From gars@netcom.com Wed Oct 6 16:14:03 1999 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:53:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Gary Night Owl To: Internet Recipients of Wotanging Ikche Subject: Wotanging Ikche--nanews07.041 _ __ _____ __ _ __ ___ ____ _ __ ___ O ' ) / / ') / / ) ' ) ) / ) / ' ) ) / ) O o O / / / / / / /--/ / / / ___ / / / / ___ O o O (_(_/ (__/ ( / (_ / (_ (___/ '__/_ / (_ (___/ ' O o o o o O ____ _ , ___ _ , ___ VOLUME 07, ISSUE 041 O o O / ' ) / / ) ' ) / / ' October 9, 1999 O o O / /-< / /--/ /-- Klamath leaves full moon O __/_ / ) (___/ / ( (___, Potawatomi moon of the first frost KANOHEDA ANIYVWIYA Ha-Sah-Sliltha Otapi'sin Atsinikiisinaakssin Un Chota Es'te Opunvk'vmucvse ni-mah-mi-kwa-zoo-min Aunchemokauhettittea Ximopanolti tehuatzin, inin Mexika tlahtolli ( N A T I V E A M E R I C A N N E W S ) This issue contains articles from Paths-L & Big Mountain Lists; Newsgroup:alt.native; UUCP email; KOLA Newslist; http://www.dickshovel.com/annalay.html http://www.dickshovel.com/bhpress.html http://www.nps.gov/plants/index.htm http://www.doi.gov/bia/aitoday/q_and_a.html Articles appearing have been previously posted for public dissemination and/or permission for inclusion has been secured. Letters of authorization are on file. A list of those granting permission to repost their words in this issue are listed at the end of part A. I thank each of you for allowing your words to be shared with the people. IMPORTANT!! ----------- To all who send copywrite protected articles, make very sure you have permission from the copywrite holder (a newspaper, the AP, a magazine, an author) because a new law is now in effect that says you can be prosecuted even if there is no monetary gain. Just because a newspaper has a website where it posts some or all of its editions does not grant permission for their redistribution. Be careful and be sure you pass on the items you do with full permission. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, all material appearing in this newsletter is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for educational purposes. <----<<<< >>>>----> This newsletter is a way of keeping the brothers and sisters who share our Spirit informed about current events within the lives of those who walk the Red Road. ++ It may be subscribed to via email by sending a request from your own internet addressable account to gars@netcom.com ++ It is archived at http://www.nanews.org ++ There is also a hyperlinked version of the Current Issue at http://bearvisions.com/NativeNews/NEWS.html Borries Demeler advises AISESnet doesn't exist anymore, instead there is now NativeNet where people can search for archives of Wotanging Ikche issues: _ All past AISESnet archives (1992-1998) can now be found in: http://aises.uthscsa.edu/discussion/ _ All new messages will be archived in: http://nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nn-dialogue/archive.html The mailing address for AISESnet/NativeNet the lists have changed. Please make a note of the new address. The old address aisesnet_discussion@listserv.umt.edu should *NOT* be used any longer. Instead please use: nn-dialogue@nativenet.uthscsa.edu Downloading Wotanging Ikche on AOL From: MAANG1419@aol.com Just thought I would share some info. I could not download on to a .txt because I kept getting the message (when I tried to retrieve it) that the text editor could not handle the volume. This time I downloaded it on to a .doc and when I retrieved it out of file manager, IT WORKED. "Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children." __ Ancient Proverb +- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -+ | Indian Pledge of Allegiance | The Indian Pledge of Alleg- | | iance was first presented | I pledge allegiance to my Tribe,| on 2 December '93 during the | to the democratic principles | opening address of the Nat- | of the Republic | ional Congress of American | and to the individual freedoms | Indian Tribal-States Relat- | borrowed from the Iroquois and | ions Panel in Reno, NV. NCAI | Choctaw Confederacies, | plans distribution of the | as incorporated in the United | Indian Pledge to all Indian | States Constitution, | Nations. | so that my forefathers | | shall not have died in vain | Walk in Beauty! Night Owl +- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -+ +- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -+ | Journey | In the summer and early fall | The Bloodline | of 1998 the Treaty Unity Riders | | rode a thousand miles on horse- | For all that live and live by law | back, carrying a staff and | We Stand, we Call, We Ride | praying each step of the way. | For All that fear and fear by sight | | We Hear, we Listen, we Ride | These prayers were offered for | For all that pray and pray by strength| each of us, and that the Unity | We Feel, we Move, we Ride | of all Peoples might happen. | For all that die and die by greed | | We Hurt, we Cry, we Ride | Tatanka Cante forwarded this | For all that birth and birth by right | poem on behalf of all the Unity | We Smile, we Hold, we Ride | Riders that we might stop and | For all that need and need by heart | ask if the next words we say, the | We Came, we Went, we Rode. | next act we make is for the good | | of the People or is it from ego | Treaty Unity Riders | for self. +- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -+ O'siyo Brothers and Sisters! Two issues of great importance to each of us have arisen like a two headed snake. We must face these issues. Running from either will only allow the serpent to grow. The first, withdrawal of funding and support for TNAT/The Native American Tobacco education program headed by Joseph Winter, may not seem that critical to many. It is, and I ask that you allow me to explain why it is. The explanation is actually by my wife, Janet, in response to a question on a list. Since I cannot say it better, I offer her words. TNAT had multiple missions/functions, all connected to the idea of preserving the Native American cultural heritage where tobacco (and some other sacred herbs) were concerned. This included identifying AND cultivating the original tobaccos and such herbs as were normally used in purification ceremonies (e.g. sage, cedar, sweetgrass, etc.), growing quantities that were provided at no charge to Native American healers and elders for use in ceremony only (this included quantities sent to for use in prisons, powwows, etc.), printing and distributing information about the appropriate ceremonial use of tobacco AND distributing information to schools and other centers for young people about the problems both in terms of health and cultural abuse surrounding the recreational use of tobacco. And finally, Joe went to schools and powwows to talk about what tobacco was, what it was supposed to be, what it was NOT supposed to be and the difference between the original ceremonial tobaccos and the commercial kind. He was and is a wonderful educator who not only teaches his subject, but knows it from working on the land and directly with the people involved. So yes, it was partly about seeds -- the identification and propagation of as close a replication of the original tobaccos used in pre-contact tribal ceremonies as possible. But it was also about cultivation and distribution at no charge to a selected group of Native Americans for a specific spiritual purpose. And it was about educating Native and non-Native populations, especially young people, learning about and reinforcing the traditional uses, and discouraging non-traditional use. The federal government has instituted so many laws surrounding the growing and distributing of tobacco (especially in terms of taxation and thus the regulation of production) that it's hard to keep track of them. Often in similar cases, exceptions have been made when uses were clearly within the spiritual arena. An example would be the use of wine in Christian sacraments, where exceptions have been made in the normal laws regarding permits, licensing, taxation, and age of those allowed to participate. So it was reasonable for Joe (and the University) to believe that because all his distribution was for religious purposes, there would be exceptions to the usual panapoly of laws, just as there is for the Christian use of wine. I suppose because this is about a religion that is NOT Christian, we should have known... I have no special knowledge about what Joe is doing about all this beyond that which has been posted by others. I would think it possible for him to revise his program in some way unconnected to the University so that it conforms with the federal cultivation and distribution laws, and perhaps that is exactly what he is doing. I would also think that whatever was involved, it would require more contribution and commitment from the community than the original project did to achieve the same ends. Perhaps when all is said and done, that would not be a bad thing. The point (or at least my point) is that TNAT should not HAVE to wiggle around laws. The program SHOULD fall under the same sort of exclusions granted the local Catholic priest when he serves communion, or the local diocese when it purchases wine for communion. I don't know whether Joe intends to pursue legal actions that would certify that TNAT does have rights to be separate from government regulation because it IS religious. So far as I know, there is nothing in the history that would weaken TNAT's position as a spiritual program--I believe it to be squeaky clean and well documented (hey, Joe IS a professor, so if anything, it's overdocumented)--so it would be an ideal case. The "pro's" of pursuing such a legal case go beyond Joe's or TNAT's rights and extend into the "certification" of all Native spiritual practices as legitimate "religions" protected in the same ways as the local Baptist or Methodist or Catholic church. Among the "con's" is one bureaucrats always depend on -- litigation isn't cheap and spending the money to litigate will, by itself, weaken the program. By taking this route, there would be less money for seeds, for tobacco for elders, for flyers educating youth about the dangers of abusing a ceremonial herb, etc. At some point when deciding to go to court to press for rights that should never have been questioned, there has to be a decision made as to whether the price of litigating is worth the goal achieved (assuming a win, which is never safe, but I think TNAT has a pretty good chance). There's always a risk that by litigating, the project will be so financially depleted that it will be destroyed in the process of obtaining the right to exist. This is one way our rights are eroded. A law is passed and applied as it should not have been to a people that are not financially able to pursue legal challenges, so they either drop the practice in question entirely, or find loopholes that allow them to pursue similar ends in a different way, or they go underground and accept legal risks. And the oppressive law stands and become stronger by the lack of challenge. Remember something here. Tobacco was GIVEN by our people to the settlers. Our people did not teach them to abuse this substance or suggest they make a giant industry and tax revenue base out of it. This was done in complete disregard for our practices or traditions. Now we need to spend our time and resources protecting OUR right to use it in our own ways? Whatever Joe decides to do, he has my support. Janet =/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\= If taking yet another way of life from us were not enough threat to the Native community, the next threatens to polarize and separate us as never before. Trust me on this. Many, including the U. S. government, have a vested interest in our collective confusion and division. I've been following this for a couple of years on several forums. Anna Mae was killed a long time ago -- nearly 30 years. The story resurfaces now because a cousin, Robert Branscome-Pictou and her two daughters, who were babies when she was killed, have spent the past 9 years pushing authorities to investigate and investigating on their own. They now finally think they have enough evidence to identify, arrest and convict the guilty parties. Hence the press conference in Canada on September 18th. The story isn't simple or brief. You can find bits and pieces in alt.native or the Anna Mae section on Jordan Dill's site (www.dickshovel.com) or http://members.aol.com/ANNAinc/Foundation.html. Most of the story has been reposted in Wotanging Ikche in the past. Here's what I understand of the story about Anna (and I mostly got it from those places listed above). She was part of the American Indian Movement when it was a young group, back then a loose association of young, dirt-poor unknown activists who wanted to be traditional warriors in the 1970s. It was a different entity from the high-profile incorporated bureaucracy that exists today. The federal authorities, including the FBI, supported Dick Wilson (the BIA-supported chief of the Oglala Sioux) and his GOON squad in their management of the Oglala nation's affairs. (Definition: GOON: Guardians of the Oglala Nation. They were a special police force appointed by Wilson who were reportedly given a free hand to do whatever it took to see to it that Ogalala folks "behaved." Some traditionals claim they abused the authority and nobody reined them in.) During the 1970s (and for that matter, really since the old Chief Red Cloud's time, and up to the present), there were two vastly divergent schools of thought about how the Oglala people should develop. Wilson's supporters followed the BIA plan, which was that the Indian people should assimilate and simply become darker-skinned versions of white-dominated society. They would speak English, forget Lakota, finish trade school, with a maybe a lucky one or two going on to college, and settle down in low-end suburban homes, 9 to 5 weekly jobs and Church on Sunday _OFF the reservation__. Opposing this plan were the traditionalists, people who wanted to return to the ways of the Sacred Pipe, the Lodge and the Sun Dance. People who believed Medicine came from Creator rather than a doctor's needle. People who wanted their land and buffalo back so they could return to the traditional ways of living in harmony with the earth, rather than an adversary to it, as much as possible. People who wanted their children and grandchildren to remember their language, songs and history, and protect their sacred places. Under Wilson's leadership, a disproportionate number of the traditional folks met untimely and violent ends. Others were terrorized, beaten up or vandalized, they said by Wilson's GOONs. That's when young people who called themselves warriors with the Native American Movement started arriving to counter the attacks of the GOONS (since the FBI and federal marshalls didn't seem inclined to investigate or intervene). Of course those federal cops did take notice of these "outside agitators" who came to stir up the locals and interfere with the elimination of "nonprogressive" influences. There were direct and indirect attacks on the activists and continuing attacks on the traditionals they tried to protect. As you might imagine, tempers ran hot, and with people shooting at old folks who were doing nothing but teaching their grandchildren how to pray properly, you can imagine that occasionally one of the young warriors did more than duck the flying bullets. One of them shot back and killed two FBI agents. Leonard Peltier was accused and eventually convicted after awhile, but during the time between the agents death and his arrest, the FBI was aggressively working to round up anybody they could blame. Anna Mae was apparently one of those who had seen or heard enough that people on both sides believed she knew more than was safe for her or for them. The FBI say they believed she could identify the FBI agents' killer. AIM leaders believed she knew and could identify the FBI undercover agents they believed had infiltrated their group -- some even said they believed she was one of those agents. The story her family tells is that the FBI was bringing her in and questioning her so publicly that it was bound to spook her AIM friends. In any case, she got scared and ran to a safe house in Denver, but some Lakota people were said to have taken her back to a Lakota woman's house in Rapid City. From there, the stories go every which way, depending on who you're listening to. Her family says there's evidence the three who came to get her beat her and raped her and ultimately killed her so that she wouldn't talk, at the instruction of AIM leadership, one of whom was allegedly an undercover FBI infiltrator. Others claim she was just questioned and left of her own accord, and nobody knows who ultimately killed her. Everybody agrees that Anna was part of AIM, reputedly a hard and dedicated worker. Did people in the AIM leadership kill her because she knew some of them were turncoats or otherwise not what they seemed? That's what her family claims, and there's supposed to be documented (including DNA) proof. Did the FBI set her up so that it was inevitable that she would be killed by her own former friends? Were BOTH the FBI and some in AIM in collusion together to kill her and cover it up? Again, that's one story being put about. Were none of these people involved? Was this just an isolated violent crime in bad times that can't be solved now, so should be put behind us? That's another suggestion out there. For those who do not know the events of the early 70's that culminated in the second siege at Wounded Knee and the deaths of many Native Peoples, including Anna Mae you need to keep this in mind. AIM was not a club. AIM was not an organization. AIM was not Incorporated. AIM was a group of warriors doing their best to protect a way of being. It was, as the name clearly implies, a Movement. Remember this, also. There were, and still are many dedicated people associated with AIM whose entire purpose is to help Native Peoples. Meanwhile, everybody who's been accused is pointing fingers at others, and accusing them, including the FBI. It is no surprise to me to read in one paper the quote "let's forget about it" from the woman who allegedly provided the house where Anna Mae was beaten and raped, and ultimately from where she was taken to her death. It's no surprise to me that others of the accused aren't simply admitting involvement, regardless of what they did or didn't do. The FBI spent years telling their own bosses that they hadn't tossed anything incendiary at Waco -- and they didn't come clean until somebody put physical evidence out there for everybody to see. So are they going to admit to anything here unless physical evidence is put out there where it can't be denied? Even if there IS proof of who killed her, there's no guarantee it will ever see the light of day now, let alone persuade a jury. There are clearly people trying to bring evidence before prosecutors and courts, but it's still a long way from over. Among the accused are some high-profile, high-powered people. Among the accused are a very powerful agency of the U.S. government. They will not submit without a very hard struggle. It won't be pretty. Meanwhile, I'm seeing those of us who were nowhere near this taking sides and pointing fingers, too. We're polarizing. And we're doing those who are our worst enemies the biggest favor we can. Indian people do not win by fighting each other. Dividing us against ourselves was the invaders best, most effective tactic to defeat us and sadly, IT STILL WORKS. There may be corruption among our people. No shock there. I don't know a society free of it. Those who see it should excise it without waiting to gather a bandwagon. We WILL be pressured to take sides and fight each other. Already Leonard Peltier has been persuaded to react. I would be the MOST wary of those who appeared to be the most eager to draw us into that activity. Right now there's plenty to do just taking care of our elders and our needy. Winter's coming and there's already been snow in South Dakota, I'm told. Remember all those people whose houses were blown apart on Pine Ridge this summer? Do we know whether they now have warm homes? There's plenty for us to do that is positive. The traditional way to deal with harm to another is to have those involved sit together in council and one after another, present their story. The matter is resolved by consensus between those who were harmed, not by a parliamentary vote. I have a feeling if this matter had been taken to a traditional council long ago, Anna Mae might even be alive. If she had been killed, there would be no 30 year-old questions remaining about the guilty or what was to become of them and no old issue to be dredged up to distract us from taking care of ourselves and our people today. =/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\= Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 17:24:38 -0700 From: Nancy Thomas Subj: CNN - Leonard Peltier Mail List: LeonardPeltier List CNN&TIME - The Weekly News Magazine URL: http://www.cnn.com/CNNPromos/cnntime/ October 10, 1999 In 1977, Leonard Peltier, a member of the American Indian Movement, was convicted of murdering two FBI agents. CNN & TIME examines why some consider him a political prisoner. Sunday, October 10, 1999 at 9:00 p.m. eastern time. The program will be repeated Monday, October 11, 1999 at midnight eastern time. Check your local listings. Kila, Nancy Peace! Night Owl , , Gary Night Owl gars@netcom.com (*,*) P. O. Box 672168 gars@nanews.org (`-') Marietta, GA 30417, U.S.A. gars@crl.com ===w=w== Fax: 770-528-9643 ----------- News of the people featured in this issue ---------- - Peltier Response/ - Blackfeet/Glacier Border Dispute Anna Mae Investigation - Wannabe-ism and the BIA - Open Letter Response - Buffalo News/Racicot - Oyate Press Release - Native Prisoner - Anna Mae, My Questions - Are There Good Hearts... - About AnnaMae, My Opinion - Poem: We Gave Him His First Drink - Anna Mae, Peltier, & the Old Man - Verse: Hawaiian Book of Days - Native Plant Initiative - DC Demonstration Guidelines - About the Navajo Hopi Land Dispute - Upcoming Events --------- "RE: Peltier Response/Anna Mae Investigation" --------- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:52:19 -0500 From: "bobby" Subj: Open letter-Peltier response-Anna Mae investigation Newsgroup: alt.native Open letter from Leonard Peltier in response to reports from the recent press conference regarding Anna Mae Aquash: I have just received and read a report written by Chris Nicholas about the recent press conference held in Canada in regard to Anna Mae. I am very shocked and saddened by what is being said and the misinformation and outright lies that are being spread about what happened to her and what has happened to me. I have not said anything up until now because I do not want to be involved in an investigation carried out in part, by Robert Ecoffey and the RCMP. Ecoffey was responsible for much of the terror and corruption that existed on Pine Ridge in the early 70's. The RCMP, working with the FBI, submitted a fabricated statement against me over a year after I was arrested by them in Canada. This statement has been used to justify my continued incarceration. Who would trust such sources to carry out an investigation into one of the many, many, people who were murdered in conjunction with the FBI on Pine Ridge during that era? I did not want to be involved in this, but now it looks like I must submit a public statement documenting my stance because I very much fear that innocent people will be railroaded as I have, into prison, and the governments of Canada and the U.S. will be happy to have given AIM the image of a vicious and corrupt terrorist organization which we absolutely were not. Am I saying that everyone who was in AIM was perfect? No. Am I saying that AIM is today what it was back then? No. But, what I am seeing is a clear attempt to destroy a very valid civil rights movement in order for those involved to both benefit and profit from Anna Mae's death. Future movements for the rights of our people would always have to fight this unjustified image and work extra hard to be given any validity at all. First off, I would like to start by offering my condolences to the family of Anna Mae and by expressing my strong desire to have her murder, along with all of the other murders that took place during that era, solved. I have been pushing for this since the beginning. And, though I am aware that her death was possibly carried out by an informer, a pawn of the FBI, I am convinced that justice will not be done until a complete investigation into the FBI's involvement on Pine Ridge at that time is carried out. Bob Branscombe, who is leading this investigation, cannot be trusted for several reasons. He says he is Anna Mae's cousin and this is the reason why he has committed himself to finding out who killed her. However, he only found out about his Indian blood two years ago. Most importantly, he visited me in the fall of 1998 claiming to have a way to get me out. He came in to see me and offered me a deal saying that if I helped them to get a conviction against John Boy Patton, he could assure me the government would look upon this favorably and I would be granted parole. I asked how he knew they would do this. He said that he spoke with the DA in Colorado and she said she was willing to help get me out of prison. I replied that I could not help because I did not know anything. He said that it didn't matter as long as I was willing to help. I then replied, "Are you telling me you want me to be a Myrtle Poor Bear?" He said, "well, you would be released within ten days if you would sign an affidavit against John Boy Patton." I told him that I could not believe he was sitting there asking me to be the same type of person who lied against me and cost me my life. I am ready and willing to testify to this in court, under oath and after taking a lie detector test. Furthermore, Chris Nicholas, who is also involved in this, did not know Anna Mae, yet he is trying to portray himself as being her close friend. He told me that he had only seen her once, briefly. I ask all Native people and the Pictou family to beware of these two men. I am sure they are in this to profit off of Anna Mae's tragedy. Bob Branscombe's new book about all of this is clear evidence. What angers me the most is that these men are now trying to force me into being involved in this - they are dragging me into something that I am against and something I know Anna Mae would have been against. They are even trying to use me as some sort of bargaining device against my will, stating that I will be released because of all of this. I would never accept being released in return for imprisoning someone unfairly convicted. Please know, I have seen the tactics they are using and I would refuse my release as a result. Nicholas is saying that Anna Mae was murdered by AIM members because she was going to announce who killed the agents on Pine Ridge. She was not there and did not know. She signed an affidavit clearly stating this. Anna Mae was murdered because she was a skilled organizer and leader for our people. Independent investigators testified, right after her body was recovered, that there was absolutely no sign of rope burns on Anna Mae's wrists and that she had gone willingly, either with the police or with someone she knew. They also testified that there was no evidence of rape. So I ask you to look critically upon this latest controversy and to keep in mind what I have told you. Yes, we want justice for Anna Mae. We want justice for all of the people who died at the hands of Dick Wilson, the BIA and the FBI. It is not justice when people need to be coerced into pointing fingers as was attempted with me. It is not justice if a full investigation into the FBI's role in all of the deaths is not carried out. In the Spirit Of Crazy Horse, Leonard Peltier USPL #89637-132 Leonard Peltier PO Box 1000 Leavenworth, KS 66048 --------- "RE: Open Letter Response" --------- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:39:53 -0500 From: not@inthe.game (justanoldman) Subj: Re: Open letter-Peltier response-Anna Mae investigation Newsgroup: alt.native In article <2vqI3.778$Yn5.5759@newsfeed.slurp.net>, "bobby" wrote: >Open letter from Leonard Peltier in response to reports from the recent >press conference regarding Anna Mae Aquash: > > I have just received and read a report written by Chris Nicholas about >the recent press conference held in Canada in regard to Anna Mae. > Furthermore, Chris Nicholas, who is also involved in this, did not know >Anna Mae, yet he is trying to portray himself as being her close friend. >He told me that he had only seen her once, briefly. I ask all Native >people and the Pictou family to beware of these two men. I am sure they >are in this to profit off of Anna Mae's tragedy. Bob Branscombe's new book >about all of this is clear evidence. What angers me the most is that these >men are now trying to force me into being involved in this - they are >dragging me into something that I am against and something I know Anna Mae >would have been against. They are even trying to use me as some sort of >bargaining device against my will, stating that I will be released because >of all of this. I would never accept being released in return for >imprisoning someone unfairly convicted. Please know, I have seen the >tactics they are using and I would refuse my release as a result. > > d'laan'te'.. The report was written by me, not by Nicholas. He just passed it on. And while I do not know Bob Branscombe, having spent my time at the news conference with AnnaMae's daughters, I was told that there was no book or profit motive in his work by Annamae's daughters. If they trust him, & they know him, who am I to say different. The Pictou family is the only authority I listen to in all of this. As for Nicholas, who I've known a long time, there is zero profit in any of his motives in this or any other cause he fights for. He isn't going to write any book, make a movie or give any lectures on AnnaMae or anything else. He's semi-retired & talks of vegetable garden as his sole ambition. He is poor still after giving years of his life to his people, & continues to give, constantly quoting Willy Nelson's old saying, "All you get to take with you is what you gave away." He has always been up front with me saying he knew AnnaMae but only met her once, & she is with him close as Leonard himself is close to each of us. When someone is in your thoughts & prayers each & every day, is that not someone close? As for this being some kind of anti-AIM campaign, that doesn't wash. Everyone who knows what's going on has expressed admiration for AIM. It's just a few rotten apples in the barrel. And the death-dealing bastards still in the FBI still remain the prime targets of any investigation into the killing of AnnaMae. While I appreciate with Leonard's position, there is little truth that can come through prison walls. Leonard is being told what people want him to hear. Anna Mae was going to testify as to what was said to her by people who were at the Jumping Bull compound on 26 June 1975, not on what she saw, & there was corroboration for that conversation in the wings from someone who was killed 2 years later. As further example of what doesn't make it through those prison walls, the fact is that AnnaMae was raped before she was killed, & there is DNA evidence of the rapist on file, just waiting to be matched. with respect.. jaom/e'ne'thekwe' --------- "RE: Oyate Press Release" --------- Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 18:32:56 -0400 From: "Janet Smith" Subj: full text of the Oyate press release http://www.dickshovel.com/annalay.html http://www.dickshovel.com/bhpress.html The Lakota Oyate speaks regarding Anna Mae and the American Indian Movement September 28, 1999 H'e Sapa Wakan Inyan Traditional elders of the Lakota Nation have drafted a press release, in response to the recent information from the elders of the Mi'qmaw Nation about the involvement of the American Indian Movement (AIM) leadership, in collaboration with the FBI and other US governmental agencies, in the murder of Anna Mae Pictou-Aquash in 1975 on the sacred and ancient lands of H'e Sapa (Black Hills). This is in response to a press conference in Ottawa, Canada held September 16 by the Pictou family, and sanctioned by the Assembly of First Nations. This is a draft from the only legal and spiritual Government of the Lakota Oyate, in Alliance with the Mato Paha Okolokiciye and the Dakota/Nakota traditional Oyates, as well as the signatories of the 1851 Ft. Laramie/Dog Creek Treaty; as well as the Looking Horse family who are keeping the Canumpa Wakan, and our many humble Sundancers and Pipe-Carriers. These include the 8 district Itanscan and many tiyospayes and their leaders and spokesmen and women, who declared Independence on Mato Paha (Bear Butte), where only the truth can be told, on July 14, 1991 from the illegal colonial US-Canadian government(s). Akicita Director Bernard Peoples read the following Statement, after extensive Counsels for a week, and Ceremonies: "We demand that the leadership of AIM come forward and tell the full detailed story of what happened here in the 1970s, and especially the events of 1975 surrounding the firefight on the Jumping Bull property, and the events and people involved in the murder of Anna Mae, whose mutilated body was found in February, 1976. "The time for secrecy is over. The time for the manipulations of the US oppressors on our People is over, killing us, imprisoning us, starving us, poisoning us with alcohol, and making us too afraid to talk and reveal the truth. We want to know everything Dennis Banks did on June 26, 1975, and exactly where he was that day - for we have the transcript of his Trial in Custer and he was not there that day, so he has no alibi, as he and his apologists have always claimed. "Exactly what does Leonard Peltier know, and why does he refuse to this day to reveal the full story, even though he has been rotting in American prisons all these years? The People feel betrayed, and we do not feel it is honorable for Peltier and Banks to cover up the truth, especially when so many of our people have been killed and are still dying because of this paranoia, distrust, deceit, greed, and egotism of the AIM leaders. Their silence only looks like arrogance to us, and the elders, while they exploit our cultures and fly around the world acting like chiefs. They are the Wannabes, not the many sincere non-Natives who know and love our people and come here to help us. "If you are innocent, Dennis, say so to the world, and give us the exact names, places, dates, and all the details of these terrible tragedies we are still suffering from. It means nothing to show up for marches at White Clay and Mobridge and Rapid City if you have lost the trust of the grassroots oyates and tiyospayes, which you have. AIM is not trusted on our Reservations-Concentration Camps anymore, because of the deceit and double-dealing, and the many stories of your corruption with our young girls, violence to our men, millions of dollars of donations that have never trickled down to the People. "AIM has been discredited in South Dakota for at least 20 years, and still a handful of urban Indians claim to be leaders, and talk the big talk of Warriors. No. We do not even know charlatans like Ward Churchill around here. This has nothing to do with partisanship, or whether we are pro-Minneapolis AIM or Denver AIM, Inc. "As a Canadian elder said in a dispatch to us, '...when Anna Mae's name is cleared, AIM will lose the cancer that has polluted it and tried to turn it into AIM INC.' "We support the heroic efforts of the Mi'qmaw elders and the Pictou family, especially Robert Branscombe-Pictou, to expose these facts and document the case against the accused killers, and to provide convincing evidence. We know it was dangerous for him to go public and announce the truth, as there are still many violent and unprincipled people loose on our homelands, Native and non-Native alike, doing the dirty work of the Pigs-for-Hire. We honor you, Brother! "We demand the accused participants in the heinous Tribunal of Anna Mae to come forward and clear their names with the facts - if they can. We know of the implications of Thelma Rios and Bruce Ellison, who still reside in Rapid City, in this case as well as the Peltier case, and their direct connection with Dennis Banks and his associates, including Kevin McKiernan who supplied Banks' false alibi (and which was repeated stupidly by Peter Matthiessen in his deeply flawed book 'In The Spirit of Crazy Horse') while he was 100 miles away in Oglala taping and photographing the Firefight. He could not be in 2 places at once, Dennis. Bruce has played the tapes and bragged that he knew who the "real killers" were, but has arrogantly refused to talk all these years. Why? If you are clean, please prove it. Otherwise, you are playing into the FBI's hands and they are surely laughing at all of us, like they laughed when they murdered women and children at Waco and Ruby Ridge and many places on Pine Ridge. "As far as we know, only Vernon Bellecourt has issued an official denial in a Canadian newspaper. Quote: 'We believe very strongly that the FBI and other government agencies on the periphery, were using extremist informants to set up what has been characterized as the execution death of Anna Mae Aquash.' Unquote. Is that all, Vernon? WHO exactly are those 'extremist informants'? Enough of the generic rhetoric. "To John Trudell - please end your silence. We know your paranoia is awful, but you MUST tell us everything and clear yourself before the Spirits. It's the only way. "Wakan Inyan will forgive you, even if men do not. AIM is nothing. Truth is everything. Hau." Anna's Archive AIM This site is maintained by JS Dill. --------- "RE: Anna Mae, My Questions" --------- Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 10:11:02 -0500 From: Ilze Choi Subj: My Questions The charges made by the Lakota Oyate in their press statement are very serious and shocking. I do not think such charges should be made to the public without specifics. It is doubtful that many people know what is being referred to here but the consequences are bound to be damaging to the accused. This is particularly harmful to Leonard Peltier who is in such a vulnerable position. This press statement is grossly unfair. If a crime has been committed by any persons this should be handled in a court of law, not in a public forum on the internet. I don't think that anyone, innocent or guilty, would or should submit themselves to trial by unknown persons in such a public way. Those making these charges ought to know that. All that is achieved here is to slander the accused. Is this the objective? I have some questions about the statement itself. I will quote parts of the statement and follow that with my questions. The quote from the statement will be enclosed with << >> marks and my questions will be designated with "Question." <<>>> QUESTION: Who are these elders? What are their names? I think the accused should know who their accusers are and the public should know that people support the statement by giving their names. We all put our names to protests or statements when we support something. Names give statements legitimacy. On the other hand, nameless accusations are un-democratic and medieval. <<>> QUESTION: Specifically, how was AIM involved with or in collaboration with the FBI in the murder of Anna May Aquash? Most importantly WHY? The FBI, from all accounts in numerous books and articles, was after AIM to destroy it. This charge seems bizarre. <<<>>> QUESTION: Has Philip Fontaine, the head of the Assembly of First Nations, endorsed this statement? <<>> QUESTION: Again, for the benefit of non Indians such as myself and many others not familiar with the Pine Ridge community, can these organizations be described? Who are the members? As mentioned, nameless accusers can say anything because no one can challenge them, especially when the accusations are also vague. <<"We demand that the leadership of AIM come forward and tell the full detailed story of what happened here in the 1970s, and especially the events of 1975 surrounding the firefight on the Jumping Bull property, and the>>>> QUESTION: How come the accusers, people supposedly living on Pine Ridge, do not know what happened in the 1970's? What is implied here is that there was some criminal activity not described in the many books and other accounts of the tragic happenings of the 1970's. If so, the accusers should state what they suspect. What, specifically, do the accusers know that leads them to make this demand of the accused? And, do they expect the accused to answer them here on the internet? Do they expect answers when no specific charges have been made? This is like saying we know you have done something wrong but we won't say what but tell us everything. Is this a wise way to deal with this? <<>>> He was not where? At the Jumping Bull compound? Alibi for which time? Again, what is he SPECIFICALLY suspected of doing at what time? What is he suspected of? It is unfair to make vague accusations that do not clarify anything but yet cast suspicion on a person. <<<"Exactly what does Leonard Peltier know, and why does he refuse to this day to reveal the full story, even though he has been rotting in American prisons all these years?>>>> QUESTION: Again, what is being indirectly said here? Why would Leonard Peltier do this? <<<>> QUESTION: Innocent of what? Is he accused of murdering Anna Mae Aquash? What "names, places and dates"? From when? And what terrible tragedies "we are still suffering from"? What details, what "tragedies we are still suffering from"? This is one of the most cryptic of the statements. <<<>>> QUESTION: "Reservation-Concentration Camps"? Do the people making this statement want to abolish the reservation? From what I understand, reservations are treaty lands, the homelands of the Indian nations and the reason they are such hard places to live in is because of the colonialist policies of the US government. Unlike real concentration camps, people are free to leave which is precisely what the government has mostly wanted and therefore has never been interested in helping Indian communities to thrive on their land. What violence has AIM done to the men? What is the specific charge here? And what millions of dollars of donations? Does anyone have records to prove that millions of dollars have been donated? During which dates? What were the donations for and how is AIM suspected of using them? <<<<>>>> What does Ward Churchill have to do with this? And specifically how is he a charlatan? This is another example of an unspecified accusation. And considering what he has written and how his writings have pointed out the immorality of US policy towards Indian nations, denigrating him seems senseless. <<>>>. Deeply flawed? Give specifics on the flaws. Deeply flawed is a serious charge meaning that most of the book is not to be believed. It is grossly unfair to make such sweeping judgements without providing a list of specific examples - all of them - to prove where it is deeply flawed. How many mistakes are there? On what page? Or do you question Mr. Matthiessen's point of view? If so where, in your opinion, is he wrong? <<<>>> Here the statement is inconsistent. Previously, AIM is accused of causing the murders. Now it is the FBI. Also, it is so obvious that the FBI will be greatly pleased and gratified by this press statement since this press statement condemns its old enemy, AIM, and indirectly discredits Leonard Peltier. <<<<"To John Trudell - please end your silence. We know your paranoia is awful, but you MUST tell us everything and clear yourself before the Spirits. It's the only way. "Wakan Inyan will forgive you, even if men do not. AIM is nothing. Truth is everything. Hau.">>>>. QUESTION: Silence about what? What is he accused of? Clear himself of what? This is grossly unfair and unjust to make such insinuations of serious wrong-doing without specifying and yet demanding to tell "everything and clear yourself." Also, since Mr. Trudell lost his entire family to a suspicious fire shortly after challenging the authority of the US government, it is vicious to accuse him of "awful paranoia." I pose my questions without expecting an answer. I also do not expect the accused people to answer. The internet cannot serve as a courtroom. No matter what the truth is, we will not learn it here and I repeat my belief that is is very unjust to accuse people of terrible things knowing they cannot prove or disprove anything on a forum such as this. All this accomplishes is to to slander the accused. Unnamed accusers making generalized, vague, unspecified charges is a frightening thing. I would not want it done to me and I don't think the accusers would want it done to them. This is an example of the dark aspect of the internet. How do you know who to trust? Ilze Choi --------- "RE: About AnnaMae, My Opinion" --------- Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 00:13:55 -0500 From: not@inthe.game (justanoldman) Subj: About AnnaMae - My opinion Newsgroup: alt.native d'laan'te'... I have given a lot of thought & much prayer to the post by Leonard about his read on the AnnaMae press conference posting I put up on this ng a while ago. My commitment to do the right thing is unwavering, as is my commitment to do whatever I can to help Leonard be free. I realize what he is saying has weight & out of my feelings of great respect for him, which is also unwavering, I want to say the following about this matter. First of all, my involvement in AnnaMae's story from 1975-1997 was limited to hoping & praying that AnnaMae's killers would be found out. In February of 98 I was told to look at the AnnaMae archive on Jordan Dill's site, & found Bob Pictou-Branscombe's shattering allegations. I contacted the Pictou family & offered to take care of those named. My offer was refused, the family asking instead that I help move the investigation forward here in Canada. This I solemnly promised to them & have done so to the best of my ability, using all of my political & other contacts - AT THE REQUEST OF THE PICTOU FAMILY. In my entire life I have never, ever talked to any cop or badge, other than giving my name & d.o.b. while wearing handcuffs and/or leg-irons or getting a traffic ticket, except for ONE time in Feb of 1998 when I brought the information from the Pictou family to the RCMP as was requested of me, & I made sure to bring a neutral witness from a christian church with her own tape recorder along. I know how the cops twist things so this was my protection. (Those tapes are in the custody of that church & are also available in written transcript, along with the coordinates of that neutral witness, to anyone who may need to hear them). My ONLY condition throughout this gut-wrenching work has always been that if this turned out to be ANY kind of campaign to "get AIM" or especially if ANY part of this process even hinted at any wrongdoing by Leonard Peltier in any way, then I would immediately not only withdraw my support & assistance but also do whatever I could to sink the whole campaign. I am 1000% certain that Leonard had absolutely nothing to do with what was done to AnnaMae. (I have copies of letters I exchanged with the family on that point that I can & will share with anyone if/when necessary). If anyone thinks that I or anyone else working to bring out the truth in AnnaMae's kidnapping, rape & murder is doing so for profit or glory or as part of some fantastic COINTELPRO plot, it would mean that the entire Pictou family & dozens of 'witnesses' who have given depositions & testimony to date are ALL in on such a conspiracy, a premise that is too wild to consider seriously. As for glory, what glory is there in having the dirty laundry of the Nations displayed in public, where we know every right-wingnut is going to use the all-too human tragedy to paint every Indian black with it for weeks? But what choice is left, since those of the Nations who know the truth won't step forward & tell the truth? Months ago I suggested to Leonard to take legal precautions when I heard that there was the possibility that Bob would be writing a book on the investigation of AnnaMae's murder. He told me that he'd already heard about it & taken such precautions. (My correspondence to that effect is also on file & I can share it all if/when necessary). I do not know if this was just talk or if there is really a book in the works, & quite honestly at this point I don't care as long as the truth comes out before it is written, so that any such writing can be based on proven facts & not just allegations or rumors. Leonard had also told me of Bob Pictou Branscombe's asking him to snitch & lie. I agreed with him that such behavior was & remains revolting. The Pictou family, as I & thousands of others want the real truth to come out, not more fabrications or lies. Bob responded by telling me that Leonard misunderstood what he was saying, so I dropped the matter. I have spoken with Bob about 20-25 times regarding the efforts I made & continue to make to get the political & popular support up here in Canada that seems necessary to break this case open. I repeat that this is what the Pictou family asks of me; that I coordinate any & all action with Bob Pictou-Branscombe. I do not know him well enough yet to say more than he is very committed & brave. I trust the Pictou family to be the best judge of Bob's trustworthiness, & they tell me they trust him & want me to work with him as well as others who are helping the family with this. If it was strictly a "Bob Pictou-Branscombe" effort I would have pulled away from all this long ago because there are things he says that don't make much sense to me, that make me 'uncomfortable'. I have been 100% up front with him about my discomfort & shared it with a few others I trust, even at LPDC. (My correspondence to that effect is also on file & I can share it all if/when necessary). Throughout the whole ordeal to date, there has been one and only one major target in my own sights, & that has been SA David Price, the spider who is at the center of the web of evil for Leonard's conviction as well as the death of AnnaMae & hundreds of other First Nation people, mostly Lakotas. FBI SA's Woods, Stoldt, Coward & at least 3 others are also in all of this death-dealing up to their necks. The actual rapist/killers of AnnaMae & their 'directors' inside the movement were & still are nothing but pawns being moved by Price to do his dirty work & then to cover it up. I believe this with my whole heart. Now on to the nitty-gritty... My post on the Ottawa press conference called by the Pictou family & the Assembly of First Nations was clearly stated to be a report. I reported on what was said, clearly indicating ".. as told to me and to the world.." & "I am told". Although I have never hidden my passion for the truth, that AnnaMae's name be finally cleared & that she finally have the dignity & honor due to her that was smeared by her killers, & how much anger I have for the way they betrayed her & hurt her, I have never stated my own opinions of who the guilty might be. So I will share my own personal opinion on this now. I emphasize that this is strictly my own opinion. Of those named in the report, I personally do not believe that either John Trudell or Leonard Crow Dog were involved in the killing of AnnaMae, although I am confident that they each could bring light to the darkness surrounding the case. Dennis Banks, as far as I know, heard about AnnaMae being "questioned" before she was killed, yet he either didn't realize what was about to happen or was scared away from acting to stop it by 'bigger people'. He too could shed much light on the darkness. I am baffled by his silence, unless he too is scared for his life, or scared of the truth. I do not know which. Of the others named that day of the Ottawa press conference, I believe that AnnaMae was tied up at Troy Lynn Yellow Wood's house in Denver. I believe that Theda Nelson Clark, Arlo Looking Cloud & JohnBoy Patten picked up AnnaMae from the house of Troy Lynn Yellow Wood in Denver, drove her to Rapid City, to the apartment of Thelma Rios where she was (still tied up) slapped around to get her to "confess" to being a snitch, & that both Arlo & later JohnBoy raped her while she was there. I believe that Clyde Bellecourt visited that apartment while AnnaMae was being held there (10-11 Dec 1975) & that Bruce Ellison, Ted Means & Herb Powless did too. I believe that during the still-dark morning hours of 12 December, 1975, Theda, Arlo & JohnBoy took AnnaMae to that ravine out by Wanblee & killed her in cold blood. And, to date, that is all I believe about the people named the day of the press conference in Ottawa. Now it is for these people to answer to the allegations made with statements telling the world otherwise. I also believe that AnnaMae was tied up & raped because the second autopsy (report by Dr. Garry Peterson) definitely found evidence that "sexual activity" with marks compatible with rape was present (& samples were taken & are currently being used to match DNA), & b) Dr. Peterson's report also clearly states that there were marks of rope having been tightly bound at the precise location on both wrists where they had been severed during the previous autopsy. Which is also the logical explanation as to why AnnaMae's entire hands were cut off (at FBI agent David Price's order) rather than just the normal practice of severing fingertips to get a fingerprint ID. I have also had shared with me (but do not have copies of) over 60 pages containing the statements made in secret Grand Jury testimony by Arlo Looking Cloud wherein he testifies that he participated in the kidnapping, rape & murder of AnnaMae Pictou-Aquash & that she was "ordered" killed because she was about to give testimony or make public statements ".. that would free Leonard Peltier" & would have "blown the cover" of two "highly-placed FBI informers in AIM leadership" at the time. Arlo's testimony also stated that he was at the Jumping Bull compound on 26 June 1975 & he names two individuals who he says actually killed the two FBI agents for which Leonard stands convicted. (And no matter who did the point-blank shooting, I also believe that the deaths of those two agents was 100% self-defense, no matter who did it.) I believe that this testimony by Arlo is the reason he says he has immunity from prosecution & also why that Grand Jury hearing into Annamae's death was stayed & the transcripts sealed into secrecy. Leonard was already convicted & in a cell when this Grand Jury was convened. And that is what I believe. This is all -I repeat - my entirely personal opinion based on what I have been told & shown by many over the past 25 years, especially during the past 2 years. I also repeat that I will never do anything that may bring harm to Leonard Peltier & that I will continue to do whatever I can, whenever I can to push for his freedom even if he doesn't want me to do so. Just as I have been doing for almost a quarter century. I take no orders from anyone on how I should act & what is right or wrong. As "an army of one" I am my own general. I have done nothing to feel the least bit of shame about in all of this, & if I am killed tomorrow then I die with head held high, with the knowledge that I have lived true to my pipe & to those that have guided me every day for decades. AIM will grow & thrive no matter how this mess unfolds, no matter who is found to be the guilty parties "beyond any shadow of doubt" in the kidnapping, rape & murder of AnnaMae Pictou-Aquash. AIM will not be destroyed because the thousands that are AIM had nothing to do with the acts of a few scumbags, whoever those scumbags are found to be other than the three who have confessed. And I am sure that the "producers/directors" of this entire tragic episode in the lands of the Lakota in 1972-1977 - the death-dealers in the FBI offices at Minneapolis & Rapid City - will be uncovered & will finally pay for their heinous crimes as a result. And I remain 100% convinced that the evidence brought out at the trials of the guilty WILL definitely show that Leonard Peltier is entirely innocent of the crime for which he was railroaded. In closing, I will tell you that I have prayed long & hard after reading Leonard's words. His words & opinions mean very much to me, & to have him attack me tore my heart out. So after praying I have decided that I am going to try & meet in council with as many of the Lakota/Dakota/Nakota elders as possible in the next few weeks. I will put all I have been told & shown in front of them, as well as letting them judge my character for themselves. I will abide by what they tell me they feel is the best course of action, even if that means breaking my promise of help & support to the Pictou family. I wish that all of this could have been taken care 24 years ago by the traditions handed down to the Nations concerned by their grandfathers. There are no "winners" in any court of law, & it saddens me much that the laws & "legal systems" that served for thousands of years are being ignored. Maybe with the elders of the Nations concerned, the elders of the families that make up each Nation & the guidance & help of the grandfathers, the truth will finally come out. As it should have 24 years ago. That is all I have to say. masi:cho for listening... jaom/e'ne'thekwe' --------- "RE: Anna Mae, Peltier, & the Old Man" --------- Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 19:45:49 -0500 From: Suyeta Subj: Anna Mae, Peltier, & the Old Man Newsgroup: alt.native This is hard to say. But I'm bound to say it. I know the old man. I trust him & I love him. I'm painfully aware of what every word has cost him -- and I'm referring to just the cost within. I knew beforehand what was to be said & I can assure you that no one would've even dreamed of this turn of events, especially Old Flint. Let me tell you something -- this sort of unsubstantive blanket condemnation has gotten more than a few Indians shot & you can start that list with Anna Mae. I'm having a very hard time understanding why Peltier would have anything to do with such flailing invective. I find nothing about the statement characteristic of Leonard Peltier. To consider that Anna Mae was murdered because she was a skilled organizer & a good leader is just silly. It's also demeaning of her sacrifice. Continued secrecy about what happened to Anna Mae is no longer justifiable. It never was justifiable because the motive for it was a lie. A generation was led to believe that (a) Anna Mae was killed by well- intentioned loyalists acting on bad (planted) information or (b) she was killed by loyalists because she was a traitor & it was therefore important for political & supportive reasons to cover that up. Both of these are lies, which means that the premise for the secrecy is & was always the protection of the personal reputation & integrity of certain individuals. Trotting out the ubiquitous spook, the goon/fed spy, can't be good enough anymore. Maintaining the secrecy won't do anymore. Many others were murdered in those days, that's true, and I don't believe the first case will be solved until we solve this one, until we know about Anna Mae. The movement is not guilty of the crime, but we're guilty of the time. The movement did not kill Anna Mae, but the movement has protected the truth about those who did for these many years due to this self-referring infection of paranoia which cripples us. This one -- this single case of murder out of hundreds -- is Our responsibility. If we aren't finally willing to do this for Anna Mae, for this woman who was loyal to YOU & to ME & to the movement, for this woman who was loyal to death, then nothing's changed & bygod nothing ever will. This one's ours alone. Maybe the biggest snag is the fear that we'll find Anna Mae's murder was not necessarily unique, as we've also been lead to believe. That's an inflammatory thing to say, right there -- but can we deny it? How can we deny it? We can't. Nobody's going to clear this one up for us because nobody can. We either want to know ... or not. Branscombe's allegations are right there -- rather specific & open on the table. My brother the old man reported these to Peltier (& the rest of us) because he believes in Peltier (& us) & accepted the responsibility to report them. If anyone can specifically refute the charges, refute them. If anyone knows the truth, tell the truth. But the old smoke & ill-defined spooks are no longer acceptable. If these things are not the truth, then convince us to not believe them ... & you won't find anyone more eager to hear the truth than the old man. Koga Suyeta --------- "RE: Native Plant Initiative" --------- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 12:42:58 -0600 From: CSKT Preservation Office Subj: Native Plant Initiative Gary, I was wondering if you knew about this Initiative. [Editorial comment: The goals outlined in these proposals read very much like the things Joseph Winter was doing at TNAT before the University of New Mexico shut him down. I suggest there is a reason to explore these similarities, and invite Professor Winter's participation before re-inventing the project.] http://www.nps.gov/plants/index.htm I became aware of this Initiative a few years ago, and had some concerns because there was no Tribal representation among the involved parties. When I was notified by the Tribal College that tele conferencing was going to occur, I contacted Mary Maruca and Julie Lyke. There have been some delays and minor obstacles to getting more tribes and tribal people involved.I mailed out packets of information to the Montana Tribes and the Umatilla Tribe, but haven't received any responses. I am sending two drafts of the evolving strategy for your consideration. If you have any questions, comments, or referrals you can contact me here at the Preservation Office email or home Sincerely, Joanne Bigcrane > Native Plant Conservation Initiative > Medicinal Plants Working Group > > Evolving Strategy > > * * * DRAFT (5/13/99) * * * > > Recognizing that commercial demands may cause overharvesting from the wild, the Medicinal Plants Working Group, including representatives from industry, government, academia, and environmental organizations, aims to create a framework for discussion and action on behalf of medicinal plants. The group's primary focus is to facilitate action on behalf of species of particular conservation concern as a means to balance biological and commercial needs and, in the long term, avoid regulatory intervention. The Working Group intends to raise awareness of native medicinal plant issues and needs among partner agencies and to: > > GENERATE AND SHARE INFORMATION REGARDING SPECIES OF MEDICINAL AND ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONSERVATION CONCERN Develop a list of all such plants > Assess currently available information > Conduct inventory and monitoring of native medicinal plants > Quantify and monitor production, consumption, and international trade in selected species > Assess the volume, intensity, and ecological impact of harvesting from the wild for selected species > Identify additional threats to native medicinal plants > Identify native medicinal plants of particular conservation concern by ecoregion > > PROMOTE APPROPRIATE CONSERVATION MEASURES FOR NATIVE MEDICINAL PLANTS > Develop consensus regarding conservation priorities > Develop and implement conservation strategies for species of particular concern > Incorporate native medicinal plants into land management plans > Encourage information sharing regarding selected medicinals to better enable decision-makers to make informed decisions > Support law enforcement and the development of new methods of law enforcement > Work closely with the Public Outreach and Education Working Group > Develop a web page at NPCI on this working group > Define methods of harvesting selected species from the wild sustainably > Facilitate the articulation and use of a wild-crafting ethic > > PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION OF NATIVE MEDICINAL PLANT PRODUCTS > Identify non-native invasive medicinals for wild harvesting > Promote research to support commercial-scale artificial propagation of native medicinals > Encourage artificial propagation of native medicinal plants as appropriate > Identify and promote market-based incentives for consumption of products from sustainable sources > Identify target audiences and partners for information sharing (e.g., farmers and rural development experts) > Identify commercial-scale artificial propagation techniques for selected species > > INCREASE PARTICIPATION IN NATIVE MEDICINAL PLANT CONSERVATION > Educate policy-makers, consumers, and the general public regarding the status and importance of native medicinal plants to focus attention on this issue and increase its profile > Identify, quantify, and publicize trends in the status of native medicinal plants, including cases of unsustainable use, and the benefits of conservation > Promote policy reforms and alternative consumer behaviors as appropriate > Create a database of experts with knowledge of specific medicinal plant species > > GENERATE FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR NATIVE MEDICINAL PLANT CONSERVATION PROJECTS > Identify potential funding sources for coordinated projects > Develop and present project proposals > Promote the establishment of a conservation trust fund for non-timber forest products, including medicinal plants > > primary contact: > Julie Lyke > Plant Conservation Biologist > U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Office of Scientific Authority > ph: (703) 358-1708 x5054 > fax: (703) 358-2276 > e-mail: Julie_Lyke@fws.gov > > next meeting: > conference call on Wednesday, June 2, 1999 > 10am-noon EST > > call: (703) 358-1915 or > > come to: > US FWS > Arlington Square Building > 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Room 205 > (near the Ballston Metro stop) > Native Plant Conservation Initiative > Medicinal Plants Working Group > > Evolving Strategy > > * * * DRAFT (7/16/99) * * * > > Recognizing that commercial demands may cause overharvesting from the wild, the Medicinal Plants Working Group, including representatives from industry, government, academia, and environmental organizations, aims to create a framework for discussion and action on behalf of medicinal plants. The group's primary focus is to facilitate action on behalf of species of particular conservation concern as a means to balance biological and commercial needs and, in the long term, avoid regulatory intervention. The Working Group intends to raise awareness of native medicinal plant issues and needs among partner agencies and to: > > GENERATE AND SHARE INFORMATION REGARDING SPECIES OF MEDICINAL AND ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONSERVATION CONCERN > - Develop a list of all such plants > - Assess currently available information as appropriate to the objective > - Conduct inventory and monitoring of native medicinal plants > - Quantify and monitor production, consumption, and international trade in selected species > - Assess the volume, intensity, and ecological impact of harvesting from the wild for selected species > - Identify additional threats to native medicinal plants > - Identify native medicinal plants of particular conservation concern by ecoregion > - Promote research to increase understanding of the reproductive biology and genetic diversity of native medicinal plants > - Promote awareness of Tribal concerns and policies as these pertain to confidentiality of information > > PROMOTE APPROPRIATE CONSERVATION MEASURES FOR NATIVE MEDICINAL PLANTS > - Develop consensus regarding in situ and ex situ conservation priorities for native medicinal plants > - Develop and implement conservation strategies for species of particular concern > - Incorporate native medicinal plants into land management plans > - Encourage information sharing regarding selected medicinals to better enable decision-makers to make informed decisions > - Support law enforcement and the development of new methods of law enforcement > - Work closely with the Public Outreach and Education Working Group > - Develop a web page at NPCI on this working group > - Define methods of harvesting selected species from the wild sustainably > - Facilitate the articulation and use of a wild-crafting ethic > - Access current and planned ex situ conservation activities for native medicinal plants by federal agencies, botanical gardens, Center for Plant Conservation, etc. > > PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION OF NATIVE MEDICINAL PLANT PRODUCTS > - Promote research in support of commercial-scale cultivation and propagation of native medicinals > - Encourage sustainable cultivation and propagation of native medicinal plants as appropriate > - Identify and promote market-based incentives for consumption of products from sustainable sources > - Identify non-native invasive medicinals for wild harvesting > - Identify target audiences and partners for information sharing (e.g., farmers and rural development experts) > > INCREASE PARTICIPATION IN NATIVE MEDICINAL PLANT CONSERVATION > - Educate policy-makers, consumers, and the general public regarding the conservation status and importance of native medicinal plants to focus attention on this issue and increase its profile > - Identify, quantify, and publicize trends in the conservation status of native medicinal plants, including cases of unsustainable use, and the benefits of conservation > - Promote policy reforms and alternative consumer behaviors as appropriate > - Create a database of experts with knowledge of specific medicinal plant species > > ENCOURAGE ACTIVE PARTICIPATION BY TRIBES AND OTHER GROUPS THAT SAFEGUARD TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE PERTAINING TO NATIVE MEDICINAL PLANTS > Ethnobotany is multi-disciplinary. To discover the practical potential of native plants not only requires knowledge of plants, but an understanding and sensitivity to the dynamics of how cultures work. By observing the intimate and harmonious relationship of indigenous cultures to their environment, their accumulated knowledge of the biodynamics of the natural world, and their traditions of stewardship that sustain fragile ecological balance, scientists, ethnobotanists, and others can gain insight into the management of land reserves, plant communities, and the biodiversity they sustain, so as to help maintain a balanced ecosystem for future generations. > > - Conserve indigenous plants used in traditional medicine, ceremony and ethnobotany > - Preserve indigenous knowledge, culture and biodiversity. > - Support sovereignty through the Convention on Biological Diversity > - Establish medicinal plant reserves dedicated to conserving the plants, providing information about their uses, and ensuring a sustainable supply for future extraction > - Establish a ethnobotanical/ethnomedicinal seed bank and cooperative seed bank programs for exchange > > GENERATE FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR NATIVE MEDICINAL PLANT CONSERVATION PROJECTS > - Identify potential funding sources for coordinated projects > - Develop and present project proposals > - Promote the establishment of a conservation trust fund for non-timber forest products, including medicinal plants --------- "RE: About the Navajo Hopi Land Dispute" --------- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:47:28 -0700 From: Nancy Thomas Subj: About the Navajo - Hopi Land Dispute Mailing List: Paths-L Information forwarded by "H.F.C. Buma" BIA Propaganda (verbatim) Rebuttal by Al Swilling, SENAA. The 10 Most Asked Questions About the Navajo - Hopi Land Dispute Question: What exactly is this so-called dispute about? Answer. The history of the dispute spans more than 100 years and involves numerous pieces of Congressional legislation and court cases. In essence, it the 1880's the federal government set aside 2.2 million acres, or roughly 3,450 square miles of an area larger than the State of Delaware, for the Hopi Indians and such other Indians as the government might settle thereon. At that time, the Navajo Reservation was many miles to the east. Over the years, Navajos moved westward and the Navajo Reservation was enlarged several time until it surrounded the Hopi Reservation and encompassed more than 15 million acres, or 23,500 square miles or and area the size of West Virginia or Ireland. (The Navajo Reservation is larger than many European countries such as Switzerland, Belgium and Denmark.) The Navajos began to use the Hopi Reservation almost to the total exclusion of the Hopi Tribe. Beginning in 1958, Congress passed legislation authorizing the Hopi Tribe to adjudicate its rights in the land in the federal courts. Ultimately, the courts determined both tribes had rights in the land and that the best solution to the competing claims was to "partition" or divide the land between the two tribes. The land was divided into the Hopi Partitioned Land (HPL) and the Navajo Partitioned Land (NPL). Thus, the dispute over ownership to the land has been resolved. The remaining dispute is how to move the Navajos living on the HPL onto Navajo lands. (Few Hopis lived on the NPL and those that did voluntarily move to the HPL after the land was partitioned.) REBUTTAL: Here, the BIA is counting on those who read its response not knowing the history of the Dine'h, because they are not telling the whole story. Important key information has been omitted from their version of the story. Refuting this response requires a brief look at history. Once the history is known, it becomes obvious that the BIA response above is a half truth, not a lie, but clearly a deception geared at portraying the BIA as benevolent and kind and the Dine'h and Hopi as being ungrateful and childish. When all the facts are known, a completely different picture emerges. The truth is, when explorers first encountered the Hopi and Dine'h (Navajo), they were living at the four corners area and occupied much of what is now New Mexico and Arizona, extending into what is now Colorado and Utah. From the 1500s to the 1800s, the Hopi and Dine'h coexisted peacefully in the area that the BIA says is now the center of conflict between the two tribes. The first discord in Dine'h and Hopi territory was with the Spanish, who tried to take over the area but were driven out by the Hopi and Dine'h. The subsequent U.S. Mexican War concluded with the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo, in which Mexico ceded the Southwest, which it did not rightfully own to cede, to the U.S., which agreed never to remove the Native peoples. The next crisis for the Hopi and Dine'h came with the California Gold Rush, when the U.S. declared war on the Navajo because they were, in essence, in the way of the greedy prospectors and settlers hoping to strike it rich in California. On the heels of the Civil War, in 1863-64, Colonel Kit Carson, on contract with the U.S., destroyed Dine'h crops and livestock and forced all captured Dine'h on the infamous 400 mile trek known as "The Long Walk" to Fort Sumner in New Mexico. Thousands died in on the walk and the survivors were held in captivity in concentration camps whence Hitler received his inspiration for the Nazi concentration camps where so many Jews were tortured and murdered. It was Carson's intention to annihilate the Hopi and Dine'h, but starvation and intolerable conditions forced the Dine'h to agree to the 1868 Navajo Treaty, whereby the Dine'h were released and "given" a 3.5 million acre reservation in northwestern New Mexico--a fraction of the size of their original homeland. Afterward, in 1871, the U.S. moved the department of "Indian Affairs" from the War Department to the Department of the Interior and changed its tactics of dealing with Indigenous Americans from worthless treaties and open genocide to education. The logic was to educate the culture out of the First Americans. Dine'h and children of other Indigenous Nations were forcibly removed from their homes and placed in "Indian Schools," where they were forbidden to speak their native language, wear their hair as they pleased, practice their religion, or do anything connected with their traditional culture. If the U.S. government could not kill the Dine'h physically, then it would kill them spiritually. The Dine'h resisted. Between 1878 and 1882, the Dine'h gained back a portion of their original homeland when the U.S. government, to accommodate the growth of the tribe and respond to their grazing needs, expanded the Navajo reservation into Arizona. However, as the Navajo were expanding and gaining back some of their traditional homeland, the Hopi, who had never signed a treaty with nor surrendered to the U.S. government, were beginning to suffer at the hands of the U.S. government. In 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed an Executive Order proclaiming that an area of one degree latitude by one degree longitude in northeastern Arizona would be the Hopi Reservation of approximately 3.5 million acres, which did not correlate with Hopi occupancy. In 1884, Hopi religious leaders wrote to the President challenging his authority to prescribe any boundaries on the Hopi. This action placed many of the Hopi sacred sites outside the U.S. government imposed Hopi boundaries. Likewise, it put many Dine'h sacred sites inside Hopi boundaries, making them, by U.S. standards, inaccessible. Dine'h and Hopi ignored, to some extent, the U.S. government imposed boundaries which had resulted in many Dine'h living on what the U.S. government considered Hopi land and many Hopi living on Navajo land. As the Dine'h and Hopi were dealing with this newest twist of the knife, the search for oil, gas, and other natural resources began. Between 1905 and 1923, geological surveys revealed the wealth of natural resources on Dine'h and Hopi land. Mining companies pressured the U.S. government to grant them the authority to negotiate contracts and leases with the Dine'h and Hopi so they could exploit the vast resources. In 1923, at Standard Oil Company's bidding, the United States government, through the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and against the will of the Dine'h people, formed the first "Navajo Tribal Council." The only action that the council was allowed to take was to authorize an Indian Agent to sign mineral leases in the Navajo Tribal Council's name. Thus begins plans by the BIA and mining companies to create a diversion and fabricate a "land dispute" between the Hopi and Dine'h in order to give the government an excuse to step in and settle a conflict that only existed between the Hopi and Dine'h on the Tribal Council level, not among the Hopi and Dine'h people. The Hopi and Dine'h were crying out in protest; but the protests of the people were directed at the BIA and the mining companies, not among themselves. They had always shared the area as their home and sacred lands, it was no different at this time; but the gears of the U.S. government and the mining companies were in motion, and there would be no stopping them. In response to the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes formed the Hopi Tribal Council amid the strong resistance of traditional people. With Ickes' establishment of nineteen grazing districts on the Hopi and Navajo reservations, he declared that District 6, an area immediately surrounding Hopi villages, was exclusively Hopi. Seven years later, in 1943, District 6 was enlarged to 631,000 acres, and Dine'h within the new boundaries were forced to move. Between 1946 and 1951, the Hopi people had boycotted the puppet Hopi Tribal Council out of existence; but it was reinstated in 1951 by Peabody attorney, Hopi Tribal Councilman, and former Mormon Archbishop, John Boyden. From 1952 to 1957, attorneys Boyden and Normal Littell (Navajo Tribal Council attorney) petitioned the Secretary of the Interior to partition lands outside District 6. In the meantime, Kerr-McGee opened a uranium mill on Dine'h land. In 1962, a federal court upheld the 1943 Hopi boundaries, saying that only Congress has the power to partition land. The court ruled that the balance of the reservation established in 1882 had to be shared equally by the Hopi and Dine'h. This became the Joint Use Area (JUA). In 1963, Vanadium Corporation bought the uranium mill from Kerr-McGee. Approximately 1.5 million tons of ore were processed and left in contaminated waste piles covering 72 acres next to the San Juan River near Shiprock, NM. Two years later, Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall begins work on a plan to develop water and mineral resources in the Southwest. In 1966, ignoring the objections of Hopi traditional and spiritual leaders, the Hopi Tribal Council grants 35 year lease to Peabody Coal Company to develop Black Mesa. Between 1971 and 1974, the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act (PL93-531) became law. Several Arizona Congressmen and Lawyers convinced the rest of Congress that the "Land Dispute" had become a bloody "Range War." This came as a shock to Navajo and Hopi on the JUA, but Congress trusted its Western Colleagues and they signed into Law the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act, dividing the JUA into Navajo and Hopi halves and ostensibly, solving the problem. There followed a 50/50 partition of the lands, with the boundary to be confirmed by District Court, 90% livestock reduction; and a Relocation Commission to implement removal of Indians living on the "wrong side of the fence" was established. This also represented the beginning of home repair and home construction freeze. It is a widely held belief that the Dispute was contrived by Government sponsored and styled tribal council and influential energy interests whose sole intent was to clear up coal and water rights on the JUA, and open the way for more rapid energy development. Vast quantities of oil, uranium and coal were involved. For the timeline of these developments, see the chronology: URL: http://www.applicom.com/vbm/Chron.htm Question: I have heard that there really is no dispute, that the Navajos and Hopis get along just fine with each other. Is this true? Answer. There are individual Navajos and Hopis that get along with each other just as there are Irish Catholics and Protestants and Palestinians and Israelis that get along. Such isolated personal relationships, however, don not mean that there is no dispute in Northern Ireland or that there is no Arab/Israeli dispute or that this is no dispute between the Navajo and the Hopis. The tribes have profound religious, political and legal differences. REBUTTAL: I am unfamiliar with the religious beliefs of either the Hopi or the Dine'h nation. However, I do know that both tribes are, by nature, peaceful people. I also know that, for hundreds of years before the U.S. government or the BIA existed, and for hundreds of years prior to European contact, the Hopi and Dine'h lived together in peace in the Southwest, in and around the four corners area. The rather lame argument that the reason for the so-called "land dispute" is that "The tribes have profound political and legal differences" does not stand up under close scrutiny. In fact, though there probably are some differences in the spiritual beliefs of the Hopi and Dine'h, there are as many similarities. For example, almost every Indigenous American nation on the continent believes that the earth is our Mother and Creator is our Divine Father. We share the belief that Creator put each of our nations on this Turtle Island in the particular places that were best suited for each of us. We share the belief that we were put in our particular homeland to be caretakers of that land, and that is the way Creator intended for it to be. Those common beliefs, no matter how their other beliefs may differ, are exactly why the Hopi and Dine'h were able and willing to co-exist in the same area for so many centuries. The beliefs of the Lakota probably differ from the Hopi and Dine'h beliefs far more than the Hopi and Dine'h beliefs differ from each other; yet each year since it began, the Lakota and other tribes have been allowed to come to Hopi and Dine'h land and perform the Sundance ritual. In spite of the vast differences among the three cultures, the Hopi and Dine'h recognize the profound spiritual commitment and power that are involved. They realize and accept that the differences among them fade into insignificance compared to the faith and commitment to Creator that the rituals demonstrate. To each person, truth is revealed in a way that he or she can best understand it and in ways that are best suited to his or her nature. The Dine'h and the Hopi understand that. If, then, they are tolerant of a people who are as different from them as the Lakota are, how much more tolerant would they be toward each other who have so much in common. Among their common religious beliefs is the recognition that certain places in their homeland are sacred. The Hopi and Dine'h respect each other's holy places and, from what I have learned from various sources, even hold some sacred sites in common. The only "land dispute" is that illusion of dispute that was created by the U.S. government through puppet tribal councils that the U.S. itself created. The Hopi and Navajo Tribal Councils were not created by or in the interests of the Hopi or Dine'h people, as my earlier rebuttal clearly explains. This matter is one of common sense more than documentation. The entire BIA comment is ludicrous. Question: Isn't this merely another attempt by the government to take land from the Indians? Answer. The United States was not a party to the litigation to partition the land. The litigation was brought by the Hopi Tribe against the Navajo Nation and the land was divided between the two tribes. The federal government gained no land from the litigation. In fact, the federal government has given the Navajo Nation 250,000 acres of "new land" and provided funding to the Hopi Tribe to acquire up to 150,000 additional acres of land. REBUTTAL: Black Mesa Coal Mine (URL: http://www.solcommunications.com/) This Is What The U.S. Government Wanted With the Land At Black Mesa The petition for partitioning of the land was not a matter of Hopi vs. Navajo. In 1947, attorneys Boyden and Littell were hired as claims attorneys for the Hopi and Navajo Tribal Councils respectively. Boyden, at the time, was also an attorney for Peabody Coal Company. It should be noted that Boyden first sought employment with the Navajo Tribal Council; but Littell was chosen for that position, so Boyden was hired as the Hopi Tribal Council's attorney. It was the two attorneys together who petitioned federal courts to partition the Hopi land. Together, they convinced Congress that the Hopi and Navajo were engaged in a bloody range war and that partitioning (fencing) the land was the only solution to the problem. It was the BIA, remember, who was formulating strategies and pulling the strings. There was no range war, and the only protests were those raised by both Hopi and Dine'h against the BIA and the two tribal councils for displacing them. The hidden agenda was to give Congress the illusion of a conflict over the JUA, get control of the area turned over to the BIA and the Tribal Councils, then, on the ruse that it was in the best interest of both tribes, sign the mineral rights over to Peabody Coal Company. It worked, and the Hopi and Dine'h people have been paying the price ever since. If the United States is not a party to the litigation to partition the land, then where did PL93-531 in 1974 and the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act of 1996 come from? The facts of the matter are that the Congress of the United States created both the Hopi and Navajo Tribal Councils and they were created for ONE purpose only: to sign over mineral rights to the Hopi and Dine'h lands, not for the land itself, but for the mineral deposits in the land. It was also the United States Congress that formulated and passed the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act (PL93-531) in 1974 and the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act of 1996. It was United States Presidents who signed both bills into law. It was the BIA and rangers from the puppet Hopi Tribal Council who ordered the fencing off of the HPL. It is the BIA, a department of the United States government, that is trying to force the Dine'h off their land and onto the "new land," which the BIA fails to mention is contaminated with uranium waste that is giving off radiation at levels up to 100 times maximum safe levels. Question: If the Navajos have to move off Hopi lands, where are they supposed to go and what provisions have been made to assist them? Answer. The Navajo Nation is more than 15 million acres and the federal government has provided an additional 250,000 acres specifically for relocation purposes. Many Navajos have chosen to relocate to the main Navajo Reservation and many have moved to the "new lands." Some Navajos has chosen not to move to the "new land" and have been relocated to communities in the surrounding area or out of state. Before any Navajo moves, the federal government provides them with water, electricity and a new home. Thus, far, the federal government has spent over One-half billion dollars to assist Navajos in relocating. REBUTTAL: The "new lands," as I have pointed out, are contaminated by uranium tailings, "one of the most toxic substances known to man," as the narrator points out in the video VANISHING PRAYER Genocide of the Dineh. Levels of contamination have been measured at 100 times the maximum safe level. Not only is the land itself contaminated, the water of nearby streams is contaminated, as well. Of those who were first relocated to "new lands," 25 percent died within the first six years. Since moving to "new lands," the birth defect rate among those people has risen to twice the national average. The Dine'h at Big Mountain are not just being told to move. They are being told to move from their sacred ancestral homeland onto land that is so polluted from uranium waste that it will literally kill them. Death by radiation related disease is sometimes slow, but it is always fatal and always agonizing. If the Dine'h do not move, they are denied water and electricity, and are forbidden to repair or rebuild their homes. So much for the BIA's benevolence. Question: What happens to those Navajos that don't want to relocate? Answer. The Hopi and Navajo residents of the HPL have spent years in federal court ordered mediation negotiating "Accommodation Agreements," whereby the Hopi Tribe has agreed to accommodate the continued residence by Navajos on the HPL. In essence, these Accommodation Agreements are long term leases (75 years) with an option to renew at the end of the 75 years. REBUTTAL: The "Accommodation Agreements" were created by the BIA run Tribal Councils, not by the Hopi people. The Dine'h are being told to sign leases to allow them to remain on ancestral sacred land given to them by the Creator. The question is, how can the U.S. government, through its puppet tribal council, impose a lease on land that was given to them by the Creator? Question: I have heard that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is stealing or impounding Navajo sheep. Why is the BIA doing this? Answer. As part of the litigation in the Navajo-Hopi dispute, the BIA was ordered by the courts to maintain the range and ensure that it is not being over grazed. Many Navajos had historically over grazed the range and severely damaged it. Several years ago, the BIA initiated a purchase program whereby it purchased excess Navajo animals. Thereafter, on an annual basis, the BIA has issued grazing permits to the Navajo HPL residents. These permits specify how many animals each Navajo family can graze on the HPL. If a family is grazing animals in excess of their permit they are notified of this fact and asked to remove the excess animals. If they are not removed with a reasonable time, the BIA must impound excess animals in order to ensure that the range is not over grazed and to comply with the orders of the court. REBUTTAL: Isn't it odd that, for hundreds of years before coal, oil, uranium, and other exploitable natural resources were discovered and Peabody Coal Company and the U.S. government came into the picture, the Dine'h have grazed sheep on that land and have done very well at it all by themselves. Then, when the mining companies wanted the land and the U.S. government created the Hopi and Navajo Tribal Councils, the Dineh suddenly forgot everything they ever knew about caring for their flocks and the land that sustains them, making it necessary for the U.S. government to step in and take over range management. You must remember, too, that the BIA's reference to Hopi is in reference to the Hopi Tribal Council, not to the Hopi people themselves. The Hopi successfully boycotted and dismantled the Hopi Tribal Council once. It was the BIA who resurrected it to protect the mining interests, not to help the Hopi people. The first question that comes to mind in regard to impoundment is: If Dine'h livestock are being impounded because of overgrazing, then why does the BIA turn around, after the impoundment, and offer to sell the animals back to the rightful owners? These practices are tantamount to kidnapping and extortion and bear little resemblance to range management. Question: Are Navajos allowed to graze animals if they have signed an Accommodation Agreement? Answer. Yes. After years of negotiations the Hopi Tribe and the HPL Navajos agreed that the HPL Navajos were entitled to graze 2,800 sheep units on the HPL, which is approximately 2 times the number previously permitted. (Sheep units are a way to measure use of the range. For example, a cow eats approximately 5 times as much as a sheep. Thus, one cow equals five sheep units. Navajos can graze a variety of animals as long as the total does not exceed 2,800 sheep units.) The HPL Navajos decide among themselves how to allocate their grazing rights. REBUTTAL: The fact is, the entire concept of range management was created and implemented by the BIA controlled Hopi Tribal Council. The BIA is being deliberately misleading in referring to the actions of the Tribal Council as being those of the "Hopi Tribe." As document upon document written by eyewitnesses to the unfolding saga will attest, there is no conflict between the traditional Hopi and the Dine'h traditional people. A look at the history of the Hopi and Navajo Tribal Councils; the protests of the people at the BIA's creation of these puppet, nonrepresentative councils; and the chain of events that followed the results of geological surveys will make clear just who is controlling the situation, what the ulterior motives of the BIA are, and the truth about why the Dine'h livestock are being impounded, mistreated, starved, and held for ransom at the BIA impoundment yards. Question: If the Navajos have signed Accommodation Agreements why is the BIA presently impounding Navajo animals? Answer. The Accommodation Agreements authorize the HPL Navajos to graze 2,800 sheep units. They were, however, at the beginning of the year grazing in excess of 3,600 sheep units. In addition, the HPL is an arid area and is currently experiencing a dryer than normal year. As a consequence the carrying capacity of the range has been reduced to 2,300 sheep units. In dry times, prudent range management requires a reduction in the number of livestock grazed. In this case, there has been a pro rata reduction in the number of animals that both the HPL Navajos and members of the Hopi Tribe can graze on the HPL. REBUTTAL: The Black Mesa area is, indeed, an arid area. There is little water to be had and every drop is precious to all flora and fauna living in the area. Situations such as these are why federal laws, on paper at least, forbid mining companies from using nonreplenishable water sources for mining purposes unless the mining company has the ability to replace the water that it uses. The reason that the Black Mesa area is experiencing dryer than normal seasons is because Peabody Coal Company continues to run its 270 mile slurry line to the Mojave Generating Station, draining billions of gallons of pristine water from the aquifer that lies beneath Black Mesa, the only source of water for the Hopi and Dine'h living at Black Mesa. Rather than punish Peabody Coal Company and demand restitution for violating federal mining laws, the U.S. government has responded by capping the wells of the Dine'h at Black Mesa and forbidding them to draw water from them. Without water, the ability to maintain their sheep is diminished dramatically. Water in the nearest streams is contaminated by toxins from the mining process, which has killed many of the Dine'h sheep. In the grand scheme of things, the U.S. government has no intention of punishing Peabody Coal Company or stopping it from using the nonreplenishable water from the aquifer. Peabody's mining operation is closing in on the Big Mountain area, where the Dine'h live. It wants to clear the way so it can strip mine Big Mountain and destroy yet another Dine'h sacred site. It is the BIA operated Hopi Tribal Council, and NOT the Hopi people who are trying to remove the Dine'h, whether they have signed an Accommodation Agreement or not. To accomplish this task, the BIA has begun harassing them, threatening them, and confiscating their livestock, saying that they are overgrazing when they are not. For testimony about livestock impoundments, visit L.I.S.N. URL: http://www.lisn.net/bigmountain3.htm Question: Is it true the Navajos have been threatened and assaulted in order to try and make them sign an Accommodation Agreement or move from the HPL? Answer. There are no documented instances of Navajos having been threatened or assaulted. Some non-Indian supports of the HPL Navajos allege that explaining the law to the HPL Navajos constitutes threats and intimidation. In recognition of the sensitive nature of relocation, as part of the mediation process leading to the Accommodation Agreement process Navajo tribal members agreed to make contact with the HPL Navajos to explain the terms of the Accommodation Agreements and to answer questions. The process has been very successful as the majority of the HPL Navajos have signed the Accommodation Agreement. The only people that have, in fact, been assaulted and injured have been BIA and Hopi tribal employees. REBUTTAL: Rena Babbitt Lane, who lost livestock in a confiscation on Monday, February 22, had her hand broken when she tried to stop a previous impoundment. As the photo clearly shows, there have, indeed, been assaults on the Dine'h, and a policy of terrorism and threats is very real and it continues today. Aside from assaults on Dine'h, those who try to prevent the impoundment of their livestock, the Dine'h have been terrorized and mistreated in a number of other ways: Wells have been capped, firewood and wood cutting tools have been confiscated and the Dine'h have been forbidden to gather firewood or even break a green twig. The Dine'h have also been threatened with exclusion orders, had eviction notices nailed to their doors, forbidden to repair their homes or build any shelter. One Dine'h had his hogan bulldozed to the ground by the BIA. Assault and threats can take many forms, and the Dine'h have experienced most of them at the hands of the BIA, aka the "Hopi Tribal Council," aka the "Navajo Tribal Council." For in-depth articles, written by eyewitnesses to the BIA's brutality and underhanded tactics against the Dine'h at Big Mountain, click the "BACK" button below to go back to SENAA's Newsletter page. Click on the links to the various articles and see what eyewitnesses saw. Learn for yourself the truth about the BIA's part in this tragedy and what they don't want you to know about what is REALLY going on at Black Mesa at the BIA's hands. Rebuttal by Al Swilling, SENAA. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 126 days to the final solution for the Dine'h at Big Mountain, AZ, USA. See the video "Vanishing Prayers" URL: http://www.freespeach.org/senaa ---------------------------------------- To subscribe to the "Paths-L" mailing list send a message to Majordomo@YvwiiUsdinvnohii.net In the body of the message type: subscribe paths-l To unsubscribe type: unsubscribe paths-l (no subject is necessary for the message). ---------------------------------------- To subscribe to the "Leonard Peltier" mailing list send a message to Majordomo@YvwiiUsdinvnohii.net In the body of the message type: subscribe LeonardPeltier To unsubscribe type: unsubscribe LeonardPeltier (no subject is necessary for the message). ------------------------------------------ To subscribe to the "Leonard Peltier Defense Committee" email list, send a blank message to lpdc-on@mail-list.com To unsubscribe, send a blank message to lpdc-off@mail-list.com --------- "RE: Blackfeet/Glacier Border Dispute" --------- Date: 10/2/99 3:04:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: kolahq@skynet.be Subj: Blackfeet/Glacier border dispute <+>=<+>KOLA Newslist<+>=<+> Fri, October 1st 1999 Tribe, Glacier break off talks over border dispute http://www.billingsgazette.com/region/991001_reg17.html BROWNING - Tribal leaders from the Blackfeet Nation called off talks with Glacier National Park officials Tuesday, saying they would not negotiate century-old treaty issues until a border dispute could be resolved. The tribe and the park have been meeting since the first of the year, trying to come to terms on interpretation of a 1895 agreement in which the Blackfeet gave up a portion of their historic lands. In that deal, the tribe maintained the right to access the forfeited lands, as well as the right to hunt, fish and gather wood. --------- "RE: Wannabe-ism and the BIA" --------- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:43:56 +0100 From: etowah Subj: Wannabe-ism and the BIA Newsgroup: alt.native Straight from a lying horse's mouth, the BIA lays it out in detail as to "benefits". http://www.doi.gov/bia/aitoday/q_and_a.html INDEX Who is an Indian?............................................................. AI-2 What is an Indian Tribe?............................................ AI-2 What is a Federally recognized tribe?............................... AI-2 How does an Indian become a member of a Tribe?...................... AI-2 What is a reservation?.............................................. AI-3 Do all Indians live on reservations?................................ AI-3 Are Indians required to stay on reservations?....................... AI-3 Do Indians have the right to own land?.............................. AI-3 What does tribal sovereignty mean to Indians?....................... AI-3 Are Indians wards of the government?................................ AI-3 Do Indians get payments from the government?........................ AI-3 Are Indians entitled to a free college education?................... AI-4 Are Indians U.S. citizens?.......................................... AI-4 Can Indians Vote?................................................... AI-4 Do Indians have the right to hold Federal, State and local government offices?.................................................. AI-4 Do Indians pay taxes?............................................... AI-5 Do laws that apply to non-Indians also apply to Indians?............ AI-5 How is Indian gaming regulated?..................................... AI-5 Does the United States still make treaties with Indians?............ AI-5 How do Indian tribes govern themselves?............................. AI-6 Do Indians have special rights different from other citizens?....... AI-6 Did all Indians speak one language?................................. AI-6 Do Indians serve in the Armed Forces?............................... AI-7 How does one trace Indian ancestry and become a member of a tribe?.. AI-7 Why are Indians sometimes referred to as Native Americans?.......... AI-7 Who is an Indian? No single Federal or tribal criterion establishes a person's identity as an Indian. Government agencies use differing criteria to determine who is an Indian eligible to participate in their programs. Tribes also have varying eligibility criteria for membership. To determine what the criteria might be for agencies or Tribes, you must contact each entity directly. To be eligible for Bureau of Indian Affairs services, an Indian must (1) be a member of a Tribe recognized by the Federal Government, (2) one-half or more Indian blood of tribes indigenous to the United States (25 USC 479) ; or (3) must, for some purposes, be of one-fourth or more Indian ancestry. By legislative and administrative decision, the Aleuts, Eskimos and Indians of Alaska are eligible for BIA services. Most of the BIA's services and programs, however, are limited to Indians living on or near Indian reservations. The Bureau of the Census counts anyone an Indian who declares himself or herself to be an Indian. In 1990 the Census figures showed there were 1, 959,234 American Indians and Alaska Natives living in the United States (1, 878,285 American Indians, 57,152 Eskimos, and 23,797 Aleuts). This is a 37. 9 percent increase over the 1980 recorded total of 1,420,000. The increase is attributed to improved census taking and more self- identification during the 1990 count. The BIA's 1993 estimate is that about 1.2 million of this total population live on or adjacent to Federal Indian reservations. This is the segment of the U.S. Indian and Alaska Native population served by the BIA through formal, on-going relations. What is an Indian Tribe? Originally, an Indian Tribe was a body of people bound together by blood ties who were socially, politically, and religiously organized, who lived together in a defined territory and who spoke a common language or dialect. The establishment of the reservation system created some new tribal groupings when two or three tribes were placed on one reservation, or when members of one tribe were spread over two or three reservations. What is a Federally recognized tribe? There are more than 550 Federally recognized Tribes in the United States, including 223 village groups in Alaska. "Federally recognized" means these tribes and groups have a special, legal relationship with the U.S. government. This relationship is referred to as a government-to-government relationship. Members of Federally recognized Tribes who do not reside on their reservations have limited relations with the BIA and IHS, since BIA and IHS programs are primarily administered for members of Federally recognized tribes who live on or near reservations. A number of Indian Tribes and groups in the U.S. do not have a Federally recognized status, although some are State recognized. This means they have no relations with the BIA or the programs it operates. A special program of the BIA, however, works with those groups seeking Federal recognition status. Of the 150 petitions for Federal recognition received by the BIA since 1978, 12 have received acknowledgment through the BIA process, two groups had their status clarified by the Department of the Interior through other means, and seven were restored or recognized by Congress. How does an Indian become a member of a Tribe? A Tribe sets up its own membership criteria, although the U.S. Congress can also establish tribal membership criteria. Becoming a member of a particular Tribe requires meeting its membership rules, including adoption. Except for adoption, the amount of blood quantum needed varies, with some Tribes requiring only proof of descent from an Indian ancestor, while others may require as much as one-half. What is a reservation? In the U.S. there are only two kinds of reserved lands that are well- known: military and Indian. An Indian reservation is land a Tribe reserved for itself when it relinquished its other land areas to the U.S. through treaties. More recently, Congressional acts, Executive Orders and administrative acts have created reservations. Today some reservations have non-Indian residents and land owners living within the boundaries of reservations. There are approximately 275 Indian land areas in the U.S. administered as Indian reservations (reservations, pueblos, rancherias, communities, etc.). The largest is the Navajo Reservation of some 16-million acres of land in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. Many of the smaller reservations are less than 1,000 acres with the smallest less than 100 acres. On each reservation, the local governing authority is the tribal government. Approximately 56.2-million acres of land are held in trust by the United States for various Indian Tribes and individuals. Much of this is reservation land; however, not all reservation land is trust land. On behalf of the United States, the Secretary of the Interior serves as trustee for such lands with many routine trustee responsibilities delegated to BIA officials. The States in which reservations are located have limited powers over them, and only as provided by Federal law. On some reservations, however, a high percentage of the land is owned and occupied by non-Indians. Some 140 reservations have entirely tribally owned land. Do all Indians live on reservations? No. Indians can and do live anywhere in the United States that they wish. Many leave their home reservations for educational and employment purposes. Over half of the total U.S. Indian and Alaska Native population now lives away from reservations. Most return home often to participate in family and tribal life and sometimes to retire. Are Indians required to stay on reservations? No. Indians are free to move about like all other Americans. Contrary to popular belief, Indians are not required to acquire passports to leave or enter reservations. Do Indians have the right to own land? Yes. As U.S. citizens, Indians can buy and hold title to land purchased with their own funds. Nearly all lands of Indian Tribes, however, are held in trust for them by the United States. There is no general law that permits a tribe to sell its land. Individual Indians also own trust land, which they can sell, but only upon the approval of the Secretary of the Interior or his representative. If an Indian wants to extinguish the trust title to his land and hold title like any other citizen (with all the attendant responsibilities such as paying taxes), he can do so if the Secretary of the Interior or his authorized representative determines that he is able to manage his own affairs. This is a protection for the individual. What does tribal sovereignty mean to Indians? When Indian Tribes first encountered Europeans, they were dealt with because of their strength in numbers and were treated as sovereign governments with whom treaties were made. When tribes gave up their lands to the U.S., they retained certain sovereignty over the lands they kept. While such sovereignty is limited today, it is nevertheless jealously guarded by the tribes against encroachments by other sovereign entities such as States. Tribes enjoy a direct government-to-government relationship with the U.S. government wherein no decisions about their lands and people are made without their consent. Are Indians wards of the government? No. The Federal Government is a trustee of Indian property, it is not a guardian of individual Indians. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized by law, in many instances, to protect the interests of minors and incompetents, but this protection does not confer a guardian-ward relationship. Do Indians get payments from the government? No individual is automatically paid for being an Indian. The Federal Government may pay a Tribe or an individual in compensation for damages for losses resulting from treaty violations, for encroachments on Indian lands, or for other past or present wrongs. A Tribe or an individual may also receive a government check for payment of income from their lands and resources. This occurs because their resources are held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior and payment for their use has been collected from users by the Federal Government in their behalf. Fees collected from oil or grazing leases are an example of this situation. Are Indians entitled to a free college education? No. An individual does not automatically receive funding because of Indian ancestry. The Indian higher education program provides financial aid to eligible students, based on demonstrated financial need, who have plans to attend an accredited institution of higher education. A student must obtain an application packet and other financial aid information form their tribe, home BIA Agency, or Area Office of Indian Education Programs. The Higher Education Grant Program is available to an individual who is a member of a federally Recognized Indian tribe. Are Indians U.S. citizens? Yes. Before the U.S. Congress extended American citizenship in 1924 to all Indians born in the territorial limits of the United States, citizenship had been conferred upon approximately two-thirds of the Indian population through treaty agreements, statutes, naturalization proceedings, and by "service in the Armed Forces with an honorable discharge" in World War I. Indians also are members of their respective Tribes and thus have dual citizenship. Can Indians Vote? Yes. Indians have the same right to vote as other U.S. citizens. In 1948, the Arizona Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional disenfranchising interpretation of the State constitution. Thus Indians were permitted to vote as in most other States. A 1953 Utah State law stated that persons living on Indian reservations were not residents of the State and could not vote. That law was subsequently repealed. In 1954, Indians in Maine who were not then Federally recognized were given the right to vote, and in 1962, New Mexico extended the right to vote to Indians. Indians also vote in State and local elections and in their affiliated tribal elections. Each tribe, however, determines which of its members are eligible to vote in its elections. This qualification to do so is not related to the individual Indian's right to vote in national, State or local (non-Indian) elections. Do Indians have the right to hold Federal, State and local government offices? Yes. Indians have the same rights as other citizens to hold public office. Indian men and women have held elective and appointive offices at all levels of government. Charles Curtis, a Kaw Indian from Kansas, served as Vice President of the United States under President Herbert Hoover. Indians have been elected to the U.S. Congress from time to time for more than 80 years. Ben Reifel, a Sioux Indian from South Dakota, served five terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of Montana, was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1986 from the Third District of Colorado, and is currently serving in the United States Senate. He is the only American Indian currently serving in Congress. Other Indians who have served in the U.S. Congress include- - U.S. Senate: Hiram R. Revels, Lumbee from Mississippi, 1870-1871 Mathew Stanley Quay, Abenaki or Delaware from Pennsylvania, 1887-1899 and 1901-1904 Charles Curtis, Kaw from Kansas, 1907-1912 and 1915-1929 (Vice-President from 1929-1933) Robert L. Owens, Cherokee from Oklahoma, 1907-1925 U.S. House of Representatives: Charles Curtis, Kaw from Kansas, 1893-1907 Charles D. Carter, Choctaw from Oklahoma, 1907-1927 W.W. Hastings, Cherokee from Oklahoma, 1915-1921 and 1923-1935 Will Rogers, Jr., Cherokee from California, 1943-1944 William G. Stigler, Chocktaw from Oklahoma, 1944-1952 Benjamin Reifel, Rosebud Sioux from South Dakota, 1961-1971 Clem Rogers McSpadden, Cherokee from Oklahoma, 1972-1975 Indians also served in and now hold office in a number of State legislatures. Others currently hold or have held elected or appointive positions in State judiciary systems and in county and city governments including local school boards. Larry Echo Hawk, an enrolled member of the Pawnee Tribe, served as attorney general of Idaho from 1992 to 1994. Do Indians pay taxes? Yes. They pay the same taxes as other citizens with the following exceptions: - Federal income taxes are not levied on income from trust lands held for them by the United States; - State income taxes are not paid on income earned on a Indian reservation; - State sales taxes are not paid by Indians on transactions made on an Indian reservation; and - Local property taxes are not paid on reservation or trust land. Do laws that apply to non-Indians also apply to Indians? Yes. As U.S. citizens, Indians are generally subject to Federal, State, and local laws. On Indian reservations, however, only Federal and tribal laws apply to members of the Tribe unless the Congress provides otherwise. In Federal law, the Assimilative Crimes Act makes any violation of State criminal law a Federal offense on reservations. Most Tribes now maintain tribal court systems and facilities to detain tribal members convicted of certain offenses within the boundaries of the reservation. How is Indian gaming regulated? Indian land is not under State law unless a Federal law places it under State law. The Supreme Court held that even if a tribe is under State law the State gaming regulations do not apply on Indian trust land. In 1988 Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. This law allows traditional Indian gaming as well as bingo, pull tabs, lotto, punch boards, tip jars, and certain card games on tribal land. However, it requires a Tribal/State compact for other forms of gaming such as cards or slot machines. Today there are about 145 Tribal-State gaming compacts. Nearly 130 tribes in 24 states are involved in some kind of gaming. The National Indian Gaming Commission was established by Congress to develop regulations for Indian gaming. For more information contact the National Indian Gaming Commission, 9th., Floor, 1441 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 632-7003. Does the United States still make treaties with Indians? No. Congress ended treaty-making with Indian tribes in 1871. Since the, relations with Indian groups are by Congressional acts, Executive Orders, and Executive Agreements. Between 1778, when the first treaty was made with the Delawares, to 1871, when Congress ended the treaty making period, the U.S. Senate ratified 370 Indian treaties. At least 45 others were negotiated with tribes but were never ratified by the Senate. The treaties that were made often contain obsolete commitments which have either been fulfilled or superseded by Congressional legislation. The provision of education, health, welfare, and other services by the government to tribes often has extended beyond treaty requirements. A number of large Indian groups have no treaties, yet share in the many services for Indians provided by the Federal Government. The specifics of particular treaties signed by government negotiators with Indians are contained in one volume (Vol. II) of the publication, "Indian Affairs, Laws and Treaties," compiled, annotated and edited by Charles Kappler. Published by the Government Printing Office in 1904, it is now out of print, but can be found in most large law libraries. More recently the treaty volume has been published privately under the title, "Indian Treaties, 1778-1883." Originals of all the treaties are maintained by the National Archives and Records Service of the General Services Administration. A duplicate of a treaty is available upon request for a fee. The agency will also answer questions about specific Indian treaties. Write to: Diplomatic Branch, National Archives and Records Services, Washington, DC 20408. How do Indian tribes govern themselves? Most tribal governments are organized democratically, that is, with an elected leadership. The governing body is generally referred to as a "council" and comprised of persons elected by vote of the eligible adult tribal members. The presiding official is the "chairman," although some tribes use other titles such as "principal chief," "president" or "governor." An elected tribal council, recognized as such by the Secretary of the Interior, has authority to speak and act for the tribe and to represent it in negotiations with Federal State, and local governments. Tribal governments generally define conditions of membership, regulate domestic relations of members, prescribe rules of inheritance for reservation property not in trust status, levy taxes, regulate property under tribal jurisdiction, control conduct of members by tribal ordinances, and administer justice. Many tribes are organized under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934, including a number of Alaska Native villages, which adopted formal governing documents (Constitutions) under the provisions of a 1936 amendment to the IRA. The passage in 1971 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, however, provided for the creation of village and regional corporations under State law to manage the money and lands granted by the Act. The Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act of 1936 provided for the organization of Indian tribes within the State of Oklahoma. Some tribes do not operate under any of these acts, but are nevertheless organized under documents approved of governments. Prior to reorganization, the tribes maintained their own, often highly developed, systems of self-government. Do Indians have special rights different from other citizens? Any special rights that Indian tribes or members of those tribes have are generally based on treaties or other agreements between the United States and tribes. The heavy price Indians paid to retain certain "sovereign" rights was to relinquish much of their land to the United States. The inherent rights they did not relinquish are protected by U.S. law. Among those may be hunting and fishing rights and access to religious sites. Did all Indians speak one language? At the end of the 15th century, more than 300 languages were spoken by the native population of what is now the United States. Some were linked by "linguistic stocks" which mean