoranda, draft planning papers, or causal conversation. We must stop talking about having the objective or goal of phasing out in five years… We can still believe with just as much strength and sincerity that the [White Paper] policies we propose are the right ones…

The final [White Paper] proposal, which is for the elimination of special status in legislation, must be relegated far into the future… my conclusion is that we need not change the [White Paper] policy content, but we should put varying degrees of emphasis on its several components and we should try to discuss it in terms of its components rather than as a whole… we should adopt somewhat different tactics in relation to [the White Paper] policy, but that we should not depart from its essential content. (Emphasis added)

In the early 1970’s, the Trudeau Liberal government did back down publicly on implementing the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy, but as we can see from Mr. Munro’s advice the federal bureaucracy changed the timeline from five years to a long-term implementation of the 1969 White Paper objectives of assimilation/termination.

In the mid-1980’s the Mulroney Conservative government resurrected the elements of the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy, through a Cabinet memo.

In 1985, a secret federal Cabinet submission was leaked to the media by a DIAND employee. The Report was nicknamed the “Buffalo Jump of the 1980’s” by another federal official. The nickname referred to the effect of the recommendations in the secret Cabinet document, which if adopted, would lead Status Indians to a cultural death — hence the metaphor.

The Buffalo Jump Report proposed a management approach for First Nations policy and
programs, which had the following intent:

  • Limiting & eventually terminating the federal trust obligations;
  • Reducing federal expenditures for First Nations, under funding programs, and prohibiting deficit financing;
  • Shifting responsibility and costs for First Nations services to provinces and “advanced bands” through co-management, tri-partite, and community self-government agreements;
  • “Downsizing” of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) through a devolution of program administration to “advanced bands” and transfer of programs to other federal departments;
  • Negotiating municipal community self-government agreements with First Nations which would result in the First Nation government giving up their Constitutional status as a sovereign government and becoming a municipality subject to provincial or territorial laws;
  • Extinguishing aboriginal title and rights in exchange for fee simple title under provincial or territorial law while giving the province or territory underlying title to First Nations lands.

The Mulroney government’s “Buffalo Jump” plan was temporarily derailed due the 1990 “Oka Crisis”. Mulroney responded to the “Oka Crisis” with his “Four Pillars” of Native Policy:

  • Accelerating the settlement of land claims;
  • Improving the economic and social conditions on Reserves;
  • Strengthening the relationships between Aboriginal Peoples and governments;
  • Examining the concerns of Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples in contemporary Canadian life.

In 1991, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney also announced the establishment of a Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which began its work later that year; the establishment of an Indian Claims Commission to review Specific Claims; the establishment of a BC Task Force on Claims, which would form the basis for the BC Treaty Commission Process.

In 1992, Aboriginal organizations and the federal government agreed, as part of the 1992 Charlottetown Accord, on amendments to theConstitution Act, 1982 that would have included recognition of the inherent right of self-government for Aboriginal people. For the first time, Aboriginal organizations had been full participants in the talks; however, the Accord was rejected in a national referendum.

With the failure of Canadian constitutional reform in 1992, for the last twenty years, the federal government—whether Liberal or Conservative—has continued to develop policies and legislation based upon the White Paper/Buffalo Jump objectives and many First Nations have regrettably agreed to compromise their constitutional/international rights by negotiating under Canada’s termination policies.

Canada’s Termination Policies Legitimized by Negotiation Tables

It has been thirty years since Aboriginal and Treaty rights have been “recognized and affirmed” in section 35 of Canada’s constitution. Why hasn’t the constitutional protection for First Nations’ Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights been implemented on the ground?

One answer to this question is, following the failure of the First Ministers’ Conferences on Aboriginal Matters in the 1980’s, many First Nations agreed to compromise their section 35 Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights by entering into or negotiating Modern Treaties and/or Self-government Agreements under Canada’s unilateral negotiation terms.

These Modern Treaties and Self-Government Agreements not only contribute to emptying out section 35 of Canada’s constitution of any significant legal, political or economic meaning. Final settlement agreements are then used as precedents against other First Nations’ who are negotiating.

Moreover, Canada’s Land Claims and Self-Government policies are far below the international standards set out in the Articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Canada publicly endorsed the UNDRIP in November 2010, but obviously Canada’s interpretation of the UNDRIP is different than that of most First Nations, considering their unilateral legislation and policy approach.

Canada’s voted against UNDRIP on Sept. 13, 2007, stating that the UNDRIP was inconsistent with Canada’s domestic policies, especially the Articles dealing with Indigenous Peoples’ Self-Determination, Land Rights and Free, Prior Informed Consent.

Canada’s position on UNDRIP now is that they can interpret it as they please, although the principles in UNDRIP form part of international not domestic law.

The federal strategy is to maintain the Indian Act (with amendments) as the main federal law to control and manage First Nations. The only way out of the Indian Act for First Nations is to negotiate an agreement under Canada’s one-sided Land Claims and/or Self-Government policies. These Land Claims/Self-Government Agreements all require the termination of Indigenous rights for some land, cash and delegated jurisdiction under the existing federal and provincial orders of government.

Canada has deemed that it will not recognize the pre-existing sovereignty of First Nations or allow for a distinct First Nations order of government based upon section 35 of Canada’s constitution.

Through blackmail, bribery or force, Canada is using the poverty of First Nations to obtain concessions from First Nations who want out of theIndian Act by way of Land Claims/Self- Government Agreements. All of these Agreements conform to Canada’s interpretation of section 35 of Canada’s constitution, which is to legally, politically and economically convert First Nations into what are essentially ethnic municipalities.

The first groups in Canada who have agreed to compromise their section 35 Inherent and Aboriginal rights through Modern Treaties have created an organization called the Land Claims Agreement Coalition. The Coalition Members are:

  • Council of Yukon First Nations (representing 9 land claim organizations in the Yukon)
  • Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)
  • Gwich’in Tribal Council
  • Inuvialuit Regional Corporation
  • Kwanlin Dun First Nation
  • Maa-nulth First Nations
  • Makivik Corporation
  • Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach
  • Nisga’a Nation
  • Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
  • Nunatsiavut Government
  • Sahtu Secretariat Inc.
  • Tlicho Government
  • Tsawwassen First Nation
  • Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation

The Land Claims Agreement Coalition Members came together because the federal government wasn’t properly implementing any of their Modern Treaties. So the Coalition essentially became a lobby group to collectively pressure the federal government to respect their Modern Treaties. According to Members of the Coalition Modern Treaty implementation problems persist today.

The fact that Canada has already broken the Modern Treaties shouldn’t inspire confidence for those First Nations who are already lined up at Canada’s Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government negotiation tables.

According to the federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs there are 93 Modern Treaty and/or Self-Government negotiation tables across Canada [http://www.aadncaandc.gc.ca/eng/1346782327802/1346782485058].

Those First Nations who are negotiating at these 93 tables are being used by the federal government (and the provinces/Territories) to legitimize its Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies, which are based upon extinguishment of Aboriginal Title and termination of Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

The First Nations who have been refusing to negotiate and are resisting the federal Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government negotiating policies are routinely ignored by the federal government and kept under control and managed through the Indian Act (with amendments).

Attempts by non-negotiating First Nations to reform the federal Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies aren’t taken seriously by the federal government because there are so many First Nations who have already compromised their Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights by agreeing to negotiate under the terms and funding conditions of these Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies.

For example, following the 1997 Supreme Court of Canada Delgamuukw decision, which recognized that Aboriginal Title exists in Canada, the Assembly of First Nations tried to reform the Comprehensive Claims policy to be consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada Delgamuukwdecision.

However, the then Minister of Indian Affairs, Robert Nault on December 22, 2000, wrote a letter addressed to then Chief Arthur Manuelthat essentially said why should the federal government change the Comprehensive Claims policy if First Nations are prepared to negotiate under it as it is?

A fair question: why do First Nations remain at negotiation tables that ultimately lead to the termination of their peoples Inherent and Aboriginal rights, especially since it appears that Modern Treaties are routinely broken after they are signed by the federal government?

Many of these negotiations are in British Columbia where despite the past twenty years of negotiations the B.C. Treaty process has produced two small Modern Treaties, Tsawwassan and Maa’Nulth. The Nisga’a Treaty was concluded in 2000, outside of the B.C. Treaty process.

All of these Modern Treaties have resulted in extinguishing Aboriginal Title, converting reserve lands into fee simple, removing tax exemptions, converting bands into municipalities, among other impacts on Inherent and Aboriginal rights.

The Harper Government’s Termination Plan

Aside from the unilateral legislation being imposed, or the funding cuts and caps to First Nation’s and their political organizations, the September 4, 2012, announcement of a “results based” approach to Modern Treaties and Self-Government negotiations amounts to a “take it or leave it” declaration on the part of the Harper government to the negotiating First Nations.

Canada’s Comprehensive Claims Policy requires First Nations to borrow money from the federal government to negotiate their “land claims”. According to the federal government:

To date, the total of outstanding loans to Aboriginal groups from Canada to support their participation in negotiations is $711 million. This represents a significant financial liability for the Aboriginal community. In addition, the government of Canada provides $60 million in grants and contributions to Aboriginal groups every year for negotiations.

It is Canada’s policies that forced First Nations to borrow money to negotiate their “claims”, so the “financial liability” was a policy measure designed by the federal government to pressure First Nations into settling their “claims” faster. As the federal government puts it, the Comprehensive Claims negotiation process has instead “spawned a negotiation industry that has no incentive to reach agreement.”

This accumulated debt of $711 million along with the $60 million annual in grants and contributions have compromised those negotiating First Nations and their leaders to the point that they are unable or unwilling to seriously confront the Harper government’s termination plan.

Over 50% of the Comprehensive Claims are located in B.C. and the First Nations Summit represents the negotiating First Nations in B.C., although some negotiating First Nations have now joined the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs (UBCIC), thus blurring the historic distinctions between to two political organizations. The latter organization previously vigorously opposed the B.C. Treaty process, but now theUBCIC remains largely silent about it.

These two main political organizations — the First Nations Summit and the UBCIC — have now joined together into the B.C. First Nations Leadership Council, further blending the rights and interests of their respective member communities together, not taking into account whether they are in or out of the B.C. Treaty process.

This may partially explain why the Chiefs who are not in the B.C. Treaty process also remain largely silent about the Harper government’s “results based’ approach to Modern Treaties and Self-Government negotiations.

First Nations in British Columbia are failing to capitalize on that fact, that since the Delgamuukw Decision, the governments have to list unresolved land claims and litigation as a contingent liability. Such liabilities can affect Canada’s sovereign credit rating and provincial credit ratings. To counter this outstanding liability, Canada points to the British Columbia Treaty Process as the avenue how they are dealing with this liability, pointing to the fact that First Nations are borrowing substantive amounts to negotiate with the governments.

Another recent example of how disconnected B.C. First Nations and their organizations are on international versus domestic policy and law, is the First Nations’ outcry over the recent Canada-China Treaty.

The B.C. Chiefs and their organizations are publicly denouncing the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement as adversely impacting on Aboriginal Title and Rights, yet they say or do nothing about Harper’s accelerated termination plan. It seems the negotiating First Nations are more worried about the Canada-China Treaty blocking a future land claims deal under the B.C. Treaty process.

The Chiefs and their organizations at the B.C. Treaty process negotiation tables have had twenty years to negotiate the “recognition and affirmation” of Aboriginal Title and Rights, but this continues to be impossible under Canada’s policies aiming at the extinguishment of collective rights. As a result only two extinguishment Treaties have resulted from the process. Even Sophie Pierre, Chair of the B.C. Treaty Commission has said “If we can’t do it, it’s about time we faced the obvious - I guess we don’t have it, so shut her down”.

By most accounts the twenty year old B.C. Treaty process has been a failure. It has served the governments’ purpose of countering their contingent liabilities regarding Indigenous land rights. Yet it seems the negotiating First Nations are so compromised by their federal loans and dependent on the negotiations funding stream that they are unable or unwilling to withdraw from the tables en masse and make real on the demand that the Harper government reform its Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies to be consistent with the Articles of the UNDRIP.

The same can also be said for the negotiating First Nations in the Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic regions.

The Chiefs who are not in the B.C., Quebec or Atlantic negotiating processes have not responded much, if at all, to Harper’s “results based” approach to Modern Treaties and Self-Government. The non-negotiating Chiefs seem to be more interested in managing programs and services issues than their Aboriginal Title and Rights. As one federal official put it, the Chiefs are involved in the elements of the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy like economic and social development while ignoring the main White Paper objective—termination of First Nations legal status.

Conclusion

Given their silence over the Harper government’s “results based” “take it or leave it” negotiations approach, it seems many of the negotiating First Nations at the Comprehensive Claims and/or Self-Government tables are still contemplating concluding Agreements under Canada’s termination policies.

This can only lead to further division among First Nations across Canada as more First Nations compromise their constitutional and international rights by consenting to final settlement agreements under the terms and conditions of Canada’s termination policies, while undermining the political positions of the non-negotiating First Nations.

In the meantime, Harper’s government will continue pawning off Indigenous lands and resources in the midst of a financial crisis though free trade and foreign investment protection agreements, which will secure foreign corporate access to lands and resources and undermine Indigenous Rights.

Some First Nation leaders and members have criticised AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo for agreeing to a joint approach with the Harper government, including the Crown-First Nations Gathering (CFNG), but to be fair, the Chiefs across Canada did nothing to pressure Prime Minister Harper going into the CFNG. Instead, many Chiefs used the occasion as a photo op posing with the Prime Minister.

The negotiating First Nations who are in joint processes with Canada seem to be collectively heading to the cliff of the “Buffalo Jump” as they enter termination agreements with Canada emptying out section 35 in the process.

Much of the criticism of AFN National Chief Atleo has come from the Prairie Treaty Chiefs. Interestingly, if one looks at the federal chart of the 93 negotiation tables [http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1346782327802/1346782485058] not too many First Nations from historic Treaty areas are involved in the Self-Government tables, except for the Ontario region where the Union of Ontario Indians and Nisnawbe-Aski Nationare negotiating Self-Government agreements.

As a result of the September 4, 2012 announcements regarding changes to Modern Treaties and Self-Government negotiations, cuts and caps to funding First Nations political organizations and unilateral legislation initiatives, it is obvious that Prime Minister Harper has tricked the AFN National Chief and First Nations by showing that the CFNG “outcomes” were largely meaningless.

One commitment that Prime Minister Harper made at the CFNG—which he will probably keep—Is making a progress report in January 2013. The Prime Minister will probably announce the progress being made with all of the negotiating tables across Canada, along with his legislative initiatives.

It appears First Nations are at the proverbial “end of the trail” as the Chiefs seem to be either co-opted or afraid to challenge the Harper government. Most grassroots peoples aren’t even fully informed about the dangerous situation facing them and their future generations.

The only way to counter the Harper government is to:

  • have all negotiating First Nations suspend their talks; and
  • organize coordinated National Days of Action to register First Nations opposition to the Harper government’s termination plan;
  • Demand Canada suspend all First Nations legislation in Parliament, cease introducing new Bills and
  • Change Canada’s Land Claims and Self-Government Policies to “recognize and affirm” the Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty Rights of First Nations, including respect and implementation of the Historic Treaties.

If there is no organized protest and resistance to the Harper government’s termination plan, First Nations should accept their place at the bottom of all social, cultural and economic indicators in Canada, just buy into Harper’s jobs and economic action plan—and be quiet about their rights.

*

The First Nations Strategic Bulletin is a publication of the First Nations Strategic Policy Counsel, an informal group of individuals who are practitioners in either First Nations policy or law. The publication is a volunteer non-profit effort and is part of a series. For Back Issues Go To: Canada Library & Archives - Electronic Collections.


(via rematiration-deactivated2013111)

Indian Child Welfare Act: Does ICWA Resolve All Issues Regarding Indian Child Custody Proceedings?

adailyriot:

No. As discussed later, ICWA expressly exempts from coverage several types of custody proceedings such as divorce proceedings in which custody of the child will remain with one of the parents, and proceedings in which the child is not a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe. IN addition, ICWA contains courts to adopt various interpretations of them, creating some uncertainties (and leading to some inconsistencies).

To help state courts resolve these uncertainties, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs issued a set of guidelines in 1979 entitled “Guidelines for State Courts; Indian Child Custody Proceedings” (“BIA Guidelines”). The guidelines are not binding on the states as is ICWA, but state courts have given them great weight and rarely depart from them. However, as discussed below, courts have reached conflicting decisions in some areas even with the help of the Guidelines.

(via rematiration-deactivated2013111)

Indian Child Welfare Act: What Does ICWA Require?

adailyriot:

ICWA establishes procedures that must be followed and rights that must be afforded by state courts when determining temporary (foster care) or permanent (adoption) placement of Indian children. The following is a brief summary of these procedures and rights, all of which are discussed later in this chapter.

  1. If the Indian child is domiciled on an Indian reservation or has been made a ward of the tribal court, the tribal court has exclusive jurisdiction over the child in all custody matters. State courts may not adjudicate these cases.
  2. If the child is domiciled off the reservation, the state and the tribal court has concurrent (shared) jurisdiction. Should a custody proceeding be initiated in state court, the court must notify the child’s parents and tribe, and they each have a right to intervene in the proceedings. If either the tribe or a parent requests it, the state court must transfer the case to tribal court unless a parent objects or good cause exists to deny the request.
  3. If the case remains in state court, the court may not terminate parental rights without proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” or (place the child in foster care without “clear and convincing evidence”) that continued custody by the child’s family “is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.
  4. If the child’s parents are indigent, they have a right to a court-appointed attorney, and separate counsel must be appointed for the child when the best interests of the child require it.
  5. Before a state court may place an Indian child in a non-Indian adopted home, the court must give sequential placement preference to, first, the child’s extended family, second, to other members of the child’s tribe, and third, to other Indian families, unless good cause exists to ignore this placement hierarchy. A similar hierarchy is imposed in foster care placements.
  6. If a state court’s placement of an Indian child violates ICWA, that placement is subject to invalidation upon petition of a parent or custodian of the child or by the child’s tribe.
  7. Tribal court custody decisions are entitled to the same “full faith and credit” as state court custody decisions, meaning that they normally must be respected and enforced by other courts.
  8. The state must keep accurate records of all Indian children placements to which ICWA applies and make those records available to the federal government and the tribe. In addition, when the adopted Indian child becomes 18  years old, the state must provide the child upon his or her request with the names and tribal affiliation(s) of the child’s biological parents.

As these procedures and rights reflect, ICWA creates a dual jurisdictional system that favors the tribe. When the child lives on the reservation, state courts have no jurisdiction to determine the child’s custody. When the child lives off the reservation, tribes and states have concurrent jurisdiction, but jurisdiction presumptively lies in the tribe because the state court must transfer the case to tribal court upon request of the tribe or one of the child’s parents, except in limited circumstances. ICWA, in other words, “establishes a preference for tribal court jurisdiction.” Moreover, even when a case remains in state court (as it can in some situations), ICWA allows tribes to intervene in the proceeding, reflecting Congress’s conclusion that state courts are more likely to make proper placement decisions if tribes have an opportunity to inform the court as to the tribe’s social and cultural values.

Thus, state courts are placed on notice by ICWA, as the Montana Supreme Court stated in 1998, “that they are, in fact, a significant part of the problem regarding the high number of improper Indian placements, and that “tribal courts are uniquely and inherently more qualified than state courts to determine custody in the best interests of an Indian child.” ICWA was enacted, the South Dakota Supreme Court  observed in 2005, to assist “with our responsibility to promote and protect the unique Indian cultures of our state for future generations.”

(via rematiration-deactivated2013111)

So you want to be an Indian too?? « Native American Sublime

adailyriot:

Along my twittering I’ve been coming across many, many images of the “culturally appropriated” aka the stereotyped version of the “American Indian.” Recently someone tweeted me this about it: “I would say that ‘the highest form of flattery is imitation’ but that Would be backwards” And that it’s hard for “them” to see the world from a different perspective. Which is true but, for me anyways, it’s a lot more than imitating me (per se), they are imitating and perpetuating a stereotype of my people. The age old Hollywood image of who a Native American is. Every time I look at your indianized Aubrey O’Day’s and your Gwen Stafani’s I half expect John Wayne and the Calvary to come over the ridge and a bunch of over tanned Italians with their black wigs and headbands to start running in the opposite direction. Westerns……. Let me share with you something about westerns. Both my parents are Residential School Survivors. As kids the nuns would, from time to time, gather all the kids and take them to the movie theater in town. My parents told me that these were treats to them. They were all loaded on to trucks with stock racks, just like cattle. All the white town folk would come out to watch the little spectacle, “the big parade” (my dad’s words) of all these caged little Indian kids, who would get unloaded in front of the movie house. (this is hard to write btw) The kids would get to have things like candy, popcorn and soda to enjoy their movie with. The movies, westerns. On big screens they would watch John Wayne as he battled the Indians. The Hollywood Stereotyped Indian, dressed in buckskin and feathers with tipi’s and drums, just like our own people the Blackfoot. The kids were made to cheer when the Calvary came to kill those Indians, you know where one shot would kill five Indians, yah… My mom once told me that she knew that these were images of her but at the same time she found it hard to identify with those Hollywood Stereotyped Indians. But that they, those images, at the time made her feel embarrassed and ashamed…

It wasn’t until a few years ago that I actually watched a John Wayne western. I laughed at the Indians in that movie, found the ridiculousness as one shot killed five Indians, laughed as they said “how” hand raised. But my parents and other like them, didn’t get to see the Indians the same way. You know what the nuns also told my parents, that they weren’t humans, that they grew out of the ground like plants. Given all this, my parents made sure that I knew who I was, that I wasn’t this manufactured Hollywood image, that I was Blackfoot and a human being. So when I see these people in their hipster headdresses, dressed “Indian,” perpetuating that Hollywood Indian image, It. Enrages. Me. It makes my blood boil with anger and hatred. Because this is not who we are, it will never be who we are. We are greater than your painted face, fake buckskin and cheap feathers. We are more than your sexualized version of the Indian maiden. But as these images continue, as more and more people find it acceptable to “dress indian” they maintain that we are not real people. They continue the idea that we are a caricature of the past. To not say anything would mean that I accept that I grew out of the ground, that the Calvary is suppose to ride over the ridge and kill us all, that we all raise our hand and say “how”. And I just can’t. My parents gave me one thing more, a voice. They always taught me to speak up when I see something wrong and to not be afraid. So all you Hollywood Stereotyped Indians, I’m coming for you. 500 years it’s time they learned about our history and diversity, our uniqueness. We are still here and we are not just a costume.

;

In closing I’ll leave you with a poem I read when I was like 11, one of my all time favorites.

trying harder ~ by Annharte

In the movies I spent my childhood for 15c

on a dream for a day that most will admit

they cheered for the troops to wipe out

Indians I know I wanted Geronimo to win

Cochise to kick ass & they did it for me

to yell all by myself at the show but

I scream when I see the Indian dancing fast

forward which the old movies speeded up

to look like jumping I recall trying to be

Indian at day camp was disgusting our leader

told us kids make tipis, play Indian

I made an African hut, a long house

weaved of twigs & leaves, a basket house

to be proud of my Native-Land left overs

Geronimo, Cochise taught me to fight

(via rematiration-deactivated2013111)

Cultural Appropriation and the Native Adoptee

adailyriot:

I understand that my perspective on this issue will generally always come from a different perspective than most of the out spoken folks in Indian Country. After all, I did not grow up on a reservation, nor experience the “classic” urban native experience. I am a native woman who was adopted out when I was a baby. Some call people like me “lost birds” and “split feathers.” Folks like me have gone through the modern assimilation process that has taken over what the boarding and residential schools have done to our grand parents and other ancestors.

As we’ve seen in the past few weeks, Indian Country Today has graciously written about the issue of Indian Child Welfare and the fact that even today, despite the passage of ICWA in 1978 that was designed to stop 25% of all native children in the country being adopted out to non-native families, that the problem still persists. This past summer we were reminded of this with NPR’s report of 700 native children in South Dakota being adopted out of their communities in this past year alone. The year of my birth, 1988, ten years after the passage of the act, a study was done which found that during that time the rate which native children were being adopted out had risen to 35% of all native children in some states.

Unlike folks on the reservations whom have access to family and community members and resources if they want to learn and engage about their cultures, and unlike native kids growing up with their families in urban centers like Chicago with their American Indian Center, as native child adopted out to non-native parents, I did not have this access. Regardless of my disconnection to any sort of native community, it did not stop me from having a very strong pull to my roots and a drive to learn about my cultures.

Interestingly enough, as I found when I grew older, this connection and pull, this need that I felt even as a very young child to learn about my cultures and my people and engage in them wasn’t a unique thing that only I experienced. That feeling is felt by many native people who’ve been adopted out. Some call is Split Feather Syndrome, others say that it comes on due to the prayers of those who’ve prayed for those who’ve been adopted out so that they may return to their communities. Whatever it is, it’s real, and happens.

From my experience, sometimes that pull can be a heavy thing to carry. I reached out as a young child and throughout the entire course of my life to learn about my cultures. However when you’re removed, 500+ individual tribes and cultures get reduced down to 3, sometimes 4 tribes: Cherokee, Sioux, Navajo, and Apache. These 4 cultures/tribes get culturally reduced down to the appearance of what I would now call the dominate society’s tacky rendition of plains culture.

Removed, I had little access to legitimate representations of Lakota culture and Choctaw culture. Being ignorant, while fiercely proud of being native, I took every representation of native americans in the media and let them become me. After all, in my mind, costumes like the ones sold in Halloween stores and in the old westerns told me that THIS is what my ancestors dressed like… and if I wanted to be Native, I need to dress that way, talk those ways, act those ways, and dear god, I better also be sure sure my hair was straight, just like those Natives on TV, in the photos, ect. When you’re removed, and there’s no one there to tell you what is legitimate and what is a stereotype, how are you to know? I can tell you that the American public schools definitely will not. Popular media, as we know it right now, will not. Dr. Phil will not.

I am now nearly 24 years old and have been able to reconnect with native communities. I have been told by a native social worker, that it’s impressive that I’ve been able to do so at all, given that many children adopted out never are able to reconnect. I know the toll the native american costumes and the cultural appropriation of native cultures being sold in stores do. I know how the stereotypes that those costumes perpetuate can really screw up someone that’s been removed physiologically and “stunt” their growth. Too many times have I had to attempt to weed through what was real and what was a stereotype in my quest to reconnect as a Lakota and as a Choctaw person. These images do not make it easier.

As Kimberly Roppolo has said in her story Breeds and Outlaws, “You’d think, knowing the stories about the times we’re in, that folks would stop fighting about who’s more Indian. That for things to change, we all got to be resurrected, that this Ghost Dance is one of the living. Besides, if we’re going to “repatriate” artifacts, we ought to “rematriate” people .”

While it can never be reiterated enough that we need to make sure that ICWA is followed and interpreted by the Supreme Court and social welfare agencies the way it was intended to be interpreted, it should also be said that as native people, we should make sure that the way we are portrayed in the dominate media is correct. Negative representations of natives in the dominate culture have negative effects on native youth. Thus, stereotypes in the media have a negative effects on the future of native people. It is imperative that we continue to fight the stereotypes and educate people about this issue.



(via rematiration-deactivated2013111)

missionscalifornia.com
downlo:

A little more about the woman whose life story The Island of the Blue Dolphins was based on:
The ‘Lone Woman of San Nicolas Island’ was found in 1853 by Captain George Nidever. She had been living there by herself since 1835, the year her people were evacuated from the island. But she seemed healthy and happy when she was found:

According to Nidiver’s account, instead of running way “she smiled and bowed, chattering away to them in an unintelligible language.” She was “of medium height… about 50 years old but …still strong and active. Her face was pleasing as she was continually smiling… Her clothing consisted of but a single garment of skins.”

She was the last member of her tribe, the Nicoleño, and no one on the mainland could understand her language, not even other Indians who were also native to the Channel Islands. Unfortunately, she died of dysentery only seven weeks after she was brought to Santa Barbara. She was christened Juana Maria by a missionary priest, but her true name is unknown.
Her people, language, and name aren’t the only things that were lost to history. According to the Wiki article about her, her possessions, including her water basket, tools, and clothing “were part of the collections of the California Academy of Sciences, but were destroyed in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire.” The cormorant feather skirt was reportedly sent to the Vatican by priests, but it seems to have been lost. As well, the cave in which she dwelt for so many years hasn’t been located until now:

After more than twenty years of searching, a Navy archaeologist believes he has found the cave on San Nicolas Island occupied by The Lone Woman—better known to many as the protagonist of Scott O’Dell’s 1960 classic, Island of the Blue Dolphins. The Newberry Medal–winner was based on the true story of a Native American woman left behind when the rest of the Nicoleño tribe was evacuated from the channel islands by missionaries after the population was decimated by Russian fur traders; one story has it she returned to the island to search for her missing child.

According to the LA Times article about the discovery:

“We’re 90% sure this is the Lone Woman’s cave,” Schwartz told several hundred fellow researchers last week at the California Islands Symposium in Ventura. Further excavation is necessary, he said, adding that a crew of students has painstakingly removed about 40,000 buckets, or a million pounds, of sand from a cavern at least 75 feet long and 10 feet high.
In a separate discovery that also could shed light on the Lone Woman and her people, researchers stumbled across two redwood boxes poking through a steep, eroding cliff. The containers, probably made from recycled canoe planks and held together with the tar that washes onto island beaches, hold more than 200 stone blades, harpoon points, bone fishhooks and other implements.
[…]
It may never be known just who left the cache of tools, he said, but “it’s at least a reasonable hypothesis” that it was the Lone Woman, who is known to have stashed useful items at a number of places around the island.

downlo:

A little more about the woman whose life story The Island of the Blue Dolphins was based on:

The ‘Lone Woman of San Nicolas Island’ was found in 1853 by Captain George Nidever. She had been living there by herself since 1835, the year her people were evacuated from the island. But she seemed healthy and happy when she was found:

According to Nidiver’s account, instead of running way “she smiled and bowed, chattering away to them in an unintelligible language.” She was “of medium height… about 50 years old but …still strong and active. Her face was pleasing as she was continually smiling… Her clothing consisted of but a single garment of skins.”

She was the last member of her tribe, the Nicoleño, and no one on the mainland could understand her language, not even other Indians who were also native to the Channel Islands. Unfortunately, she died of dysentery only seven weeks after she was brought to Santa Barbara. She was christened Juana Maria by a missionary priest, but her true name is unknown.

Her people, language, and name aren’t the only things that were lost to history. According to the Wiki article about her, her possessions, including her water basket, tools, and clothing “were part of the collections of the California Academy of Sciences, but were destroyed in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire.” The cormorant feather skirt was reportedly sent to the Vatican by priests, but it seems to have been lost. As well, the cave in which she dwelt for so many years hasn’t been located until now:

After more than twenty years of searching, a Navy archaeologist believes he has found the cave on San Nicolas Island occupied by The Lone Woman—better known to many as the protagonist of Scott O’Dell’s 1960 classic, Island of the Blue Dolphins. The Newberry Medal–winner was based on the true story of a Native American woman left behind when the rest of the Nicoleño tribe was evacuated from the channel islands by missionaries after the population was decimated by Russian fur traders; one story has it she returned to the island to search for her missing child.

According to the LA Times article about the discovery:

“We’re 90% sure this is the Lone Woman’s cave,” Schwartz told several hundred fellow researchers last week at the California Islands Symposium in Ventura. Further excavation is necessary, he said, adding that a crew of students has painstakingly removed about 40,000 buckets, or a million pounds, of sand from a cavern at least 75 feet long and 10 feet high.

In a separate discovery that also could shed light on the Lone Woman and her people, researchers stumbled across two redwood boxes poking through a steep, eroding cliff. The containers, probably made from recycled canoe planks and held together with the tar that washes onto island beaches, hold more than 200 stone blades, harpoon points, bone fishhooks and other implements.

[…]

It may never be known just who left the cache of tools, he said, but “it’s at least a reasonable hypothesis” that it was the Lone Woman, who is known to have stashed useful items at a number of places around the island.

(via fuckyeahethnicwomen)

visionmakermedia
nativemedia:

As we all know and are excited for, November is Native American Heritage Month! How do you plan on celebrating?
To embrace this time of year check your local PBS listings to view Native Stories such as “Standing Bear’s Footsteps”, “GRAB”, “Racing the Rez”, “Sun Kissed”, “Smokin’ Fish”, “The Thick Dark Fog” and “Barking Water”!

nativemedia:

As we all know and are excited for, November is Native American Heritage Month! How do you plan on celebrating?

To embrace this time of year check your local PBS listings to view Native Stories such as “Standing Bear’s Footsteps”, “GRAB”, “Racing the Rez”, “Sun Kissed”, “Smokin’ Fish”, “The Thick Dark Fog” and “Barking Water”!

(via jalwhite)

Jewelry and Regalia Demonstrate the Power of Ornamentation - ICTMN.com

adailyriot:

Wearing striking bone breastplates, and with their fringed shawls draped over their arms, jewelry makers and elders Germaine Tremmel and Bird Mountain enter the powwow circle. It’s opening night—the grand entry of the Fort Randall Casino’s summer gathering, on the Yankton Sioux Reservation—and young women and men dance around the arena, demonstrating their athleticism and dexterity. But for Tremmel, Mountain and the group of older women they’re dancing among, it’s all about subtlety and reserve. The elders process slowly around the arena, which gives everyone a chance for a good look at their noble regalia, with its ornate embroidery and embellishments of silver, shell, turquoise and other precious materials.

LO RES AE Photo jewelry makers G B Jwlry 2 270x202 Jewelry and Regalia Demonstrate the Power of Ornamentation

Buffalo-bone pendant inlaid with coral and brass; necklace of chokecherry-seed, brass and tubular wooden beads.

Earlier, at their white farmhouse outside Lake Andes, South Dakota, Tremmel and Mountain showed me their jewelry-making workshop, Sacred Hoop Within. Buffalo bone is among the many Native American materials that are not just beautiful, according to Tremmel, who is Hunkpapa Lakota: “These materials also demonstrate the ancient economic, social and spiritual relationships of peoples all over Turtle Island, who traded bone, horn, turquoise, metals, stones, shells, and other items that they used in personal adornment, among other things. Through regalia, the exchange of wealth became a way to show high status and influence and to demonstrate agreements that nowadays we could call treaties.”

Tremmel, also an international lawyer who’s been involved in modern treaty and human-rights issues, shows me a jar of dentalia (tubular mollusk shells) from the Northwest. This longtime trade good was so prized it was considered a form of currency. “My niece gave me these, so you might say she made me wealthy in this way. I’m using them to make her a choker, ” she says.

LO RES AE Photo GB Jwlry4 270x202 Jewelry and Regalia Demonstrate the Power of Ornamentation

Tremmel holds a handful of dentalium shells; dentalium earrings and deer antler (used in other pieces) also pictured.

In addition to having historical meaning, many of the traditional materials express personal characteristics, Tremmel says: “For example, a woman who carries an obsidian or flint knife shows she’s industrious and self-sufficient. Other materials represent achievements or stages of life.”

Two materials they’ll never use, says Mountain, Dakota/Anishinabe, are gold and diamonds: “Too many of our people and others have died because of the mining of them.”

Tremmel’s and Mountain’s study of traditional iconography has uncovered some surprises, including a medicine wheel that doesn’t have the usual four equally sized quadrants, but rather narrower top and bottom segments that represent the celestial path of the Milky Way as well as a north-south terrestrial orientation, offering a multi-dimensional representation of the universe.

LO RES AE Photo jewelry makers G B Jwlry3 270x366 Jewelry and Regalia Demonstrate the Power of Ornamentation

Buffalo-bone pendant inlaid with turquoise; necklace of turquoise, vintage silver and buffalo-bone beads.

Best of all, people like wearing their jewelry. “Some tell us pieces we’ve made are their ‘power jewelry,’” says Tremmel. “That keeps us going. Everyone has something beautiful in them, and we’re happy when our work brings that out.”



(via rematiration-deactivated2013111)