Tweet
************************************************** ******************
This Message Is Reprinted Under The FAIR USE
Doctrine Of International Copyright Law:
_http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html_
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html)
************************************************** ******************
FROM: INDIAN COUNTRY TODAY NEWSPAPER
_http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096413016_
(http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096413016)
America's Short Memory For Indian Justice
(javascript:PrintWindow();) Posted: May 19, 2006 by: _Editors Report_
(http://www.indiancountry.com/author.cfm?id=471) / Indian Country Today
On May 15, America - via its Supreme Court - told the Indian people of
New York state, principally the Haudenosaunee, that they don't count. The
high court shrugged off a petition to review the apparent destruction of the
Cayuga land claim settlement by a New York court decision. That Cayuga decision
came on the heels of the now infamous City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian
Nation of New York case of 2005, when the Oneida attempt to buy and restore
ancestral reservation land back into tribal jurisdiction was dashed against a
wall of manipulated intolerance that reached the ears and eyes of the Supreme
Court and allowed it to deny a true day of reckoning for the Indian peoples.
The Supreme Court had previously ruled the lands in question were, in fact,
stolen.
The land cases themselves are foolproof. New York, like all states always
intent on diminishing Indian holdings, coerced the lands from the Indian
nations against federal law that prohibited such transactions. These Indian lands
were guaranteed, after major concessions and treaty agreements, and in the
case of the Oneida Nation, after loyal and valiant service to the new Americans
in their revolution against England.
What happened? Why did a Supreme Court that only a generation ago fully
affirmed the just cause claims of the New York nations now gut the right to
remedy on such claims? Why did the high court thwart the final possibility of
justice from the most dispossessed people in the country?
The Ancient Indian Land claims, as they were called for a long time, have
been the stuff of legend for generations of Haudenosaunee (Iroquois or Six
Nations). The tribes and, often, particular clans or families have invested
heavily in historical and legal research and action, driven by the strong cultural
pressure among the people to not lose track of ancestral lands. This is
about deep tribal memory, a sense of betrayal and injustice transmitted over the
generations.
In Sherrill, the high court quashed the enforcement of the claims on the
basis of the ''laches doctrine,'' which can assume the aggrieved party as
''negligent'' if too much time has elapsed from the date of the injustice before
the case is brought to court.
In this risky case that will be analyzed for a generation, the court decided
that the Indian nations had waited too long. This response to the Indian
claim was a classic ''Catch-22'' loop, as the nations involved had been denied
standing in American courts for virtually the entire time in question.
American Indians were not considered capable in court to sue white people, much less
the government. They were kept out of the courts over many decades; and
then, after finally gaining standing for their tribe in the legal system, the
high court tells them they took too long to bring their case to court. The
laches doctrine in fact may be ''excused'' for a number of reasons, including
''ignorance of the party's rights or where the party labors under a legal
disability, such as insanity, infancy and the like.'' (Black's Law Dictionary).
But the court did not do so in the case of the Haudenosaunee land claims
because laches was just the cited reason, a doctrine to be applied or not
applied at the political will of the court.
This reality is not lost on Indian observers; it becomes another and rather
deep notch in the recording stick of such injustices of the tribal memory.
Once again, American justice toward Indian peoples was reversed in a
predictable cycle of confusing and untrustworthy reversals of social policy that never
seem to end.
But we submit that the real reason for the court's brazen rejection of
justice, cited by the court, is that the remedy sought was seen as ''too
disruptive'' to the non-Natives now on the formerly treaty and federally guaranteed
reservations. Never mind that the state had, over the decades, allowed and
encouraged its own citizens to encroach and gain private and institutional land
titles upon these guaranteed reservation boundaries.
Never mind, most interestingly, that nearly 80 percent of New Yorkers across
the board believe Indian people got a raw deal and deserve to have their
territories free of state jurisdiction. This is from a recent Zogby
International survey that gives highly enlightening evidence of just how strong the
sympathy and support for Indian nations is in New York, while economic analysis
consistently shows just how important Indian enterprises are to their areas.
Buffalo State College media research adds indications that the more business
or personal interaction the public has with tribal bases, the more
sympathetic it becomes. This hugely useful information adds insult to injury, that in
fact there is widespread public empathy with the tribal positions, yet the
shrillness of the opposition and the willingness of the press clearly guided
the Supreme Court as it dropped a doctrine-seeking bomb on a 30-year-old
justice-seeking legal process.
The positions taken by the Supreme Court appear largely manipulated by the
coalescing of special business interests and alarmed flag-
waving supranationalists who make a lot of noise in the media. No doubt that
the Indian leadership has made its share of serious mistakes in the land
claims process, but the anti-Indian argument that allowing the tribal
jurisdiction to grow and expand (with agreed upon limits) is widely unpopular among New
Yorkers is not true. Nor is it true that expanded tribal jurisdictions would
be particularly disruptive - as opposed to stimulating and economically
rewarding - for those tribal localities and regions.
What is true is that a small, agitated constituency of convenience store
operators, backed by some other powerful interests, carried their loud arguments
to convince the regional media and the Supreme Court of the opposite.
How could this happen? Or perhaps, a better question: Why would it not, at
this time in history? Why would it not, if the significant Indian leadership
appears dysfunctional in its inability to take unified approaches to the state
and federal governments? Why would it not, if the Indian leadership remains
mired in purely legalistic strategies of sovereignty protection, when
government-to-government relations require other approaches that include drawing
attention to the support of broad public opinion, where there are actual
possibilities for the truth to emerge? But most importantly, why would it not, when
the Supreme Court continues to advance this nation's lingering foundational
sin - the doctrine of discovery?
Get used to it. The Supreme Court is a ghost to the cause of justice over
Indian lands for at least a generation. Without the American public or the
citizens of states and regions on our side, American Indians and Natives, tribal
sovereignties and jurisdictions, are imperiled in America.
This Message Is Reprinted Under The FAIR USE
Doctrine Of International Copyright Law:
_http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html_
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html)
************************************************** ******************
FROM: INDIAN COUNTRY TODAY NEWSPAPER
_http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096413016_
(http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096413016)
America's Short Memory For Indian Justice
(javascript:PrintWindow();) Posted: May 19, 2006 by: _Editors Report_
(http://www.indiancountry.com/author.cfm?id=471) / Indian Country Today
On May 15, America - via its Supreme Court - told the Indian people of
New York state, principally the Haudenosaunee, that they don't count. The
high court shrugged off a petition to review the apparent destruction of the
Cayuga land claim settlement by a New York court decision. That Cayuga decision
came on the heels of the now infamous City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian
Nation of New York case of 2005, when the Oneida attempt to buy and restore
ancestral reservation land back into tribal jurisdiction was dashed against a
wall of manipulated intolerance that reached the ears and eyes of the Supreme
Court and allowed it to deny a true day of reckoning for the Indian peoples.
The Supreme Court had previously ruled the lands in question were, in fact,
stolen.
The land cases themselves are foolproof. New York, like all states always
intent on diminishing Indian holdings, coerced the lands from the Indian
nations against federal law that prohibited such transactions. These Indian lands
were guaranteed, after major concessions and treaty agreements, and in the
case of the Oneida Nation, after loyal and valiant service to the new Americans
in their revolution against England.
What happened? Why did a Supreme Court that only a generation ago fully
affirmed the just cause claims of the New York nations now gut the right to
remedy on such claims? Why did the high court thwart the final possibility of
justice from the most dispossessed people in the country?
The Ancient Indian Land claims, as they were called for a long time, have
been the stuff of legend for generations of Haudenosaunee (Iroquois or Six
Nations). The tribes and, often, particular clans or families have invested
heavily in historical and legal research and action, driven by the strong cultural
pressure among the people to not lose track of ancestral lands. This is
about deep tribal memory, a sense of betrayal and injustice transmitted over the
generations.
In Sherrill, the high court quashed the enforcement of the claims on the
basis of the ''laches doctrine,'' which can assume the aggrieved party as
''negligent'' if too much time has elapsed from the date of the injustice before
the case is brought to court.
In this risky case that will be analyzed for a generation, the court decided
that the Indian nations had waited too long. This response to the Indian
claim was a classic ''Catch-22'' loop, as the nations involved had been denied
standing in American courts for virtually the entire time in question.
American Indians were not considered capable in court to sue white people, much less
the government. They were kept out of the courts over many decades; and
then, after finally gaining standing for their tribe in the legal system, the
high court tells them they took too long to bring their case to court. The
laches doctrine in fact may be ''excused'' for a number of reasons, including
''ignorance of the party's rights or where the party labors under a legal
disability, such as insanity, infancy and the like.'' (Black's Law Dictionary).
But the court did not do so in the case of the Haudenosaunee land claims
because laches was just the cited reason, a doctrine to be applied or not
applied at the political will of the court.
This reality is not lost on Indian observers; it becomes another and rather
deep notch in the recording stick of such injustices of the tribal memory.
Once again, American justice toward Indian peoples was reversed in a
predictable cycle of confusing and untrustworthy reversals of social policy that never
seem to end.
But we submit that the real reason for the court's brazen rejection of
justice, cited by the court, is that the remedy sought was seen as ''too
disruptive'' to the non-Natives now on the formerly treaty and federally guaranteed
reservations. Never mind that the state had, over the decades, allowed and
encouraged its own citizens to encroach and gain private and institutional land
titles upon these guaranteed reservation boundaries.
Never mind, most interestingly, that nearly 80 percent of New Yorkers across
the board believe Indian people got a raw deal and deserve to have their
territories free of state jurisdiction. This is from a recent Zogby
International survey that gives highly enlightening evidence of just how strong the
sympathy and support for Indian nations is in New York, while economic analysis
consistently shows just how important Indian enterprises are to their areas.
Buffalo State College media research adds indications that the more business
or personal interaction the public has with tribal bases, the more
sympathetic it becomes. This hugely useful information adds insult to injury, that in
fact there is widespread public empathy with the tribal positions, yet the
shrillness of the opposition and the willingness of the press clearly guided
the Supreme Court as it dropped a doctrine-seeking bomb on a 30-year-old
justice-seeking legal process.
The positions taken by the Supreme Court appear largely manipulated by the
coalescing of special business interests and alarmed flag-
waving supranationalists who make a lot of noise in the media. No doubt that
the Indian leadership has made its share of serious mistakes in the land
claims process, but the anti-Indian argument that allowing the tribal
jurisdiction to grow and expand (with agreed upon limits) is widely unpopular among New
Yorkers is not true. Nor is it true that expanded tribal jurisdictions would
be particularly disruptive - as opposed to stimulating and economically
rewarding - for those tribal localities and regions.
What is true is that a small, agitated constituency of convenience store
operators, backed by some other powerful interests, carried their loud arguments
to convince the regional media and the Supreme Court of the opposite.
How could this happen? Or perhaps, a better question: Why would it not, at
this time in history? Why would it not, if the significant Indian leadership
appears dysfunctional in its inability to take unified approaches to the state
and federal governments? Why would it not, if the Indian leadership remains
mired in purely legalistic strategies of sovereignty protection, when
government-to-government relations require other approaches that include drawing
attention to the support of broad public opinion, where there are actual
possibilities for the truth to emerge? But most importantly, why would it not, when
the Supreme Court continues to advance this nation's lingering foundational
sin - the doctrine of discovery?
Get used to it. The Supreme Court is a ghost to the cause of justice over
Indian lands for at least a generation. Without the American public or the
citizens of states and regions on our side, American Indians and Natives, tribal
sovereignties and jurisdictions, are imperiled in America.
Comment