AIM Support Group of Ohio & N. KentuckyUpdates and Announcements
Tuesday, October 01, 2002Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 Subject: Many Indians ruled by Catch-22 Many Indians ruled by Catch-22 Published on 09/29/2002 http://www.theday.com/news/ts-re.asp?NewsUID=B16F860D-26D7-4EE1 -ACAB-6DA6300C28D7 I believe the phrase “catch 22” originated in Sioux country as “Wikcemna nunpa yuza” long before the book by Joseph Heller. It is the circumstance of rule that denies a solution. For example; there is a saying commonplace in jurisprudence in America. It is that a person charged with a crime has the right to be tried before a jury of his or her peers. Who or what is a peer? An Indian charged with committing a serious crime on an Indian reservation is almost always tried in a city far from the reservation and usually before an all-white jury. The jury never knows anything about this person's life, the conditions in which he or she was raised, and nothing about the culture, traditions or language, the knowledge of which could have a serious effect upon why the crime was committed and upon the ultimate decision of the juror. Catch 22? A Lakota father has a duty to his wife and children as their provider and cultural and spiritual leader. When his freedom was taken from him and he was placed on an Indian reservation without a means to provide for his family, it is only natural that his ability to provide cultural and spiritual guidance also suffered. When the welfare system first originated, even if the man could not find a job, he could still stay with his family and he could hunt, fish and maintain the ties to the culture and spirituality necessary for his well being and that of his family. As the system became more controlled the woman was forced to sign papers under the AFDC programs that prevented the man from living under the same roof as she and her children. This totally went against the provisions of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. It placed the man in the position of becoming an outcast from his own family. Unemployment on many Western reservations hovers at 50 percent to 80 percent. There are few jobs and yet a man is forced to separate himself from his family because he is not working. Catch 22? When the Indian nations signed treaties with the United States of America, they did so under duress. Most treaties were created to take land. A tribe would give up a million acres of land for certain treaty rights. Most treaties provided for health care, education and welfare. These were provisions written into the treaties. In exchange for giving up large chunks of land, the Indian people were to receive certain benefits in perpetuity. As America became more secure in itself, the treaties soon became worthless pieces of paper. The millions of acres given up by the Indians for “health care, education and welfare” took on a different meaning. The monetary compensation for natural and mineral resources on Indian lands went into a trust fund where the accumulated profits often amounted to the millions of dollars. Treaties aside, if there had been proper accounting for the timber, water, oil and precious metals taken from Indian lands, there would have never been a need for any sort of welfare. Instead, the Interior Department, through its Bureau of Indian Affairs, so mismanaged the assets of the Indian nations that no one to this day, can account for the millions, nay billions, of dollars lost or stolen from these trust funds. Trust is such an odd name for these lost revenues. Who does one trust? Catch 22? As the number of welfare recipients grew on Indian reservations those receiving benefits were soon treated as the welfare recipients in the inner cities. The treaty obligations by the United States to the Indian people for giving up millions of lucrative acres of land no longer mattered. Every welfare recipient became a negative number. The United States supposedly recognizes the Indian nations as sovereign. And yet, when they initiated the National Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1987, they gave state governments the authority to regulate gaming compacts. In other words, if a state decided they did not want an Indian owned casino in their state, it could simply deny the Indian tribe applying a compact. Worse yet, every aspect of gaming was regulated by the state. How many slot machines, whether there could be Black Jack tables, roulette or other gaming devices, all came under state jurisdiction. One sovereign took precedence over another sovereign. Catch 22? In Indian country the circumstance of rule that denies a solution is doing well. Tim Giago, an Oglala Lakota, is editor and publisher of weekly Lakota JOurnal. He can be reached at editor@lakotajournal.com or at P.O. Box 3080, Rapid City, S.D. 57709 posted by Webmaster@ AIM Support 3:42 PM Last updated:
|
