Archives
INDIGENOUS INSTITUTE of the AMERICAS
INSTITUTO INDIGENA de las AMERICAS
INDN’s List Welcomes First Maggie Gover Fellow

We at INDN’s List are excited to introduce our first Maggie Gover Fellow. Georgetown undergraduate Kody Looper will bring energy and creativity to the team this summer in Tulsa.

Kody Looper, originally of Sallisaw, OK, is a rising junior majoring in government and history. Formerly a student at the University of Tulsa, Kody moved to Washington this spring to work for the reelection campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton while attending Georgetown University, where he has recently transferred. At TU, Kody served as president of the campus Young Democrats, opinion editor of the campus newspaper, and a student senator. Kody has also served as secretary of the GLBT caucus for the Young Democrats of America. A member of the Cherokee Nation, Kody’s e mbrace of unity through diversity and commitment to civic activism embody the tireless work of the late Maggie Gover, for whom the fellowship is named.

“Kody has already dedicated his education and a budding career to the causes for which Maggie stood firm: activism, awareness, justice, and fairness,” remarked Kalyn Free. “Maggie would be proud of this exceptional young Indian who has already been hard at work carrying on her huge legacy.”

As progressives, we must look always to the future, as we work to build a better America. The thoughtfulness, drive, and energy that young people bring to the civic space provide vision for that future and the will to get there. Young citizens are the future, and INDN’s List works hard to provide them the opportunities they need to succeed as public servants and civic leaders committed to progress.

Please support Kody and our future leaders, and honor the lifelong service of Maggie Gover, by contributing to the Maggie Gover Fellowship Fund.


COLUMN OF THE AMERICAS
BY ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ & PATRISIA GONZALES
MAY 15, 2006
“WHAT IS IT ABOUT ILLEGAL YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND?”

FIRST PERSON BY ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ

Anti-immigrants like to bandy about the phrase: What is it about illegal you don't understand? And they go ballistic at the thought of “amnesty” - at the thought of treating all human beings equally and humanely.

Here's a question that should help clarify the meaning of illegal: In U.S. history, which of the following were not simply common practice, but legal?

a) forced removal of native peoples and the theft of their lands.
b) slavery, segregation & racial discrimination and the denial of voting rights to women.
c) mass internment of U.S. citizens of Japanese descent and the mass repatriation of U.S. citizens of Mexican descent.

If you answered yes to all of them, you would be correct. But let's fast forward to 2006. Which country asserts the right to:

a) wage preemptive and permanent worldwide war against nations that do not pose an imminent threat?
b) secretly and indefinitely detain suspects incommunicado, without charges at home and also outside of its legal system, while exempting its military from the international war crimes tribunal and claiming that the Geneva Conventions on war do not apply to this nation?
c) spy on its own citizens outside of the law, and also asserts the right to use the military for domestic purposes?

If you guessed the United States -- right again. The U.S. formulation of what is legal/illegal emanates from its military arsenal. (Since the 1950s, the United States has overthrown dozens of legitimate governments and propped up brutal military dictatorships). President Bush is but carrying on a tradition that says that whatever he says is legal, is legal, or else.

Truthfully, that legal/illegal formulation- in relation to immigration -- can be traced to a much earlier era when Europeans first arrived on this continent.
Americans like to collectively forget/deny that Europeans never had the legal right to seize lands or peoples (as slaves or subjects). American Indian law scholar, Steven Newcomb has long argued (Five Hundred Years of Injustice) that EuroAmericans have never established a recognized international legal claim to any land in the Americas. The basis for such claims comes from the so-called doctrine of discovery and the Catholic papal bulls of the 15th & 16th centuries that “gave” European powers the “right “ to divide up and conquer the non-Christian world.

Law scholar Sharon Helen Venne (Our Elders Understand our Rights) also asserts that the institution of the law itself was created by Europeans to specifically deny indigenous peoples their humanity and their rights as human beings and as peoples, thus facilitating land theft and  attempts to eliminate and/or dehumanize native populations.

This history is the context of legality/illegality in regards to immigration. It includes a clearly illegal war against Mexico in the 1840s - a history that has treated Indians-Mexicans as demonic, uncivilized, criminal and now equates them with terrorism. The only reason immigration is illegal in relationship to Mexicans is because this society continues to view Mexicans - most of whom are indigenous-based peoples -- as subhuman. The book, Decade of Betrayal, (Balderrama & Rodriguez) reveals the inhumane anti-Mexican U.S. deportation policies during the 20th century.  Additionally an examination of laws regulating immigration from Canada and Mexico shows that they've always favored the northern border. Historically, Canadians were able to cross into the United States for six months, no questions asked. After those six months, there were no migra hunter battalions looking for them or other Europeans who had overstayed their visas. All sides fail to address the fact that 40 percent of the undocumented population comes in this way. Yet, government always finds a way to single out and hunt down Mexicans.

It's time to repeat the phrase: What is it about illegal you don't understand?

There actually is an alternative by way of the policies of the European Union that would solve this crisis overnight. All workers from member nations are eligible to work in each others' countries, without losing their rights, citizenship or humanity. 

Thus, we can clearly see that notions of illegality are arbitrary. As University of New Mexico scholar Margaret Montoya notes: All law is narrative. That's why if this nation wants to sign multinational agreements such as NAFTA (U.S., Canada and Mexico) or CAFTA (Central America) or the FTAA (Americas), then human beings cannot be left out of the equation. That's the narrative being inscribed in the jungles of Chiapas and by millions of people marching on U.S. streets -- that “no human being is illegal.”

Shall we debate the meaning of amnesty and who actually needs it?

© 2006 Column of the Americas

To reach us: XColumn@gmail.com - 608-238-3161 or Column of the Americas, PO BOX 5093 Madison WI 53705. Our bilingual columns are posted at: http://hometown.aol.com/xcolumn/myhomepage/

* For a copy of our trilingual Amoxtli San Ce Tojuan documentary, Cantos Al Sexto Sol and the Mud People, or more info re future screenings  contact us at XColumn@gmail.com - 608-238-3161 - or go to: http://hometown.aol.com/aztlanahuac/myhomepage/index.html



National Indian Education Association
110 Maryland Avenue, N.E.
Suite 104
Washington, D.C. 20002
P: (202) 544-7290 / F: (202) 544-7293

May 11, 2006
Broadcast #06-026

NIEA Survey on Title VII of No Child Left Behind

The National Indian Education Association would like to hear from you regarding Title VII of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (Title VII) and how it is working within your schools. NIEA is collecting specific information on any program challenges or obstacles in implementing programs under Title VII that meet the educational and culturally related academic needs of American Indian/Alaskan Native/Native Hawaiian children.

NIEA plans to use your survey responses in a testimony for a possible oversight hearing on Indian education before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in mid-May. Your participation in this survey will also be helpful in a follow up to last year's field hearings on the No Child Left Behind Act. Please take a few moments to answer the  following questions. Your insight will provide valuable information that will be considered as NIEA continues to prepare for the reauthorization of NCLB.  Email your feedback to niea@niea.org or to Lillian Sparks, Executive Director at lsparks@niea.org.

  • Please describe the types of programs and services your school provides through funding under Title VII of the No Child Left Behind Act.
  • Please advise on any challenges to your educational plan or directives that have been given when trying to implement Title VII programs that meet the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of Native students.
  • Please advise if your school has been instructed to use Title VII funding to support programs that do not meet the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of Native students.
  • Please advise if your school has been instructed to use Title VII funding to support programs that should be supported by funding from other Titles within the No Child Left Behind Act.
  • Please advise if your school has made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). If your school has not made AYP, please advise if this has impacted how you are able to provide programs under Title VII. Also, if you could, please explain the reasons that your school did not make AYP, especially as it relates to the needs of Native students.
  • Please advise on how your Title VII program is achieving positive results or is assisting Native students in positive ways.  
  • Please provide any additional information you may feel is helpful.


If possible, please provide your responses to Jack Soto of NIEA at niea@niea.org or by fax at (202) 544-7293 by May 10th so review of the information can be incorporated it into the testimony on Indian Education.  NIEA will send additional information about the upcoming hearing on education once information is made available.  NIEA thanks you for your participation in this survey!

Wiciwen Niw Kenewak (Accompanied by the Four Eagles)
English:  Nicky Bowman (Mohican)
Owner, Bowman Performance Consulting LLC Certified 8A, Native
American, & No Child Left Behind Firm www.nbowmanconsulting.com
715-526-9240 phone
715-526-6028 fax



BRAZIL: Indigenous Peoples' Conference at Odds with Government
Mario Osava - InterPress News Service Agency
May 6, 2006

RIO DE JANEIRO, Apr 19 (IPS) - The first National Conference of Indigenous Peoples in Brazil made little progress on defining specific policies and was sharply criticised by some leaders, but it opened up new possibilities for dialogue between the government and indigenous peoples.

Some 800 representatives of Brazil's more than 220 ethnic [indigenous] groups took part in the conference that ended Wednesday in Brasilia. However, its legitimacy was called into question by a motion approved a week earlier by 550 leaders at the "Indigenous April" Camp, also held in the capital.

The conference, which began on Apr. 12, was convened by the National Foundation for Indigenous People (FUNAI), the government agency in charge of indigenous affairs. The motion accused FUNAI of organising the conference solely in the interests of maintaining its own paternalist position as 'guardian' over indigenous people.

But the participation of important leaders and members of the country's numerous indigenous communities led the two largest associations - the Coordenacão das Organizações Indígenas da Amaz- nia Brasileira (COIAB) and the Articulação dos Povos Indígenas do Nordeste, Minas Gerais e Espírito Santo (APOINME) - to tone down their criticism, and confrontation was avoided.

The conference deliberations have not been rejected out of hand, but will be evaluated at COIAB's eighth general assembly, which may or may not approve them, the organisation's general coordinator, Jecinaldo Cabral, told IPS.

The COIAB assembly will take place Apr. 21-25 in the Raposa Serra do Sol indigenous reserve, demarcated one year ago after three decades of struggle, in the northern state of Roraima. The venue was chosen because it is "a symbol of the struggle of Amazonian and Brazilian indigenous peoples," Cabral said.

The main criticism of the "FUNAI Conference" is that it is being held in the last year of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's term, rather than in his first year, 2003, as promised and agreed with the indigenous people's movement, Cabral emphasised. Instead of a debate that would have set guidelines for his administration, the government has left it to the end, "a deplorable situation, causing division amongst indigenous people," he said.

In spite of the question as to how representative it was, the conference ended with some "positive gains," according to Ricardo Verdum, adviser on indigenous and environmental policies at the non-governmental Institute of Socioeconomic Studies.

The conference ratified the creation of a National Indigenous Policy Commission, to discuss policy approaches with wide participation by indigenous representatives. And it was agreed that an indigenous 'parliament' will be established as a representative forum of all the peoples, which will be able to enter into dialogue with Brazil's national legislature.

The conference also wanted FUNAI to be strengthened, and an indigenous person to be made president for the first time in the history of the agency. A proposal to expand FUNAI and raise it to the level of a ministry did not achieve consensus, and is an idea that needs "maturing," said Verdum, who was present at the debates.

The meeting created a "new space for discussion and interaction among indigenous people," many of whom are dispersed and not organised, he commented. For example, participants began to discuss forming an organisation of indigenous peoples in the south of the country, he said.

But one decision that was important to the government was not taken: an agreement to support a draft law to regulate mining on indigenous lands. Conference participants decided to postpone the debate for a year, so that their communities can analyse the proposal and suggest additions or amendments.

This was an intelligent move, exercising the "precautionary principle and demanding time," said Saulo Feitosa, vice president of the Indianist Missionary Council, linked to the Catholic Church. Opening up indigenous lands to extractive mining would only benefit mining companies, which have been lobbying for this for decades, he said.

The proposal to regulate mining has been under debate for two years, following the killing of 29 diamond miners by Cintas Largas Indians, whose land they had invaded. Mining companies are interested in many areas, and the state mining regulator has around 38,000 requests pending for licences to explore on indigenous lands, Feitosa said.

In spite of the questions raised about the way it was organised, the conference ended in a "triumph for indigenous peoples," showing the government that it cannot base its indigenous policy "on general, uniform principles," since it is "dealing with separate, specific cultures," he said.

The differences between indigenous leaders with respect to the conference did not ultimately cause a rift, either, because indigenous peoples "are opposed to divisions" that would accentuate their vulnerability as minorities, and in the final analysis "they are all related to one another," he remarked.

However, some fundamental questions, such as the security of their land rights, the autonomy they aspire to, and the issue of health care, which is in "a chaotic state," have remained unresolved, Feitosa added.

The conference was "a new experience" for Brazilian indigenous people, because the system whereby representatives make decisions, as delegates, for the rest of the people is alien to their traditions, which do not recognise such delegation of powers, said Marcos Terena, president of the Inter-Tribal Committee.

The Lula administration made "yet another mistake" in asking a few hundred "delegates" to legitimise a proposal on mining that runs counter to indigenous rights, he argued.

FUNAI has estimated the indigenous population of Brazil at 450,000 people, not counting urban dwellers who described themselves as indigenous in the national census taken by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics in 2000. According to the census results, there are 734,000 indigenous people in Brazil, out of a total population of 186 million.




I*L*L*E*G*A*L SPELLS APARTHEID
By Roberto Rodriguez

Wasn't it Howard Dean who predicted last year that 2006 would be the year that conservatives would use the issue of immigration as a subterfuge to distract the nation from focusing on the administration's incompetence and immoral and illegal behavior.

Wasn't he again deemed deranged for making such a suggestion?

Yet, could even he have predicted the current nationwide protests involving millions in the entire state of California, Chicago, Milwaukee, Phoenix, Denver, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta & Washington D.C.?

These protests -- which are actually just beginning -- are not simply in response to  draconian immigration bills that would treat migrants as felons and that would put up hundreds of miles of Berlin-style walls. They are actually about rejecting the codification of not simply apartheid laws, but an apartheid form of government.

This is not hyperbole or a misspelling; A*P*A*R*T*H*E*I*D is a legal system that produces two types of human beings. Those with rights and those without. Under this system, as a society, we have grown comfortable with creating a two-tiered society of citizens and non-citizens. Or better yet, with full-fledged citizens and dehumanized, expendable illegal aliens.

Even the allies of undocumented workers remand them to occupying a position in society to “the jobs no one wants.” In other words, they are being consigned either as a permanent illegal criminal alien caste… or to simply occupying a permanent subhuman caste.

They're already treated as criminal aliens. They already live in shadows. (Even in protest, they're supposed to hide their flags).

But it's not about race, right? Yet, who would have predicted that in the land  touted as the pinnacle of democracy that a  society would remand millions of red-brown human beings to such a status, to such a caste?

And they wonder why we're outraged and why we protest?

The reason is called apartheid. All under the guise of the Sensenbrenner subterfuge. His proposals are so outrageous (where even good Samaritans become criminals), that apartheid has become the moderate and sensible alternative.

Apartheid goes by another name; B*R*A*C*E*R*O. The workers take the work that employers claim no one else wants. They are prohibited from unionizing. They work under subhuman wages and conditions. They cannot switch jobs. They cannot bring their families with them. And when their labor is used up, they are sent home. (They can clean up and manicure the homes of the middle class; they just can't live in the same neighborhoods, or the same country.)

What if braceros decide to change occupations and attend community college? No, braceros cannot go to college, though they may be given the right to go to school to forget their language and to reject their culture. Will they be permitted to fall in love and get married?

BRACERO is coolie labor. It is racialized indentured servitude. It is modern-day slave labor. Bracero labor is millions of red-brown workers consigned to a semi-permanent, subhuman status. It is semi-permanent only because when their labor is used up, they must go back to where they came from. Congress has a different name for them: Guest workers.  Not workers, not citizens, not full human beings. Just guests. Unwanted guests.

And people wonder why we protest?

And what of those that remain outside of this generous apartheid scheme? Congress has figured that one out too; hunter battalions and internal checkpoints, charged with finding 12 million red-brown peoples. Soon, we will see mass deportation raids. Or perhaps we will not be permitted to see them on television.

How did this all come about? The Minutemen? Lou Dobbs? Congressman Tancredo? Sen. Sensenbrenner? The war on terror? Fear of brown hordes?

All subterfuge. All part of the strategy to create a nation of fear. Designed to bring about a militarized apartheid state.

Rather than actually solving this issue - by incorporating them as full members of society, as was the promise of NAFTA -- let's instead give this apartheid labor scheme another, more palatable name. That'll fix everything.

Rodriguez writes the Column of the Americas and can be reached at: XColumn@gmail.com or 608-238-3161