VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09:35:56 06/27/01 Wed
Author: Anonymous
Subject: NEWS AND ISSUES

Native broadcasters honored

Staff and correspondents at Anchorage-based Koahnic Broadcast Corp. took several top awards for national radio programming last week at the Native American Journalists Association Convention in Buffalo, N.Y.

Bernadette Chato, host and producer of National Native News, received first place for best radio news story and honorable mention for best overall radio news reporting. NNN correspondents in South Dakota and Illinois took the top overall radio news reporting award and first place in the best news story by a non-native reporter.

The show received an honorable mention for best ongoing radio program.

Wishelle Banks, producer for national radio show Native America Calling, won first place in best feature writing for her work on the magazine Indian Cinema Entertainment.

Koahnic Broadcast Corp. also operates KNBA FM 90.3 and a training center.



EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: 27 JUNE 2001 AT 00:01 ET US
Contact: Ann Cairns
acairns@geosociety.org
303-447-2020 x1156
Geological Society of America

Healing the waters: A holistic Native American Indian approach

For the Pacific Northwest Indian tribes, integrating spirituality and science is a practical reality and a way to keep precious resources vibrant for future generations.

The tribes have been in this area for thousands of years and have relied on the nearby water for their mainstay of fish, clams, oysters, crabs, and mussels. They also found food in cattail tubers and the bulbs of water lilies. They were fishers par excellence and experts at building canoes. But now, water pollution and development threatens this precious source on which their way of life depends.

That's why the Suquamish Tribe (Chief Sealth aka Chief Seattle's Tribe) and the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe asked geologists to help them manage water quality through a long-term approach. These tribes have reservations on a large peninsula in the central portion of Puget Sound. Their vision is to implement programs to protect their water resources for at least seven generations.

David R. Fuller is a water resources manager and hydrogeologist for the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. He will provide an overview of the water quality issues as well as the approaches, projects, and activities these two tribes have taken to address their water concerns at Earth Systems Processes on Thursday, June 28, in Edinburgh, Scotland. The Geological Society of America and the Geological Society of London will co-convene the June 24-28 meeting.

One example Fuller will present is the wetland monitoring program. The Suquamish Tribe established staff gauges and monitoring wells in this upland wetland. The project included weekly water level measurements, precipitation monitoring, and basic water quality monitoring for 18 months to establish changes in hydrology and quality. Wetland vegetation was mapped and impervious surface areas were determined with GIS and GPS to assist in the analysis of the changes in water quality and quantity in the wetland as a function of increased impervious surfaces from development in the watershed. The monitoring is continuing with renewed interest this year due to drought conditions in Washington. The tribe is implementing recommendations for wetland and watershed protection and best management practices to pro-actively protect the water and its cultural resources (i.e., wetland plants and animals) that the tribe has traditionally used.

A second example is the Port Gamble S'Klallam tribe's review and analysis of a closed, up gradient, off-reservation unlined and leaking landfill. In this case, the toxic plume daylights from the unconfined aquifer on the Port Gamble S'Klallam Indian Reservation as the headwaters of small creeks. The creeks then flow less than one half mile into shellfish beds in Port Gamble Bay. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is working with the State of Washington, the landowner, and the landfill operator to remediate the problem.

And a third example is a watershed study to help protect the largest native salmon run in central Puget Sound from land-use and development pressures. A sidelight of this project was documentation of the structural control of the drainages supporting this salmon run. This project is similar to most of the other tribal projects in that it's long-term and strives to be pro-active in nature.

"Tribal activities and technical participation have made definite impact to regional water resource programs," Fuller said. "The Suquamish and Port Gamble S'Klallam tribes have provided leadership roles on local, county, and State water resources studies, water resource planning committees, and technical advisory committees."

One of the most effective models Fuller will mention is the Coordinated Tribal Water Quality Program. Under the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, this program has been effective in stretching limited financial resources and facilitating inter-tribal technical communication.

"We will provide the professional community with a recognition that tribes are out there using science and have both data and understanding to contribute to the environmental and scientific community," Fuller explained. "My perspective on the tribal approach and direction I have received is to look at the big picture and long time frame. Most of my 'clientele' hasn't been born yet and won't be for some time to come!"



###
CONTACT INFORMATION

During the Earth System Processes meeting, June 25-28, contact the GSA/GSL Newsroom at the Edinburgh International Conference Centre for assistance and to arrange for interviews: 44-131-519-4134

Ted Nield, GSL Science and Communications Officer
Ann Cairns, GSA Director of Communications

The abstract for this presentation is available at:
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2001ESP/finalprogram/abstract_4631


A broken treaty haunts the Black Hills
By STEVE YOUNG
Argus Leader

published: 6/27/01

RAPID CITY -- Rick Two Dogs leans against his pickup
in the forested hills west of Rapid City, lulled by
the saw-blade cadence of a tree cutter and the sight
of a white ash falling in the distance.

Each spring, the Oglala medicine man travels here to
the sacred Paha Sapa, or Black Hills, to harvest tipi
poles for his annual July sun dance on the Pine Ridge
Reservation. It's like coming home again, Two Dogs
says, to what the Lakota believe is the womb of Mother
Earth.

"All of our origin stories go back to this place," he
says as the tall, slender trees continue to fall
nearby. "We have a ... spiritual connection to the
Black Hills that can't be sold. I don't think I could
face the creator with an open heart if I ever took
money for it."

Yet 125 years after the Great White Father broke his
treaty promises to the Sioux and illegally confiscated
the gold-rich Black Hills, a pot of money now worth
$544 million is all that is being offered in return.

Sioux ownership of the land is gone, given away to
towns and cities, sprawling commercialism and
government-run forests and parks. Now to

drive into the woods and cut down trees --as his
ancestors once did freely --Two Dogs needs a permit.
While he readily complies, it still doesn't seem right
to him.

"I don't believe we ever gave up the land," he says.
"Technically, if you look at the treaties, what it
reads is that we rented the Black Hills to the whites.
We never said we were going to sell it. And we never
did."

Few issues in Indian-white relations today are more
charged than the taking of the Black Hills. Throughout
history, the two sides have shed blood over it. They
have paid lawyers to fight over it. They have argued
about it before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In fact, on June 30, 1980, after decades of legal
wrangling, the high court upheld an award to the Great
Sioux Nation of $17.1 million for the illegal taking
of the Black Hills, plus $88 million in interest.
Since then, that total has multiplied five-fold.

Yet 21 years after that decision, the money remains
untapped in the U.S. Treasury as the Sioux hold out
for return of the land.

"This is just my opinion, but I believe that the
tribes would like to resolve this claim in a fair and
honorable manner," says Mario Gonzalez, a tribal
attorney for the Oglala Sioux Tribe who worked on the
Black Hills claims issue.

"The only way that can be accomplished is through a
negotiated political settlement through the U.S.
Congress. And any settlement must include land
restoration as well as monetary compensation for the
denial of the absolute and undisturbed use and
occupation of the Black Hills as guaranteed under
Article II of the 1868 treaty."

Treaty history

Such usage was promised to the Lakota 133 years ago in
return for their agreement to allow safe passage of
settlers and travelers through their homelands on the
way to gold fields in California, Colorado and
Montana.

Until about 1850, white America hadn't shown much
interest in what it called the "Great American Desert"
on the Northern Plains. Undisturbed Indian occupancy
of the area was assumed.

But that view changed with the discovery of gold, the
Mormon migration to Utah and the opening of Oregon.
When California became a state in 1850, establishing a
secure route west became a priority for federal
lawmakers.

The government accomplished that in 1851 with the
signing of the Fort Laramie Treaty. Some 10,000
Indians representing 12 tribes came to the fort to
negotiate. A settlement was reached on Sept. 17 of
that year.

In exchange for allowing the government to establish
roads and military posts along the Oregon-California
Trail, they were promised undisturbed use of the land
north and south of the trail.

They also were promised $50,000 in goods a year for 50
years because of previous damage done to their lands
--the killing of their game, the using up of their
scarce wood supplies and the deadly cholera and
smallpox brought by the white man.

But the U.S. Senate trimmed the annuity from 50 to 10
years before ratifying the treaty. That didn't sit
well with the Sioux.

Settlers ignored the boundaries of Indian territory,
and when gold was discovered in southwestern Montana
in 1862, prospectors and settlers started following a
route across eastern Wyoming that became known as the
Bozeman Trail, bringing the same problems.

The government also built military posts along the
trail, and through 1866 and 1867, the forts were under
a virtual state of siege by the Indians. Traffic on
the trail was in constant danger.

Congress, caught up in the costs of Civil War
reconstruction and battling a debilitating recession
along the eastern seaboard, attempted to pursue a
"policy of peace."

That meant providing for a concentration of the Plains
Indians in two large reserves. The Northern Plains
tribes would be concentrated north of the North Platte
Valley. The Southern Plains tribes would occupy the
area south of the Arkansas River. The Black Hills were
conceded to the Sioux as part of the northern reserve.
And the Bozeman Trail and the forts along it would be
abandoned.

Numerous attempts were made to push the idea in
councils with the tribes at Fort Laramie. But Red
Cloud and others refused to participate until the
forts and the Bozeman Trail were removed.

In April 1868, the treaty commission made one more
attempt. Again, few Indians showed up. But Spotted
Tail and a few other Brule leaders did eventually come
to the fort and "touch their pens" to the original
draft. That became the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie.

In addition to promising protection from intrusion
from non-Indians and provisions such as clothing, food
and health care, the government guaranteed the Sioux
absolute and undisturbed use of present-day western
South Dakota, including the Black Hills.

It also agreed that no part of the Great Sioux
Reservation could be ceded away unless three-fourths
of all adult males consented. In return, the Sioux
would give up the right to occupy land outside the
reservation, though they could still hunt buffalo in
eastern Wyoming and Montana, and would allow
construction of railroads.

In many ways, it was a flawed agreement. For one
thing, the treaty leaves the impression that the
Oglala, Minneconjou, Hunkpapa and Blackfeet bands of
Lakota all signed the document when Spotted Tail did.
Some Oglala eventually did sign. But many of those
represented on the treaty did not.

According to David Miller, a former history professor
at Black Hills State University, the treaty was taken
to Chicago from Fort Laramie for Gen. Phil Sheridan,
commander of Military Division of the Missouri, to
review.

Concerned it would limit military operations -- and
convinced a showdown was inevitable -- Sheridan had an
addition made, Miller has written. Called "the Chicago
rewrite," the new language stipulated that the Sioux
would not oppose the "construction of railroads, wagon
trains, mail stations or other works of utility or
necessity which may be ordered or permitted by the
laws of the U.S."

Miller wrote there is no evidence that the bands of
Indians who signed onto the treaty ever knew that
language was added. But years later, the Army argued
that the "works of necessity" clause justified Lt.
Col. George Custer's expedition into the Black Hills
in 1874 looking for sites for a military post, Miller
says.

On top of all that, because the tribal leaders
involved in the treaty negotiations were illiterate,
they were dependent on the spoken word of interpreters
for their understanding of the treaty.

"Chances that all the bands of Indians influenced by
the 1868 treaty had the same understanding of the
document are not very great," Miller wrote.
"Therefore, it could be argued that almost from its
inception, the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 was
misunderstood and never provided a valid point of
departure for ethical and moral questions concerning
the taking of the Black Hills."

The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on Feb. 16, 1869.
But peace would be short-lived.

Gold in the Hills

In July 1874, Custer was ordered out of Fort Abraham
Lincoln near Bismarck with 1,200 men on a 60-day
reconnaissance of the Black Hills for potential
military fort sites. It would be the first major
violation of the 1868 treaty.

On July 30, 1874, two miners found placer gold in
French Creek. The rush to western Dakota Territory was
on. For the next 17 months, the military fought a
constant battle trying to keep miners out of the hills
--and trying to prevent the Lakota from attacking
those that got through.

Miners poured in by the hundreds. Those who were
caught were escorted out by the soldiers. Few were
ever prosecuted.

White America seemed to have little regard for the
Sioux's claim to the land. Editors at newspapers from
Sioux City, Iowa, to Sidney, Neb. -- including the
Sioux Falls Independent -- saw the financial
possibilities of their cities becoming the jumping-off
point for the gold fields. So they promoted the
possibility.

Growing frustration

Gen. Sheridan complained about the double duty of
protecting settlements from raids by hostile Indians
while dealing with the illegal occupation of the Black
Hills by miners.

In fact, it was those Indian hostilities, caused in
large part by white incursions into the Black Hills,
that helped to fuel the animosities that exploded on
the battlefield at the Little Bighorn on June 25,
1876.

President Ulysses S. Grant apparently shared
Sheridan's frustrations. In a Nov. 3, 1875, meeting
with Sheridan and several cabinet leaders in
Washington, D.C., the president made a decision that
ultimately figured heavily in the Supreme Court's 1980
ruling that the Black Hills were taken illegally.

"... the President decided that while the orders
heretofore issued forbidding the occupation of the
Black Hills country by miners should not be rescinded,
still no further resistance by the military should be
made to the miners going in; it being his belief that
such resistance ... complicated the troubles,"
Sheridan wrote in a confidential memo to Gen. Alfred
Terry afterward.

In other words, the government admitted it was going
to violate the 1868 treaty, says Mark Leutbecker, a
researcher with Nicklason Research Associates in
Arlington, Va., who helped the Sioux in their case.
"The Sheridan letter resulted in proof of a ...
taking, the only time that happened in the history of
the Indian Claims Commission," Leutbecker says. "It
really exposes an incredible government conspiracy."

Call off your men, Grant told Sheridan. And get the
Sioux and Cheyenne to sell their rights to the Black
Hills. To assist in the cause, Congress passed the
Sioux Appropriation Bill in August 1876 that said,
basically, either the Sioux signed away their claim to
the Black Hills and Powder River country or they would
lose promises of food and other provisions forever.

Hungry and malnourished, many Sioux did sign. But
tribal lawyer Gonzalez says it fell far short of the
three-fourths of adult males required, and probably
numbered closer to 10 percent.

By the fall of 1876, the government had all the
signatures it was going to collect. Congress made the
taking of the Black Hills official on Feb. 28, 1877.

What followed was decades of legal wrangling over the
issue. In 1920, Congress passed an act allowing the
Sioux to submit claims before the Court of Claims
specifying that the Black Hills were illegally taken.
The Sioux did so in 1923, but in 1942, the Court of
Claims dismissed their grievance, saying it didn't
have jurisdiction.

In 1946, Congress established the Indian Claims
Commission to hear Indian complaints about property
improperly taken. It allowed the Sioux to resubmit
their claim, but stressed that they could only sue for
monetary compensation, not for the land.

Three decades of legal maneuvering followed until
1974, when the Indian Claims Commission decided the
Sioux were entitled to $17.1 million for reimbursement
and interest of 5 percent from the time the land was
taken.

In 1979, that decision was affirmed by the Court of
Claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed it on
June 30, 1980.

Land, not money

The trouble is, the Sioux don't want the money. In
fact because so much time has passed, Gonzalez says
Congress would have to reauthorize the payment now if
the Sioux decided to take it.

Which they have no intention of doing, says Johnson
Holy Rock, an 83-year-old Oglala elder whose father,
Jonas, survived the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

"It's a healing place, a nurturing place, for us,"
Holy Rock, of Pine Ridge, says. "Red Cloud used to
say, 'A man almost on the verge of death could go into
those hills in the fall and not come out all winter,
and when he did finally come out, he'd be fat and
robust and saved from starvation and totally healthy.'


"It's always been that way. That's why the buffalo
would go into the hills in the fall. And that's what
we want returned."

Sen. Bill Bradley proposed in a 1985 bill that the
government return 1.3 million acres --about one-fifth
of the Black Hills --to the Sioux, along with monetary
compensation. It wasn't the towns Bradley intended to
give back, but the land held through the parks, forest
service and Bureau of Land Management.

"We're not interested in taking people's homes," says
Oliver Red Cloud of Pine Ridge, great-grandson of
Chief Red Cloud. "The only thing that changes is
instead of the taxes and fees being paid to the
government for the minerals and forest, that will go
to the tribes."

It also would have meant that any use of the Black
Hills would have been based on Lakota respect for the
earth. That means sacred areas like Bear Butte and
Harney Peak could have been temporarily closed for
Lakota religious or ceremonial activities.

Bradley's bill made little headway in Congress, in
large part because of opposition from South Dakota's
congressional delegation. A similar bill introduced by
Rep. Mathew Martinez of California in 1990 also went
nowhere. No further legislation has been introduced.

There have been, however, more radical efforts by the
Lakota to reclaim their land.

On April 4, 1981, the Dakota American Indian Movement
established a settlement called Yellow Thunder, 12
miles southwest of Rapid City, to dramatize their
demand.

The 800-acre site was supposed to become a permanent
Indian religious, cultural and educational community.
But it was framed in controversy, including an
incident in July 1982 when a Rapid City resident was
shot to death by an alleged camp member. Ultimately,
the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from
the Lakota, who were denied a special-use Forest
Service permit for the camp.

The same summer that Yellow Thunder was established,
1981, a group of 100 Oglala Sioux --many of them
elderly -- set up a camp on the north edge of Wind
Cave National Park to dramatize their claim to the
area.

This time the group was granted a 14-day camping
permit from the National Park Service. And the
occupation went peacefully.

What next?

How reasonable is it to think the Lakota might ever
get all or part of the land back? In September 1993, a
poll by Political/Media Research of Washington, D.C.,
found that 26 percent of South Dakotans favored
returning unoccupied federal lands in the Black Hills
to the Sioux people; 58 percent opposed it and 10
percent were undecided. Tribal officials viewed those
numbers with optimism.

"I am very pleased with the poll because it indicates
that we are making progress," Gonzalez said at the
time. "If the same poll was taken in 1980, my guess is
that only 1 or 2 percent ... would have favored
returning federally held lands."

Even now, many Lakota see promise in the attitudes of
their white brethren. For example, discussions are
going on among state Game, Fish and Parks officials,
lawmakers and tribal people about the use of Bear
Butte near Sturgis and land around it.

For decades, GF&P officials have looked at purchasing
land around Bear Butte as a buffer against
commercialization. Such a buffer would preserve the
site's tranquility for tribal people who practice
traditional religious rites there, says Webster Two
Hawk, commissioner of the state Tribal Government
Relations office.

The GF&P officials also are looking at other options
including asking the public to limit use of the hiking
trail at Bear Butte in June, a peak month for
religious use, and directing hikers to an educational
program abut religious use at Bear Butte.

To many Lakota people, that's a start. But it is only
a raindrop in the vast and complex sea of issues
enveloping the Black Hills.

Teaching the young

Perhaps one of the great challenges facing the Lakota
today and tomorrow is connecting their future
generations to the significance of the past of the
Paha Sapa.

For if they can't, will the lure of millions, maybe
even billions of dollars in the U.S. Treasury override
any attachment their parents and grandparents had to
the land?

"You can only speculate about future generations,"
Gonzalez says. "Over time, people die and new
generations come into existence, and it's the
long-term plan of the U.S. government that ties to the
old ways will eventually diminish upon the passing of
several generations.

"What they hope is that at some point in the future,
the ties to the old ways will only be a remembrance.
And thereafter, new generations will have more loyalty
to the U.S. government than the Sioux government. At
that point, the 'conquest' will be completed."

It's up to the Sioux people to determine whether that
happens or not. The education process is occurring,
says Faith Taken Alive of McLaughlin, who works with
Standing Rock Reservation's schools to teach students
about the treaties and the old ways.

"The Black Hills is not just the Rushmore Mall in
Rapid City to our young people," Taken Alive says.
"It's not the shrine of hypocrisy at Mount Rushmore.
It's not Crazy Horse Mountain.

"We tell our young people that. They understand the
meaning of what the Black Hills is once they've been
to Bear Butte."

They understand it is a sacred place, a land rich,
nurturing and sustaining, Rick Two Dogs says. And that
lesson is learned as simply as cutting down a white
ash tree in the forest outside of Rapid City to be
used as a tipi pole in a sun dance.

"When we visit sacred sites, or do things like this,
we're part of that same spiritual journey that our
forefathers did long ago," Two Dogs says. "Accepting
money for the land is like giving all of that away.
How could we do that? How could we ever do it?"

Reach reporter Steve Young at syoung@argusleader.com
or 331-2306

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.