Wotanging Ikche--nanews07.041

Gary Night Owl (gars@netcom.com)
Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:41:59 -0700 (PDT)

Articles sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next article: Gary Night Owl: "Wotanging Ikche--nanews07.042"

_ __ _____ __ _ __ ___ ____ _ __ ___ 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 <Valentina>
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

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'm sorry -- I just cannot resist a bit of cynicism here>

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. <shrug>
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 <nlthomas@YvwiiUsdinvnohii.net>
Subj: CNN - Leonard Peltier
Mail List: LeonardPeltier List <LeonardPeltier@YvwiiUsdinvnohii.net>

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" <lpdc@idir.net>
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"
<lpdc@idir.net> 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.
<snip>
> 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.
>
><snip>

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" <jansatlcom.net@mindspring.com>
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 <brinumi@earthlink.net>
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."

<<<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>>>>

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.

<<<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>>>

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.

<<<<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. >>>>

QUESTION: Has Philip Fontaine, the head of the Assembly of First
Nations, endorsed this statement?

<<<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 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>>>

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?

<<<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.>>>>

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?

<<<<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.<<

QUESTION: Is this referring to the many deaths in the 1970's? Weren't the
majority of the victims AIM members or supporters who were killed by the
GOONS? Is AIM responsible for what the GOONS did? And what is
meant by people still dying? Who has been killed and who is suspected?
How SPECIFICALLY is AIM responsible for the deaths and which deaths and
when? This is a thoroughly mysterious statement.

<<<<"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.>>>

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.

<<<<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.>>>>

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?

<<<<<We do not even know charlatans like Ward Churchill around here.>>>>>

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.

<<<Peter Matthiessen in his deeply flawed book 'In The Spirit of Crazy
Horse'>>>>.

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?

<<<<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.>>>>

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 <evb@vallnet.com>
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 <sktpo@ronan.net>
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
<dxn3353@montana.com>
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 <nlthomas@YvwiiUsdinvnohii.net>
Subj: About the Navajo - Hopi Land Dispute

Mailing List: Paths-L <paths-l@YvwiiUsdinvnohii.net>

Information forwarded by "H.F.C. Buma" <hfcbuma@xs4all.nl>
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 <etowah@swbell.net>
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