> I think I understood that Danny's intent was to speak in general terms,
> but I find myself in agreement with Jym Dyer on the point that it's
> more than a bit unfair to speak in such general terms on such an im-
> portant issue.
I don't mean to discourage people from joining the environmental movement.
I think this is what bothers you (?). There is alot of common ground between
environmental groups and Indian rights groups. There will likely be powerful
alliances built here that will help Indian people, and everybody else. My
concern is that these alliances are built in a good way.
Is it "politically incorrect" to assert that environmentalist concerns and
tribal concerns are not always the same?
> Yes, there may be organizations which will exploit such
> issues as tribal rights and native land claims in order to advance their
> own agendas, and it's good to be watchful for such tendencies, but unless
> we deal with specifics, we're in danger of doing more harm than good in
> such criticisms and warnings.
I am bothered by "their may be organizations..." and the earlier request
to name such a group so my "claim" could be evaluated. This implies that I
am making things up (lying) and incompetent.
As for doing more harm than good, I do not agree. The truth is a good thing
and debate is a good thing. *This* debate is a good thing. I'm not sure what
harm you think I have done... again, discouraging people from joining the
environmental movement? I assume NativeNet readers are intelligent people
and would not infer from my comments that all environmental groups are bad.
I hope that my comments would encourage people to support tribes, as well
as the many environmentalists that are supportive of tribal issues.
I leave it as an exercise to the reader :-) to determine when groups are
supporting tribes or not. The point of my posting was not to give a list
of "good" organizations and "bad" organizations... I wanted the readers
to know that some of these organizations are not always supportive of tribal
concerns (even if they mean well), and I wanted to encourage the NqtiveNet
readers to "be watchful" for native rights. I beleive that being "watchful"
will benefit the individual, groups, and tribes.
> Perhaps Danny could offer some principles
> for helping us come to help us evaluate specific cases of organizations
> trying to lend their support to tribal rights cases - or could state if
> he feels that it's best for such organizations to just stay out of such
> matters entirely, and could tell us why he feels that way.
Tribes have governing structures and leaders (political and religious).
Within this structure, decisions are made. For organizations to support
these decisions is a good thing... and I encourage this. So, a good
principle to abide by would be to try and deal with tribes.
In cases of Indian vs. Indian conflict (such as Navajo/Hopi which started
this discussion), I believe it best for the conflict to be resolved between
the tribes. Any outside organization who takes a position against one side
is asking for trouble in my opinion.
An example here would be California Indian Legal Services who will represent
individual Indians or tribes... as long as the lawsuit is not against another
Indian/tribe.
> As for the case he mentions, could we get more details on the situation,
> or references on where to get more information?
There is an article from an elder woman speaking against the tribal council
in the latest News from Native California magazine. Their is also a paragraph
in Allogan Slagle's column of the same magazine discussing the state
legislation.
Some of the other things I've heard on this case... the tribe decided to
take the garbage and that it would meet *better* than the federal safety
requirements. The controversy started when the non-Indians residing next
to the reservation voiced their objections to the garbage being put there.
I beleive this is what sparked the attempt to pass STATE legislation regarding
waste and Indian land.
> Who is making the decision on behalf of the tribe?
I assume their tribal council.
> I know there have been many cases where
> governments have created what amount to phony native governing bodies in
> order to push through some decision that they want to foist on the native
> people involved. Is the community as a whole behind the decision?
I do not know.
> Has anyone in the state brought out the argument that the situation
> represents a matter of tribal sovereignty?
I know people have condemned this legislation as a threat to tribal
sovereignity. I don't think this would matter to the State of California;
they'd probably welcome it.
> I don't mean to disagree with Danny's
> point of view, but I think this is an important subject, and would be in-
> terested in getting more details.
>
> --Gary
I hope you will express your opinion whenever you disagree with mine.
I'll post more details on this case in southern California. I also think
it's an interesting case.
danny ammon
ammon@neon.stanford.edu
--Comments by NativeNet facilitator, Gary Trujillo (gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us):
My earlier comments were not intended so much attempts to express my own opinion, but rather attempts to express my interpretation of Jym Dyer's comments and concerns. I don't feel I have a stake in the matter of who represents a particular tribe or how a given group of people comes to a decision, or whether it's a good idea in general to permit dumping on native land, or whether legislation should be written to deal with such a situation, or whether any particular environmental organization or environmental organizations in general should express opinions on native rights cases, or anything else. As facilitator of this discussion, I am seeking only to help ensure that the questions are investigated as system- atically as possible (relative to my own subjective standards, of course).
I don't see Danny as trying to discourage people from joining forces with the "environmental movement" and I certainly would never think to accuse him of lying or as being incompetent. I meant to apply the word "claim" to Danny's assertion that one or more (unnamed) environmental groups are using Indian rights issues to further their own agendas. A claim can be evaluated, and opinions can be expressed about the evidence to support the claim and the logic used to evaluate the evidence. To question such a claim is not the same as stating or implying that the person making the claim is lying. "Lying," by my definition, is the mis-statement of some- thing which may or may not be factually true, and requires little, if any, interpretation to establish the truth value of the statement. If someone were to misrepresent a given environmental organization's position on a given issue, one could accuse him or her of lying. However, it is not possible to even use the word in the context of the general sort of as- sertion Danny made in his original article. My only real issue with Danny's assertion, in fact, is that it does not lend itself to evaluation, since it is so general, and is not supported with any real verifiable fact- ual evidence. (Again, I am not stating that what Danny said is untrue, only that we have no way to even begin to examine the question of how much sense it makes, since we have no real facts to go on.)
I also don't feel this issue is about "political correctness." One of the primary purposes of this electronic forum is to give us a means for getting a better understanding of the complex issues involved in the lives and his- tories of aboriginal peoples. Part of the complexity is that the quest for answers might require that we develop some sophistication in looking at the competing claims of people who all feel they are attempting to work for a better future for native people, and that we be prepared to forego notions such as those based on a "noble savage" mentality or on simplistic associ- ations between the interests of native people and that of the natural en- vironment. The leaders of environmental organizations must certainly have their biases and blind spots, and it can only be to the good to discover that assumptions they may be making or directions they are taking do not serve the needs of the people they claim to want to help which do not coin- cide with the interest of these people as they see their own interest.
I have not made any accusations against Danny, nor have I claimed that he has done any harm. I merely wanted to sound a cautionary note against painting with too broad a brush in a search for dangers of native peoples' interests being subsumed into overall political agendas. Certainly the recommendation Danny makes about being careful to not be too eager to accept the help of non-native people and their organizations in promoting native struggles is a good one, but I maintain that it would be helpful to have in hand more specifics, and that they are really necessary to properly evaluate charges of working against the interests of the native people involved. As for the charges of interference, we would need more details which include evidence of how the native people feel about the help offered by a specific organization.