welp..... no more dean for me

[kispoko]

despite posturing at the ncai (national congress of american indians), dean's record with a native nation in his own state is rather inexcusable, and i just can't throw any amount of support behind this guy now.... in fact i find the idea emetic to me now.

here's an article on how howard dean scuttled the abenaki attempts at recognition (state and federal) in vermont during his tenure:

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/74859.html


it's repulsive to me to see how howard dean has treated some of the meakest among us.... that is the true mark of a man. tribal groups, those lucky to still be extant in some form, have traditionally been beaten down in this america, with no voice and no outlet to have their concerns expressed... they have faded into the shadows, both because of design and out of survival.

the abenaki have been in that area of the country for many thousands of years now. when someone like howard dean cops out and tries to explain that he didn't support their efforts because of possible land claims and casinos, that to me is worse than saying he did as much because he didn't believe they fit the criterion. i would rather have heard that, 'cause that's the only legitimate complaint and subsequent excuse to be made for such behavior. what that tells me is that, in using those excuses, dean knew the abenaki deserved recognition, but didn't want to help them in receiving what they should always have had anyway because of something that *might* have happened he'd thought would be deleterious, not to the abenaki, but to others.... it tells me that if the abenaki did have legitimate land claims from places the state had taken from them illegally, that howard dean didn't want to see justice served.... and it tells me that howard dean would be the type of man that denies recognition to a people he even appears to think are deserving of it because he doesn't want to have to deal with the potential that they might, *gasp*, employ that sovereignty to conduct gaming ventures for the welfare of their people, much the same as vermont does with its gaming ventures (ok for state polities, not ok for indigenous ones).

it's disgusting... and i'll lay right into anyone who perfunctorily criticizes me over something you see as small potatoes.... i fully expect that from some, and all that would seem to demonstrate is one's total lack of comprehension on the significance of recognition, but more importantly, sovereignty and self-determination to native peoples deserving of it. this is not a small, insignificant blemish. it is a view into how dean treats the least among us, even when their justice is overdue....

some 'liberal.' no better really than repug in democrats' clothing joe lieberman and his attacks on natives in connecticut.


i'd supported howard dean before this.... even put up his banner in my sig line on the vikings football message board i frequent, catching all manner of trite freeper epithets for it (was called a 'bleeding heart' today, which is always nice).... now all that remains is my clark banner i also had up. i even feel a bit dirty now for ever having put that much energy into howard dean.

'course i'll vote for him against chimp, grudgingly. smirk is much, much worse.... but i can no longer toss any amount of support to dean.

i don't expect this issue to sit the same with non-natives, but i wish somehow i could convey what a slap in the face and a toss of mud and shit it is nonetheless, and what that shows me about howard dean.

[bluestateguy]

1. Join us

www.clark04.com

I'm sorry Howard Dean did not work out for you. Please consider joining our campaign.

[Ksec]

76. Dean has taken some serious blows the last couple days

Trouble comes in bunches , they say.

[davidinalameda]

2. so who are you going to support in the primary

?

[slinkerwink]

3. what kind of posturing did Dean do? He didn't pander to the Indians....

[DS1]

5. from what I read, his office asked for proof

and Native Americans have all sorts of proof guidelines, including the blood-line system, so they should have that proof ready to go in a moment's notice right?

If 4 seemingly simple proofs were required, why not deliver them and be done with it? Oh, unless of course you have something political to gain.

[slinkerwink]

6. I remember the guy who registered that complaint for the abenakis

was white, with a small amount of abenaki blood in him---he wanted the casino to open.

[DS1]

20. ahh, because there are never any grudges in a single source

especially if it's the Rutland news.

[Tinoire]

74. Read the stories. It's a little more complicated than that

They were once again raped and plundered of their land on an Anglo technicality. One of their main proofs was bull-dozed to make way for nice yuppie houses as the bull-dozers destroyed their cemetery which archeologists were working on and proclaiming one of the most important finds in Vermont.

They barely had time to run in there and grab the skulls of their ancestors before the bull-dozers returned and yuppie homes went up.

Pardon my Indian blood but I am LIVID.

Even Jeffords. Damn. Even Jeffords bent over backwards to help.

[kispoko]

7. obviously he did.....

his words and actions are too disparate.... and i'm sorry, but i'm an "action" kind of guy. when the two don't jive, that's just grandstanding.... i actually don't think he'd be too horrible with tribal issues overall, but that's inexcusable to me and not something i can just look past.


and if you didn't notice by the banner i said was still up in my sig line at the vike's board, clark's got my full support now.

i was actually considering voting for al sharpton in the primary, not for shits and giggles or anything, but because i absolutely couldn't decide which direction to go in, clark or dean, and just wanted to give a small nod of respect to al for livening up the debates, and in part, the party, with the agenda he's eloquently put forth.

but i think dean just made my decision for me.

[slinkerwink]

9. no, Dean didn't pander.......

I'm trying to find a news article that said that Dean didn't pander to Indian issues, and instead stressed that Indians deserved education and healthcare like everyone else.

[kispoko]

16. you're not getting it

is that on purpose?

you say, "I'm trying to find a news article that said that Dean didn't pander to Indian issues, and instead stressed that Indians deserved education and healthcare like everyone else."


what is it he did to the indians in his own state? huh? i just posted an article on that. what of it, nothing? it obviously speaks to the point i was mentioning.

[slinkerwink]

23. here's the article

http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news03/112203_news_shea.shtml

[TLM]

50. That's the one...thank you...

Gotta love how Dean doesn't have to pander to win over a given group.



What was most interesting about Dean was his refusal, even in the midst of 3,000 American Indians, to carve out positions tailored only to Indian voters.

<snip>

"The problems that you have as Native Americans are the same problems that everyone else has," Dean said. "The truth is, we all share a common agenda. Every American needs health care. Every American needs economic determination."

It's an extremely portable campaign philosophy, but you might think it could get you into trouble. A group gathers, invites you to its event, and waits for you to tailor your presentation, to say what its members want to hear. Not necessarily so with Dean.

But if it hurt him, it hardly seemed evident Wednesday.

[kispoko]

58. jeez....

this just makes him look much worse, and incredibly ignorant....

"The problems that you have as Native Americans are the same problems that everyone else has," Dean said. "The truth is, we all share a common agenda. Every American needs health care. Every American needs economic determination."

really?... is that so?

what other group of people within the bounds of the united states have treaties with the federal government?

what's that? oh right, none.

i suppose that would create unique "problems" not entirely the same as everyone elses, but hell, what do i know.... i guess that's just crazy talk.

[TLM]

127. So what are the uniqure problems....

Are you seriously saying that issues like healthcare, education, and jobs are not the primary concerns of native americans as well as other americans?

Funny how the thousands of native american folks at this event seemed to agree with Dean's statement.

[kispoko]

140. gosh guy....

i really don't know what kinds of "unique problems" could arise from having a unique relationship with the federal government as tribal nations do.....

but let's see anyway:


trust fund accounting
trust fund payments
civil jursidiction on indian lands
judicial jurisdiction on indian lands
religious rights
right to ceremonial lands
repatriation of burial remains and items
representation for tribal nations
tribal immunity
taxation on tribal lands
meeting blood quanta requirements for certain funding
health service through the ihs
bia funded schools and education
fishing rights
hunting rights
trying to get a loan for property on the reservation
water rights


these and a hundred other things i don't care to sit and think about are "unique problems." if you'll notice, many will tie in to what you mentioned; healthcare, jobs, education, and so on.... but they are unique in the way they are handled and addressed, and so cannot be all dealt with the same. there are many which have no counterparts among other populations in the united states, and so are truly unique.

[TLM]

170. As you mentioned... most of those tie in to the three I mentioned

Your point is not lost that there are unique issues, but my point is that any group is going to have issues specific to their group... but there are issues where all the groups share common ground.

Those larger issues where we all share similar goals are what Dean is talking about.

You talk about health service through the ihs... Dean talks about healthcare for EVERYBODY. You talk about bia funded schools and education... Dean talks about good schools and education funding for EVERYBODY.

My point is that Dean is not pandering from one group to another, but rather finding what goals all the groups share, and he is focused on that.

[sangh0]

313. The article linkerwink linked

said absolutely NOTHING about the abenakis.

[Ardee]

239. same problems ,well maybe

just magnified a few thousand percent is all. As the grandfather of a Chippewa Indian , (Red Lakes Band) I have become very aware of the 90% unemployment figures, the rampant alcoholism, the extremely high crime rates and the hopelessness that cause all of the above.

Just another reason to look upon Dean's candidacy with jaundiced eye.

[LeahMira]

101. This is different...

What was most interesting about Dean was his refusal, even in the midst of 3,000 American Indians, to carve out positions tailored only to Indian voters.

Excuse me, but I don't think that's anything to boast about. It's sort of like saying that Dean refuses to carve out a position tailored only to senior citizens when he meets with a group of them, or that he refuses to carve out a position tailored to people who are unemployed when he meets with a group of them. I don't see why you would think that is so swell.

Every American needs health care. Every American needs economic determination.

This much is true, and I admit that I'm not that familiar with NCAI, although I've read their website pretty thoroughly... but actions speak louder than words and I've not followed what sorts of acts they have done. I'm also not familiar with the specific Abenaki history, but I do know that the American Indians were guaranteed health care and education and many other benefits from the United States government. In return for that guarantee they ceded millions of acres of their land. Treaties that are made with sovereign nations become part of the law of the land, and the U.S. Constitution recognizes the Indian nations as sovereign nations. Dean is not giving health care or education or economic determination to Indians out of the generosity of his heart. Unlike most of us poor slubs who have to persuade our government to do right by us, the Indians are owed these benefits. If the Governor has a problem with that, maybe when and if he becomes President he will simply give back the land to the Indians.

There are some Indian groups that go along to get along. I don't know that NCAI is one of these groups, but our government has perfected the art of screwing over the Indians no matter how well their representatives work to protect them.

Check this out...

GAIN THE INDIANS CO-OPERATION - It is much easier to steal someone's human rights if you can do it with his OWN co-operation. So..:

1.Make him a non-person. Human rights are for people. Convince Indians their ancestors were savages, that they were pagan, that Indians were drunkards. Make them wards of the government. Make a legal distinction between Indians and persons. Write history books that tell half the story.

2.Convince the Indian that he should be patient, that these things take time. Tell him that we are making progress, and that progress takes time.

3.Make him believe that things are being done for his own good. Tell him you're sure that after he has experienced your laws and actions that he will realise how good they have been. Tell the Indian he has to take a little of the bad in order to enjoy the benefits you are conferring on him.

4.Get some Indian people to do the dirty work. There are always those who will act for you to the disadvantage of their own people. Just give them a little honor and praise. This is generally the function of band councils, chiefs, and advisory councils: they have little legal power, but can handle the tough decisions such as welfare, allocation of housing etc.

5.Consult the Indian, but do not act on the basis of what you hear. Tell the Indian he has a voice and go through the motions of listening. Then interpret what you have heard to suit your own needs.

6.Insist that the Indian "GOES THROUGH PROPER CHANNELS." Make the channels and the procedures so difficult that he won't bother to do anything. When he discovers what the proper channels are and becomes proficient at the procedures, change them.

7.Make the Indian believe that you are working hard for him, putting in much overtime and at a great sacrifice, and imply that he should beappreciative. This is the ultimate in skills in stealing human rights; when you obtain the thanks of your victim.

8.Allow a few individuals to "MAKE THE GRADE" and then point to them as examples. Say that the 'HARDWORKERS" AND THE
"GOOD" Indians have made it, and that therefore it is a person's own fault if he doesn't succeed.

9.Appeal to the Indian's sense of fairness, and tell him that even though things are pretty bad it is not right for him to make strong protests. Keep the argument going on his form of protest and avoid talking about the real issue. refuse to deal with him while he is protesting. Take all the fire out of his efforts.

10.Encourage the Indian to take his case to court. This is very expensive, takes lots of time and energy and is very safe because laws are stacked against him. The court's ruling will defeat the Indian's cause, but makes him think he has obtained justice.

11.Make the Indian believe that things could be worse, and that instead of complaining about the loss of human rights, to be grateful for the rights we do have. In fact, convince him that to attempt to regain a right he has lost is likely to jepordize the rights that he still has.

12.Set yourself up as the protector of the Indian's human rights, and then you can choose to act only on those violations you wish to act upon. By getting successful on a few minor violations of human rights, you can point to these as examples of your devotion to his cause. The burglar who is also the doorman is the perfect combination.

13.Pretend that the reason for the loss of human rights is for some other reason that the person is an Indian. Tell him some of your best friends are Indians, and that his loss of rights is because of his housekeeping, his drinking, his clothing.

14.Make the situation more complicated than is necessary. Tell the Indian you will have to take a survey to find out how many other Indians are being discriminating against. Hire a group of professors to make a year-long research project.

15.Insist on unanimity. Let the Indian know that when all the Indians can make up their minds about just what they want as a group, then you will act. Play one group's special situation against another group's wishes.

16.Select very limited alternatives, neither of which has much merit, and then tell the Indian that indeed he has a choice. Ask, for instance, if he could or would rather have council elections in June or December, instead of asking if he wants them at all.

17.Convince the Indian that the leaders who are the most beneficial and powerful are dangerous and not to be trusted. Or simply lock them up on some charge like driving with no lights. Or refuse to listen to the real leaders and spend much time with the weak ones. Keep the people split from their leaders by sowing rumour. Attempt to get the best leaders into high paying jobs where they have to keep quiet to keep their paycheck coming in.

18.Speak of the common good. Tell the Indian that you can't consider yourselves when there is a whole nation to think of. Tell him that he can't think only of himself. For instance, in regard to hunting rights, tell him we have to think of all the hunters, or the sporting good industry.

19.Remove rights so gradually that people don't realize what has happened until it is too late. Again, in regard to hunting rights, first restrict the geographical area where hunting is permitted, then cut the season to certain times of the year, then cut the limits down gradually, then insist on licensing, and then Indians will be on the same grounds as white sportsmen.

20.Rely on some reason and logic (your reason and logic) instead of rightness and morality. Give thousands of reasons for things, but do not get trapped into arguments about what is right.

21.Hold a conference on HUMAN RIGHTS, have everyone blow off steam and tension, and go home feeling things are well in hand.

:/\:/\:/\:/\:/\:/\:/\:/\:

Some people "get it"

NATIVE AMERICANS

Native American culture is worthy of protection and special respect. As Greens we feel a special affinity to the respect for community and the Earth that many Native peoples have at their roots.

1. We recognize both the SOVEREIGNTY of Native American tribal governments and the government's trust obligation to Native American people.

2. The federal government must renew its obligation to deal in good faith with Native Americans; to honor its treaty obligations; adequately fund programs for the betterment of tribal governments and their people; affirm the RELIGIOUS RIGHTS of Native Americans in ceremonies ("American Indian Religious Freedom Act"); provide funds for innovative economic development initiatives, EDUCATION and public HEALTH PROGRAMS; and respect land, water and mineral rights within the borders of reservations and traditional lands.

3. We support efforts to broadly reform the BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS (BIA) to make this vast agency more responsible, and responsive, to tribal governments.

4. We support the just settlement of the claims of the thousands of Native American URANIUM MINERS who have suffered and died from radiation exposure. We condemn the stance of secrecy taken by the Atomic Energy Commission during this era and its subsequent claim of "government immunity," taken knowingly (and immorally) at the expense of Native peoples' health and safety.

5. We support the complete clean-up of those mines and tailing piles that are a profoundly destructive legacy of the Cold War era.

6. We recognize that Native American land and treaty rights often stand at the front-line against government and multinational corporate attempts to plunder energy, mineral, timber, fish, and game resources, polluting water, air, and land in the service of the military, economic expansion, and the consumption of natural resources. Therefore, we support legal, political, and grassroots efforts by and on behalf of Native Americans to protect their traditions, rights, livelihoods, and their sacred spaces.

Now please tell me why the Democrats can't include a similar statement in their platform?

[Hep]

53. STOP STOP!

You're trying to convince people that policy matters. And you're trying to illustrate how some people want to know what a person's vision for the future is.

All people want in this thread is to act like an expert on the struggles of the relatively obscure Abenaki tribe that they hadn't heard of a month ago.

[kispoko]

61. hep.....

"You're trying to convince people that policy matters. And you're trying to illustrate how some people want to know what a person's vision for the future is."


if policy mattered, the tribes wouldn't have to fight for rights guaranteed them.... yet alone recognition when they're deserving of such.

so much for policy really mattering, eh?

"All people want in this thread is to act like an expert on the struggles of the relatively obscure Abenaki tribe that they hadn't heard of a month ago."


how do you know? that sure as shit doesn't apply to myself, and i feel as though by making it so general it was probably intended to at least graze me and delegitimize my words.... and for what, your personal conjecture?

again, some of you have entirely no regard.... maybe this issue hits a little closer to home in a lot of ways for me, and doesn't just have to do with the abenaki....

think so?

i do.

unless you want to keep trying to tell me what to think and what i knew about a month ago or didn't know about as it were....

[Hep]

80. yes?

if policy mattered, the tribes wouldn't have to fight for rights guaranteed them.... yet alone recognition when they're deserving of such.

so much for policy really mattering, eh?

Wha? Dean's policy of providing healthcare and education to all people INCLUDES native american tribes. They recognize that, why not you?

how do you know? that sure as shit doesn't apply to myself, and i feel as though by making it so general it was probably intended to at least graze me and delegitimize my words.... and for what, your personal conjecture?

If you're one of the few, you're one of the few. I don't know you. People who two weeks ago had no idea who the Ademaki tribe is know who they are.


unless you want to keep trying to tell me what to think and what i knew about a month ago or didn't know about as it were....

I'm telling you to think objectively. If you don't want to, that's your business.

[sangh0]

314. Irrelevant

Wha? Dean's policy of providing healthcare and education to all people INCLUDES native american tribes. They recognize that, why not you?

Even though it's been repeatedly pointed out in this thread, I'll repeat it again: The Indians have additional unique problems, and Dean is silent on those issues.

If you're one of the few, you're one of the few. I don't know you. People who two weeks ago had no idea who the Ademaki tribe is know who they are.

So, two weeks ago someone didn't know about the abenaki indians, and so your blanket criticism of a specific individual is OK?

[LeahMira]

106. Baloney, Hep!

All people want in this thread is to act like an expert on the struggles of the relatively obscure Abenaki tribe that they hadn't heard of a month ago.

Maybe it's because I live on the east coast but I certainly have heard of the Abenaki a lot longer than a month ago. Try since at least thirty years ago.

You could learn... http://www.tolatsga.org/aben.html

[Hep]

110. Well

You're one of the few. That makes two people so far.

And when this issue came up, I did learn about them, but thanks anyway for the link to a website that I've already been to.

[Rowdyboy]

112. I must admit that prior to today

I had never heard of them. But then, I've had nothing to say on the subject so far which puts me in the clear!

[LWolf]

117. I live on the left coast.

I first heard of the Abenaki 2 decades ago in college...a native american anthropology course.

[Hep]

121. I should have added

"few who didn't take native american anthropology"

Sorry about that.

:)

[ozone_man]

180. I took a course in that in college.

But, I'm no expert. I do live in Vermont, however. You get to know the history of this case, e.g., Chief Homer St. Francis, quite a tribal leader. It's not a cut and dried case by any stretch, as to whether the Abenakis qualify for national tribal recognition. I always felt that they did, but I am an Indian sympathizer. If I could, I would give so much land back to the Indians, because it wasn't ours to take.

I think that one of the arguments used against them gaining recognition is that they were supposedly temporary or seasonal residents in the region (they may have spent time in New York, New Hampshire and Maine also). At least that is the claim made by those not wishing to grant recognition.

The burial grounds mentioned by Tinoire (IIRC) were key in establishing that they may have been more than a seasonal tribe. I don't know the status of the case at this point.

One thing that complicates this matter, and can affect judgement of recognition, is the casino thing. Many Indian tribes want recognition, so that they can start a casino. How on Earth this policy came about, I don't know, but I wish it wasn't so. Gambling is just plain bad, even if it brings revenue for the tribes. Why can't we let Native American tribes run the National Park system and get revenues that way? This would seem to me to be a better, healthier way of maintaining their cultural continuity. Gambling, alcoholism, and drugs cause the disintegration of their culture.

[kispoko]

200. nice post

nice post ozone man...

i even pretty much agree with the issue you have with gambling, even though some here have tried to twist what i was saying and contort it into somehow me having a problem with dean because he's against gambling because apparently they couldn't stick to the real issue i made of it, which had to do with recognition, and sovereignty issues stemming from that....


but i would rather not see much gambling. it's sad that tribes have had to turn to this to survive....

but what i am for is tribes being able to make their own decisions on these matters, instead of being told what they can and cannot do on their own lands. if they so choose to build a casino, what business is it of mine? i only wish others could understand the concept...

it's disturbing though in a way, some of the sentiments i've seen expressed here and the "logic" behind them.... it's really freeperesque. for instance, to draw an analogy, i'm pro-choice, but aren't necessarily for abortion personally.... it's just that i choose to extend that right to others because i believe they ought to have that.... but how many freepers have we all run into who couldn't seem to distinguish those two things? we've all had those arguments, and they go nowhere.... they just can't understand how you could be pro-choice, and against abortion personally at the same time!

much like some in here seem to have problems with the concept of pro-tribal sovereignty and self-determination, without really advocating things such as gaming, for instance, personally.... but rather a tribe's right to choose for themselves.... much like a woman's, to draw the analogy to a close.

[ozone_man]

281. I may have to disappoint you,

but this gambling issue is sort of sticking point for me. I read where the Abenaki's would not accept recognition, if it meant foregoing the right to have gambling. I really don't agree with this casino thing. It affects more than just the Indians and I don't think its healthy for them. Vermont is a rural state, we have zoning laws the require assessment of impacts far outside the immediate area. We struggled for years to keep Walmart and the big box stores out, but we finally got malled. We don't allow billboards. Also, I think alot of the money winds up trickling up to some corporation at the top.

Dean has been against this sprawl and he is against gambling. He is against gambling for the same reason that I am (I think). It is a regressive tax on the poor, and worse, it hooks them as bad as drugs, spending money they need for food and rent sometimes. Its unhealthy.

I have spent alot of time in Canada and I don't see these casinos in the Indian Reserves in Quebec for example. Maybe its not fair to compare these different cultures from different countries. Gambling is a disease, just like alcoholism and drugs and these have taken a devastating toll on the Indians in both countries.

I guess you can take the point of view that Indians can do what they want on Indian land. Every state is different. Gambling might work out in many states, e.g. out West or in Connecticut, but it would probably be a disaster in Vermont. Nobody here wants that, thats why we live here and not Atlantic City.

I am much more open to the land claim issue. If it were up to me, I would give them alot of land. It was their's at one point. Its a complicated issue set in the modern era after 100's of years of screwing the Indians. Still, I don't want a casino in "my" state.

[LeahMira]

320. They want recognition for casinos? Not at all.

One thing that complicates this matter, and can affect judgement of recognition, is the casino thing. Many Indian tribes want recognition, so that they can start a casino.

Many others want recognition so their people qualify for the services promised by the federal government to Indian nations. I asked a friend why she hoped the Mattaponi tribe could get recognition and without missing a beat she listed things like a shelter for battered women, a food bank, dental and health care, scholarships for the children, etc., etc., etc.

Gambling is actually sort of traditional among some of the tribes. I saw a video in class once about the stick games some tribes have in the northwest and they are huge events... looks like fun, too. But if Indian tribes want to start a casino, it's not because they want the casino gambling for itself. They hope to make enough money to provide some of those things for their people that my Mattaponi friend wished for her people.

State recognized tribes can also request grant funds. The Powhatan in New Jersey have a huge pow-wow twice a year that is in part supported by the NJ Arts Council. That brings them money so they can provide heat and food for some of their poor especially during the winter months. Check out: http://www.powhatan.org/social.html

The Coeur d'Alene people use some of their casino profits to restore their ancestral lands and improve the quality of the environment for themselves and anyone else in the area. Check out: http://www.cdatribe.org/environment.html

I'm reasonably sure that if the tribes could do what they do with casino funds and raise the seed money in other ways a lot of them would. Unfortunately, our government's response to Indian concerns has been less than supportive.

As for the National Parks, find out how the Indians are struggling to save the buffalo and wolves near Yellowstone... with no government help. Or read what Winona LaDuke's group is doing. I've got to run now, but hope you google around and see what's really going on.

[kispoko]

hey leah'

another great post!


i also have a friend who's mattaponi.... be somethin' if it were the same one, eh?

yours isn't a custalow by the way, and a 'she' eh?


speakin' of the mattaponi.... i believe they're one of the virginia tribes who offered to even waive any future rights for a casino they could've hoped for (which isn't much hope with a right-wing virginia gov.). and guess what?.... they *still* won't support recognition efforts, and for a people who were the first i believe to make a treaty with the colonial powers.... just think about that insanity!

so no, there are clearly other reasons for recognition besides potential casinos, not least of which is having something your people deserved anyway and should've had all along without having to beg for.

[LeahMira]

328. Hey, Kispoko

yours isn't a custalow by the way, and a 'she' eh?

Nope. Check out: http://www.spirit-rising.org

speakin' of the mattaponi.... i believe they're one of the virginia tribes who offered to even waive any future rights for a casino they could've hoped for (which isn't much hope with a right-wing virginia gov.). and guess what?.... they *still* won't support recognition efforts, and for a people who were the first i believe to make a treaty with the colonial powers.... just think about that insanity!

I don't know about that, but most of the folks living on the reservation are Baptist and very much opposed to gambling. I'd guess that most people living in that general area are Baptist since that's most of the churches I see along Route 30 when I'm driving down that way.

One of the Virginia Representatives, a Democrat named Jim Moran, tried to get a bill going in the U.S. Congress that would give federal recognition to all the Virginia tribes, but for some reason it stalled. I've heard lots of different stories about what happened on that.

Yes, the Powhatan nation in Virginia has the oldest treaty. I'm not sure what Gov. Earley's take is, but Gov. Gilmore felt it was too old to be valid. It is the Treaty of Middle Plantation and it was signed on 29 May 1677. Tomorrow sometime the Virginia tribes will be bringing their tribute to the Governor of Virginia as stipulated in that treaty. Each year they bring the Governor maybe a deer, maybe a turkey, maybe some fish, but some gift to recognize his protection, just as they used to bring tribute to their Powhatan back four hundred or so years ago. Maybe if you check the Richmond local newspapers tomorrow or Thursday they will run a story about the event.

Of course, you take notice that the Indians have kept their word in the treaty. Wondering if the Governor is keeping his side of the agreement? Well, the King William Reservoir that they've been talking about for years now will divert several million gallons of the Mattaponi River over to Newport News and lower the level and effect the salinity of the Mattaponi River up where the tribe lives and depends on the shad they get from the river. Same old same old, enit?

P.S. I do know Ralph and Ken and their wives, but not as well as Sun Eagle. And Grandmother Gertrude is quite a lady... I love her!

[ozone_man]

334. I met her once (Winona Laduke).

Amazing woman. IIRC, she is Lakota Sioux, and her husband (Randy?) is of the Moosonee Cree? Never made it there, but close by in Quebec many times.

Just like comparisons can't be made of Quebec/Ontario Cree, still living and trapping in the bush, to Indians in the lower 48, the same goes for gambling. It works out West and on the East coast in spots, but not certain places.

From what little I know about Dean's offer, I feel that the Abenaki could/should have offered to give up any gambling rights, but held onto other rights, including land claim issues.

Maybe the last chapter hasn' been written on the Abenaki and if Dean makes it, their story will get that much more exposure.

My favorite Abenaki was story teller Wolfsong, who died a year or two ago. Homer St. Francis, what a character. Sounds like April (his daughter?) is a chip off the old block.

[deutsey]

55. Thanks

I'm shocked, shocked that none of this has been brought up before.

:evilgrin:

[janekat]

116. Welcome to the Clark contingency

glad to have you...

[chimpymustgo]

4. Thanks for sharing your perspective. Now take a look at Clark, Edwards

and Kerry.

We've got some wonderful candidates.

[Melinda]

8. God damn that Bill Clinton!

The abenaki's petition for federal recognition was filed in 1995 - 1995!!!! And it's still pending!!!

Damn you Clinton and damn you Dean - it's all YOUR fault the abenaki has failed to:

Prove the group has been identified as a tribe continually by outsiders such as anthropologists or historians.

Prove the Abenaki is a distinct community existing from historical time until the present.

Prove the group had political influence or authority over its members during that period.

Prove the Abenaki's members descended from a historical Indian tribe.

Hear me now! It's CLINTON AND DEAN's FAULT that the abenaki had to go underground because CLINTON and Dean DISCRIMINATED against the abenake tribe even though the tribe went underground long before either took office! Damn both Clinton and AND Dean to hell - the EVIL bastards!!!!!

There, I feel better now; don't you?

[kispoko]

28. next up....

melinda....


The abenaki's petition for federal recognition was filed in 1995 - 1995!!!! And it's still pending!!!

Damn you Clinton and damn you Dean - it's all YOUR fault the abenaki has failed to:

-Prove the group has been identified as a tribe continually by outsiders such as anthropologists or historians.

Prove the Abenaki is a distinct community existing from historical time until the present.


it helps to have general background on the issues when you're being facetious.....

you seem to have no clue how long the recognition process takes, which is a sham in itself... a disagrace. there are groups petitioning, who are just waiting to be heard.... waiting... and have been so for over 2 decades now.

i'm not blaming dean, and certainly not clinto who was good to indian people, and to tribes seeking recognition for the most part. the point here is how dean scuttled those legitimate attempts at recognition.... make it into something else if you will, those straw-men won't burn sweetheart.


-Prove the group had political influence or authority over its members during that period.

Prove the Abenaki's members descended from a historical Indian tribe.


let the abenaki have the best chance at doing as much..... that is difficult enough in itself to put together given united states federal indian policy..... or didn't you know? did you sleep through the part in history class where the u.s. did bad things to injuns?

jesus christ....

-Hear me now! It's CLINTON AND DEAN's FAULT that the abenaki had to go underground because CLINTON and Dean DISCRIMINATED against the abenake tribe even though the tribe went underground long before either took office! Damn both Clinton and AND Dean to hell - the EVIL bastards!!!!!

There, I feel better now; don't you?


with an attempt at humor with misguided vitriol, i'm not even sure why you're in this conversation. other than maybe doing damage control, as i see some asshole has done below in pretending this is just a random slime dean post with no merit....

that is so offensive to disregard concerns of native people like that.... but i guess it's in keeping right along with what howard dean has done, ennit?

[TLM]

33. You can not address the point...

and saying bad things were done to native americans... no shit... doesn;t change the fact that this tribe does not meet the requierments for the land in VT.


Again, we're talking about a handful of folks, some with as little a 1/16th native blood, who want to get rich by building a casino on land in VT that is protected.

Again tell me where in the heritage of the Abenaki does it teach to rape the land for gambling profits?

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Code_Name_D]

70. Critirea for a DAMD casino.

Here I am, watching my contry die in a war that it can not win, fall as the dollar falls. That I am in fear of losing my over time pay, my job, my libertys, and you want to hang Dean becase he will not sign off on a casino?

Honistly, I have seen less streching from Dr. Read Richerd of the Fantastic 4. :eyes:

[Tinoire]

75. Code Named D - There was NO casino! That is a garbage excuse to steal

their land, once again and to excuse the absolutely inexcusable.

That is like saying you threw a family out of their home because you were afraid the 17 year old son would host a wild party!

Please read my posts. Please do your own research. Your choice is your own and I will always respect it but you must make it knowingly.

Peace

[Code_Name_D]

93. Hold your fire there.

I just read your information, and it IS disturbing. I will weigh it accordingly. However, being form Kansas, I can tell you that on many occasions, the Native Americans are far from benevolent. Especially where Casinos are concerned.

About 10 years ago, Kansas fought in court, and lost, in regards to denying the NA casinos on Reservations. Part of the argument that swayed the court was of course, bringing in new jobs. Only to find out that in every case, the NA's were little more than front orgs for wealthy WHITE businessmen, playing the same old bag of tricks they play every where else. The Tribe's counsel would usually be bought off in order to "contract out" the building, and operation of the casino. And virtually no Native American is employed in these places. They are not qualified and do not pass the necessary background checks. But even worse is that the protections placed provided by the reservations, such as they are, are circumvented because now the land is taken and developed in the name of the tribe by the same contractors that exist outside the reservation. And the state of Kansas is powerless to do any thing.

So Casinos have in fact made situations worse for the NA here in Kansas as now white developers can take there land with impunity. So long as they have the "blessings" of the bribed tribal counsel. The situation has become so bad in Kansas that most reservations here have been depopulated. There is nothing their any way. No electricity, no water, no roads. Heck, river flooding patterns haven't even been surveyed for most reservations. (Insurance companies will NOT insure a house build on land not properly surveyed.) And who wants a casino in there back yards any way?

Now I do not know is this is the case with this example. Certainly as I read the information you have presented below, I wouldn't seem to be so. But some how I suspect that there is more to the story than meets the eye. There usually is.

[Tinoire]

99. Oh I hate casinos too

and recognize that the Indians can be just as immoral as other members of the human race. What I don't like though is the duplicitious manner in which they were duped of their land.

Way way late in the game, after stealing an entire nation and exterminating an entire people, we made a few token reparations and we can't even honor those?

Your points are just as disturbing because I hadn't stopped to throw that in my equation :( but I still don't like the duplicitious dealing and I can't excuse the bull-dozing of their cemetery which was recently discovered and was one of the 7 proofs they needed to be recognized for who they were...

I look forward to reading what you find about this and what your opinion will be... I do think though that we have no right to not respect their burial grounds and also that in doing what was done in Vermont we didn't even give them the chance to administer their own land and see what would happen. Kind of a pre-emptive strike for the land-developers in a way.

I am really discouraged now. I so badly want to be able to like Dean in case he gets the nomination but things like this really disturb me.

You know I'm a far Leftist right?

Peace

[Code_Name_D]

214. What I know thus far...

I am really discouraged now. I so badly want to be able to like Dean in case he gets the nomination but things like this really disturb me.

A perticulery wise DUer once noted, "As a librial, I ambrase contradiction, for it aferms my faith in the diversity of life, and the abudance it offers."

Remeber that our own Gorge Washington was a slave owner, and a perticulery crue one for much of his asult life. There are indeed many injustices brought upon the Native Americans. I too greve, and feel shame. Especualy as this is the season of Thanks Giving, a time to reflect on this part of our haratige.

But not all things can be put right tomarow.

I also remeber the words of one Lutenint who was charged to escorting the remanes of fallen American soldgers in WWII, when forced to abandon them in the face of advancing German lines, duirng the battle of the bulge. "Let the dead see to the dead. We have our own problems."

Dean is not perfict. Do not expect him to be.

[Tinoire]

224. None of the candidates are perfect

but what I am looking for is the least imperfect of them all. I appreciate your sentiment and have no quarrel with you- not even the slightest one because I know that there is only so much you will allow in any candidate before looking down at the feet to see just how much clay there might be.

If Dean is the one with the least clay, then so be it but that's no reason not to look at the feet as some are wishing.

If we can't scrutinize all our candidates, then we are little better than those who still maintain that Bush is a compassionate conservative. Thanks for your always thoughtful reply!

[TLM]

147. That's a lot like what is going on in this case.

"Now I do not know is this is the case with this example. Certainly as I read the information you have presented below, I wouldn't seem to be so. But some how I suspect that there is more to the story than meets the eye. There usually is."


It is pretty much just the leadership... the ones who stand to get rich off a casino, who are making a stink about this. The native folks in VT are happy with Dean and what he's done in terms of providing a grant for the Abenaki cultural museum, supporting them on burial ground issues, economic development with the tribe, and education.

Even the Abenaki tribal leader is quoted in the piece admitting this.

[TLM]

133. That's not true at all Dean offered to grant provisional recognition

if they'd not build a casino...


Rushlow said Dean once offered her state recognition during a meeting.

"He said if I would sign a claim that I would give up land claims and gambling, then we would be recognized," she said. "And those decisions are up to the community and its citizens. And since I don't have those rights, I can't give them up."


So this is about land use and casinos. Unlimited hunting and fishing on protected land, as well as building a casino on protected land.

You talk of stealing land, which would be valid if they were trying to use the land themselves or build their own casino or development. But the VT folks simply want the land left alone.

Odd to see the white folks fighting to keep the land left untouched, and the native folks fighting to develop and pollute it.

[Tinoire]

150. Congressional Record & Land Claims vs Theft of Land

The casino issue is a hoopla distraction to the land theft... but the land claims, that's very important. Do you deny them their land? They have a legal right to that land. Unfortunately what they do on it is none of our business and those are the terms of the deal we made with the Native Americans. We can't justify the theft of their land because we're afraid they'll claim it back. That's the whole point :)

You say that the Vermont people simply want to land left alone, as if that is their decision to make when the land does not morally belong to them but you are incorrect. If they just want the land left alone, why are there bull-dozers which Dean specifically refused to stop on parts of it? Why are houses being built? The Abenaki couldn't even get the state to stop issuing housing permits on a burial site so I'm not so sure about the state wanting the land left alone. Either way, honest injun, even if the Abenaki wanted to build the worst sort of brothels and casinos on the land I would side with them because Native Americans are promised a degree of autonomy and they haven't receieved it. What they chose to do with that autonomy is their business imo...

Also, the tribe is next in the line to be considered by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs for federal recognition. Should it succeed, then the land claims will really begin despite Dean having stopped their state recognition. What a mess that will be but I will wish them the best of luck. They've been screwed over too long.

----

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 107th CONGRESS

Hon. BERNARD SANDERS
in the House of Representatives

on behalf of

EVAN WORTH, ALAN BLACKMAN, NICOLETTE BARON, AND STEPH BERNATH

Regarding
THE RIGHTS OF THE ABENAKI

April 8, 2002

<snip>

NICOLETTE BARON: Some of the qualms that state government has cited for not giving recognition to the Abenaki was extra rights, aside from those already given to minorities, the fact that it will lead to federal recognition, and they can institute their own laws and have their own fish and wildlife regulations that do not need to concur with the guidelines of the state.

On the issue of the minorities, the minorities that are around the nation and around the state are African-Americans and Hispanics. While those groups do have an important part in the history of this state and the nation, the Abenakis were among the first inhabitants of this state, and they are the only native American tribe that has not been recognized.

State recognition could lead to federal recognition, which would give the Abenaki rights to make their own laws, including those regarding fish and wildlife regulations. The laws that they would make would most likely conform to the Constitution of the United States, not go beyond that or not be radical, which I think is what the state government is concerned with. All laws would be to prohibit harm and to make it, you know. And fishing and wildlife laws would be based on the need to eat, and not hunting game, not game-hunting. And being recognized as a tribe would allow them to sell their wares, like basket weaving, which is a tradition in the Abenaki, and to get better economic status for these people. And it would give them rights with scholarships, and that's really important, to send their kids to school.

STEPH BERNATH: What I find to be very disturbing about the Abenaki struggle for recognition is the negativity exhibited by the state department. I have yet to hear the acknowledgement from the state department that something positive may come out of the Abenaki getting the recognition they obviously deserve. Nearly every argument brought forth by the state of Vermont has been critical of what the tribe may do once they receive recognition. It has been made clear very many times that the Abenaki are not interested in gambling or hurting Vermonters in any way. Chief April Rushlow has clarified this one too many times.

The victims of this criticism, on the other hand, the Abenaki, have openly acknowledged they are aware of what the State Department fears may happen to those people who live on Abenaki land if they are given recognition. They have said that they are willing to work with the people of Vermont, as they have done in years prior, and stated that they have nothing to fear from the tribe.

The Abenaki are willing to work with the state of Vermont, but it appears as if the state of Vermont is unwilling to work with the Abenakis, the People of the Dawn, the people who have lived in Vermont for thousands of years. It is time that these people receive the recognition they deserve. The state of Vermont must be willing to give them a chance to prove who they are and what they stand for.

Chief April Rushlow has stated, "We're the only race in the United States who has to prove who we are." She was right. Chief Rushlow also said, "We're here when it is convenient for the state of Vermont." Once again, Chief Rushlow was right.

http://www.house.gov/bernie/town_meeting/2002/Lamoille1.html

Now when I read what these people have been through, I get really upset about the fear of their land claims! We are acting like the land thieves who fear the rightful owners and are intent on depriving them of the little we promised them...
---

<snip>

Abenakis lost members in the 17th and 18th centuries to smallpox and wars against European settlers, only to face Ku Klux Klan cross burnings and a state eugenics program in the 1920s and a sterilization law (since struck down) that labeled them undesirable in the 1930s.

“Many members of Abenaki families who were investigated by the Eugenics Survey were also incarcerated in institutions and subsequently sterilized,” Nancy Gallagher writes in her 1999 book, “Breeding Better Vermonters.” “For Vermont Abenakis, eugenics was neither science nor a program of human betterment; it was an agent of their annihilation.”

<snip>
“Our children cannot apply for Native American scholarships because they’re not considered Native American without state or federal recognition.”

<snip>

Grave problems

Abenakis can’t even find peace in passing.

Disturbing a burial site is a felony under state law. But that hasn’t stopped contractors from bulldozing along Monument Road in Swanton and neighboring Highgate, where archaeologists estimate up to 80,000 Abenaki burials took place over the past 10,000 years.

<snip>

Abenakis have gone to court to stop all digging, but so far have to settle for checking a construction site with ground-penetrating radar or sifters.

<snip>

Rushlow remembers when a bulldozer unearthed three skull fragments in the spring of 2000. She called the state, which in turn called experts, who in turn found thousands of bone fragments, arrowheads, nails, bits of wooden coffins and an 1827 penny.

<snip>

http://www.cowasuck.org/daughterdawn.htm

===========================
The St. Francis band of Abenakis are wanderers in history, a tribe nearly lost to assimilation and intermarriage. Four centuries after the European settlers washed over their ancestral lands in northern Vermont, two centuries after local histories pronounced the Abenaki extinct, their descendants are seeking official recognition from the state of Vermont and the federal government.

But that is a step Vermont officials oppose. They fear recognition will open a door to casinos and to land claims, and so cast into doubt the rural character and ownership of the upper reaches of the Champlain Valley. (The Abenaki are deeply split on the questions of casinos, although none renounces the possibility of land claims.)

<snip>

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/recent2002/1208_vermont_2002.shtml

[TLM]

176. Well the problem with your argument is this...

"The casino issue is a hoopla distraction to the land theft... but the land claims, that's very important. Do you deny them their land? They have a legal right to that land. Unfortunately what they do on it is none of our business and those are the terms of the deal we made with the Native Americans. We can't justify the theft of their land because we're afraid they'll claim it back. That's the whole point"


If you take the position that since the land did once belong to native people so we should gve it back... then should we give it ALL back? I mean it isn't like tribes existed in one little corner of the nation... so if we follow your line of reasoning, then doesn't it all belong to them?

I mean that moraly sounds all good and right... but then if you're a dude living in a house that suddly sits on land you no longer own because 400 years ago there was a tribe living there... that doesn't really seem fair. I know there are some federal laws to protect homeowners in these situations, but my point is that we're really in a situation where somebody is going to get fucked over.

Their are two sides, both with valid arguments... somebody is not going to get what they want.


"You say that the Vermont people simply want to land left alone, as if that is their decision to make when the land does not morally belong to them but you are incorrect. If they just want the land left alone, why are there bull-dozers which Dean specifically refused to stop on parts of it? Why are houses being built?"

Too different issues. You're talking about the burial grounds, not the land claims and casinos. While they would list the burial ground in the land claims, as you say that would be to halt development there, and any casino would be built elsewhere to be sure. That's kind of the point. They wouldn;t build on already developed land.... because part of the developed land they want to claim is burial grounds.


" The Abenaki couldn't even get the state to stop issuing housing permits on a burial site so I'm not so sure about the state wanting the land left alone."

They did not get them to stop, but they did get them to be more strict about it. The problem is there is not a burial site, rather they say the whole area in general could have as many as 80,000 corpses put there over 10,000 years. So they say don't dig anywhere, even if there's no indication that a specific area does have anything burried in it.

So as I understand it they now use GPR to see if there is anything there, and if there is, they don't build or dig.

[Tinoire]

196. If we were a truly moral people

we would have returned all of the land long ago and properly purchased it from them while treating them as first-class citizens. But we are not a moral people so we came up with a weak reparations deal but even that we can't even honor. That is my outrage! Even that we refuse to honor!

even if there's no indication that a specific area does have anything burried in it. They went and blocked the streets when the bull-dozers were excavating bones and the state refused to stop!

Please read the stories again and do your own research, it's all out there. I cannot dispute every point brought up and keep researching to prove what I said when I read these things while researching.

Houses were built on the burial grounds. The Abenaki were told they could retrieve whatever bones they wanted as the construction continued. When Dean totally turned them down the last time, they ran to the grounds to retrieve skulls and whatever long bones they could find.

You are making me despair that the White majority in power and the wronged peoples of color will ever be able to understand each other. It is too sad, too ironic to me that Dean is the one who wants to lead the national dialog on race. That irony leaves me too bitter after this thread. The confederate flag threads were bad enough- not as much because of Dean's clumsy, insensitive comment but because of the excesses in the defense that was immediately launched by the DDF.

Vote for Dean by all means. I just can not agree with this. It hits too close to home.

[Code_Name_D]

210. Building on "burial ground" happens all the time.

Even white folk must make way on occasion. Just last year, some 500 cemetery plots for a predominately Christian cemetery had to be exhumed and transplanted to make way for a suspended high way. They took the mater to court, and lost. Part of the defense was that the cemetery was "consecrated ground" which they did have documentation to prove. But the courts decided that the high way bore more weight.

Of course, they made an 11th hour appeal, sitting that they "didn't have time to properly exhume the bodies with proper respects." This despite the mater being argued in court for three years, and holding up the project and contributing to cost over runs. (Actually, the court battles were already assumed in the budget. And there was a five year battle over a church parking lot belonging to the same denomination. I guess they have to park there SUV's on consecrated ground too.) This appeal only pissed off the judge, who ordered the State of Kansas move the remains, post haste. They were dug up by back how, shrieked rapped, then moved in mass by flat bed truck, and deposited along an access path for a newer cemetery belonging to the same church under yellow bio-hazard tarpaulins. So the Church could then bury them at there leisure. They won no friends here in Wichita who had been fighting for this road for a decade now. One poll even suggested that the road crew simply bury the bodes under the earth works. (Which would not fly for safety reasons. State remains are treated as bio-hazardous materials as some of the bodies were felled by small pocks. Officials were quite concerned about re-exposing the population.)(Right now, they are in court trying to argue that Kansas must now pay for the exhumation and for the "renting" of new funeral plots.

I will admit that hearing that Dean would not stop the bulldozers even time to exhume the remains is disturbing. However, is that Dean's fault? Or did the "relatives" stall, or worse yet, use the remains to score political points? Exactly how large was this area? Was a full exhumation even practical? This is also part of the archaeology vs construction debate in general, which is unfair to hang Dean one way or the other.

I do not know the questions to these answers. But I do know that Dean's opponents have latched onto some rather absurd arguments before, forcing me to be skeptical. At this point, I can only observe, and question.

[TLM]

213. Well the tribal chief did not say he bulldozed the graves... in fact

she said Dean helped the tribe...

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/specialnews/dean/160.htm


"St. Francis did credit Dean for assisting the Abenaki on cultural and ancestral burial grounds issues. ''I'm not saying that everything he did was bad,'' she said. ''He did help us in some ways.''"



Not a glowing review, but certianly not what would be said if Dean was bulldozing graveyards.

[Code_Name_D]

216. Hmm, TLM vs Tinore, a battle of tiatans if ever I saw one. nt

No text.

[Tinoire]

253. Post 221. She called for help late at night that Dean was having

the grounds bull-dozed. Don't know how much clearer she can get than that :shrug:

[Code_Name_D]

272. The point is, did the bulldoers just show up.

Or was this something they were battling for a while. Were they trualy taken buy suprise, or did they hope to score points by making 11th hour appeals with the remanes as hostagies.

From what I read of your information, the bureal ground thing took place over some span of time.

[DemBones DemBones]

265. Note the difference, though. Indian burial ground is bulldozed,

bodies in white cemetery are carefully exhumed and moved to a new burial site.

[Code_Name_D]

271. Yoru point is noted... however.

The bodys in Wichita HAD to be exumed to make way for the road. Becase of the bio-hazerd conserns, simplay bull-dosing them over and building on top of them was not an option.

The NA remanes however tend to be buryed in "open graves" and were far older. There would be vary little risk. I can't say that is a defence, but it is a counter point.

[TLM]

311. Are you serious...

half the major cities in europe are build over graves.

Look at any place where boddies were burried 10,000 years ago and there is very likely to be current building on top of it. All over the world.


And the reason that modern graves are moved, is because we know where they are. We're not talking about marked graves... but a big area where bodied might be burried.

[LeahMira]

329. I have no idea who Dr. Read Richerd is, but...

Here I am, watching my contry die in a war that it can not win, fall as the dollar falls. That I am in fear of losing my over time pay, my job, my libertys, and you want to hang Dean becase he will not sign off on a casino?

Well shoot! Maybe if someone would have stood up for the Indians way back when they had a chance the country would have been a lot more honest today. You think?

Little bits of dirty, rotten sneakery have a bad habit of snowballing.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TLM]

165. Listen there are valid points on both sides of this issue...

hey guy.... the point was that many of those "bad things," in fact most, contribute to the fact that groups like the abenaki have a difficult go of trying to prove through documents who exactly they are....

you're not stupid, and i don't believe you have an inability to tie those points together, so.... was that just purposeful or something? you're being too obstinate for your own, or anyone else's good here.



My point is that while these folks did deal with a lot of crap, Dean wasn't responsable for it. You try to lay all this crap on Dean like he's to blame for every bad thing the white man ever did to native americans.

That's bullshit.

And as you mention other tribes in teh area have been able to meet the criteria, so it is not as if the criteria are unreasonably hard to meet.

The fact is this tribe was pretty much totaly fractured and all but gone, most having moved off north with other tibes long ago. The leadership was also broken and only started being rebuilt with the current chief's father about 40 or 50 years ago.

But now they want to claim the status as if they'd been on the land all along and had their tribal structure in place all along.

Granted you have a point that it is pretty fucked up for the white man 100 years ago to disband the tribe, and the white man today to say they can not grant recognition because the tribe was disbanded.

However Dean did not disband the tribe back then, and he has to deal with what the situation is today. The recognition standards are in place to prevent people who are not tribes from trying to make land claims. Add to that the issues of land use and casinos, and you've got a big mess.



-Again, we're talking about a handful of folks, some with as little a 1/16th native blood, who want to get rich by building a casino on land in VT that is protected.


who cares?

Well the people who live in VT care.


if they're legitimate descendents of abenaki, which they are, then they deserve to be recognized. and, they deserve to be able to engage in any manner of economic enterprise they so choose as a government to fund that gov..... that's how it works, ya know


Really so should child prostituion and slavery be legal on native owned land? I eman if it makes money for the tribe, it must be OK right?



you keep throwing out blood quanta like it's a real issue..... it's not. it doesn't matter.... only abenaki people have the right to say among them who is accepted as one of them..... not you.

Sorry when a white guy wants to claim that because his great great great grandmother was half native american, that means he should be able to open a casino, I don't buy it.

I can accept when a legit tribe wants to open a casino on already developed land... we have about 4 or 5 of them where I live BTW... and they don't contract the managment out and actually hire natives to work there and run the place responsably. I do not like it, but I can let it slide. However when it is little more than a group of white guys looking to skirt the laws by claiming to be natives, so they can build a casino, that's not cool.

Now this tribe is not that bad, they seemt to have a significant claim, however they also seem to historically be more of a branch of another tribe than a tribe unto themselves. There are always going to be some groups who fall just short of the requierments, unless you get rid of the requierments all together.

[kispoko]

186. .

-My point is that while these folks did deal with a lot of crap, Dean wasn't responsable for it. You try to lay all this crap on Dean like he's to blame for every bad thing the white man ever did to native americans.

That's bullshit.


nah.... you're exaggerating what i said, for what i can only guess at.

i have a problem with how dean has dealt with this tribe. i have a problem with him not being a solution to a problem, not even mitigating it really, but in fact just keeping the status quo going.... nothing at all remotely progressive about what dean did.


-And as you mention other tribes in teh area have been able to meet the criteria, so it is not as if the criteria are unreasonably hard to meet.

no.... other tribes in the area didn't have to go through that process.

and yes.... the criteria often do prove unreasonably impossible to meet, and incredibly unfair. the system sets them up to fail and then gives them a test for which they'll likely get an f, and not necessarily through any fault of their own.... imagine that

-The fact is this tribe was pretty much totaly fractured and all but gone, most having moved off north with other tibes long ago. The leadership was also broken and only started being rebuilt with the current chief's father about 40 or 50 years ago.

But now they want to claim the status as if they'd been on the land all along and had their tribal structure in place all along.


tribal structure or no, they had been there since time immemroial.... some went off, some never did. it is the same with nearly every other tribal group in america.


-Granted you have a point that it is pretty fucked up for the white man 100 years ago to disband the tribe, and the white man today to say they can not grant recognition because the tribe was disbanded.

exactly.... except, you can supplant the word "government" in place of 'white man.' i'm not going to be blamed for, well, blaming whitey like you've been doing to me when my beef is with governments... run by white men nonetheless, but governments nonetheless. there's a difference

-However Dean did not disband the tribe back then, and he has to deal with what the situation is today. The recognition standards are in place to prevent people who are not tribes from trying to make land claims. Add to that the issues of land use and casinos, and you've got a big mess.

i'm not blaming dean for anything he hasn't done.... rather, what he has, and that's seemingly everything he could to stall recognition efforts on behalf of the abenaki, even prevent them with regards to state recognition.

-Well the people who live in VT care.

why should the abenaki care what the people of vermont think they should or shouldn't do? why should they concern themselves with that? nevertheless they undoubtedly will.... but what you're saying is akin to thinking the people in the state next to yours ought to be given a voice in the affairs of your own..... only, worse, since tribes have a great sovereignty than states.


-Really so should child prostituion and slavery be legal on native owned land? I eman if it makes money for the tribe, it must be OK right?

so you jump from potential casinos, which you've pretended this entire argument have already been planned or something (you also seem to know where), to child prostitution and slavery? how does that happen?.... maybe you think so little of tribal governments that they might actually mimic the more shameful policies of the united states.

-Sorry when a white guy wants to claim that because his great great great grandmother was half native american, that means he should be able to open a casino, I don't buy it.

that's not exactly how it happens....

but nevertheless, a tribe has the right to say who is accepted among them.... that is all that matters. traditionally, many tribes accepted full-blood blacks and whites..... *that* is the traditional way, and *that* is what should be respected.

most tribal groups embodied and lived out the words of dr. king in "judging" by the content of character and accepting on those merits..... why should that all of a sudden change to fit some misguided notions of who should and shouldn't be accepted as (fill in blank with tribe)?

-I can accept when a legit tribe wants to open a casino on already developed land... we have about 4 or 5 of them where I live BTW... and they don't contract the managment out and actually hire natives to work there and run the place responsably. I do not like it, but I can let it slide.

how gracious.

-However when it is little more than a group of white guys looking to skirt the laws by claiming to be natives, so they can build a casino, that's not cool.

nope.... it's not. and i know of no instance where that's actually happened, nor will it ever likely since tribal members all have to prove at least some native ancestry, so, it's a rather moot point, and doesn't apply to the abenaki, even though most of them are fairly well mixed and assimilated.... again, it was through real fault of their own.

-Now this tribe is not that bad, they seemt to have a significant claim, however they also seem to historically be more of a branch of another tribe than a tribe unto themselves.

that would describe dozens of other federally recognized tribes as well.... so another moot point. bands of tribes are considered tribes to themselves by the federal gov. that's why you have three recognized shawnee groups, three cherokee groups, three choctaw groups, bands of muskogee (creek) numbering more than that and so on.

-There are always going to be some groups who fall just short of the requierments, unless you get rid of the requierments all together.

or redo them.

[LeahMira]

132. Address this.

... the fact that this tribe does not meet the requierments for the land in VT.

Whose requirements? By what right do they "require" anything of Indian nations?

... we're talking about a handful of folks, some with as little a 1/16th native blood

So justice only comes to large groups of people... whose blood is appropriately pure?

... tell me where in the heritage of the Abenaki does it teach to rape the land for gambling profits?

Oops! Check it out. The land is already raped and it wasn't the Abenaki that did it. If you want more trees and bunny rabbits, demolish your own towns and let the land return to its natural state. Please don't ask the Abenaki to pay the price of American greed and stupidity.

[TLM]

184. Well let me put it to tyou this way....

... the fact that this tribe does not meet the requirements for the land in VT.

Whose requirements? By what right do they "require" anything of Indian nations?


The requirements set by a given state and the federal government in order to recognize a group as a native american tribe and thus their own government within the US that is exempt from most state and federal laws.

You do not feel that such exemptions should be granted to any group that simply claims to be a tribe, do you? We've seen what can happen when these standards are not strict and filled with requirements about proving lineage and tribal history etc. Look at all the militia nuts who have tried to claim they're also sovereign nations within the US.

There are also several cases of groups and individuals trying to make bogus claims to be representatives of dead tribes. As much as it sucks, the fact is that a hell of a lot of tribes were wiped out and others were bred out of existence. Should someone be able to claim to be descended from them and be granted rights to their historically held land with no proof?

Honestly, short of everybody who wasn't directly descended from someone living here 600 years, packing up and leaving... we can not ever give back what was taken.

And hell even if we did that, would the tribes then go about trying to figure out how to give back any land lost in tribal wars that took place before that? Where does it stop? We can not change the past, and at some point we have to stop trying to fix things by trying to change the past, and start trying to fix things by working together for a better future for all of us.


... we're talking about a handful of folks, some with as little a 1/16th native blood

So justice only comes to large groups of people... whose blood is appropriately pure?

I had a great grand mother whose mother was black and father was cherokee, followed by three generations of irish and british white folks. So should I be able to utilize affirmative action programs for blacks or programs for native americans because of that fraction of my liniage? I sure as hell don't think so.



... tell me where in the heritage of the Abenaki does it teach to rape the land for gambling profits?

Oops! Check it out. The land is already raped and it wasn't the Abenaki that did it. If you want more trees and bunny rabbits, demolish your own towns and let the land return to its natural state. Please don't ask the Abenaki to pay the price of American greed and stupidity.

They're not paying the price of American greed and stupidity... they want to adopt of American greed and stupidity and add to the bill.

[LeahMira]

327. Another way...

Look at all the militia nuts who have tried to claim they're also sovereign nations within the US.

Are militia nuts mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?

And hell even if we did that, would the tribes then go about trying to figure out how to give back any land lost in tribal wars that took place before that?

That would be up to them.

Where does it stop? We can not change the past, and at some point we have to stop trying to fix things by trying to change the past, and start trying to fix things by working together for a better future for all of us.

We can right the wrongs of the past. NAGPRA, for instance, corrected the wrong of disrespecting American Indian burial grounds and belongings. Now those remains and those objects that were taken and put in museums have to be given back to the tribes. There's also the ICWA that has helped to put a stop to the past practice of adopting Indian children out of their tribes and legislating that Indian adoption records be open so an Indian adult who was adopted can find out his or her nation.

So yes indeed, we CAN fix things.

[LeahMira]

122. I think Indians know who they are...

Damn you Clinton and damn you Dean - it's all YOUR fault the abenaki has failed to:
Prove the group has been identified as a tribe continually by outsiders such as anthropologists or historians.
Prove the Abenaki is a distinct community existing from historical time until the present.
Prove the group had political influence or authority over its members during that period.
Prove the Abenaki's members descended from a historical Indian tribe.

Tell me, Melinda, what other group of people needs to prove who they are... and especially what group of people needs to depend on the word of outsiders such as anthropologists or historians to do that?

I'm Jewish because the Jewish community accepts me as one of them... not because some outside anthropologist or historian has delved into my past to see if my bona fides are in order.

I know it's not exactly the same thing, but by what right does the government or some anthro get to decide who is an Indian? That right belongs to the Indian nation with which the person claims membership. The tribes set the standards for membership, and the government has no business in it.

In fact, the only reason the government claims the right to decide who is an Indian is because the government has a vested interest in seeing Indians disappear from the face of the earth so that it doesn't have to honor its promises to the people any more. Well, IMO, that's pathetic.

[kispoko]

142. great posts leahmira!

you kick ass :kick:

:P

[Melinda]

174. Don't ask ME, LeahMira, ask those who set the standard.

The issue at hand is recognition of the tribe UNDER State and Federal law for the purposes of real property claims and rights of ownership - not about rights to claim ethnic heritage for ones own personal reasons. These are two distinctly different issues - not one.

And while I haven't done any history searches on either the state of Vermont or federal legislative history, I dare say I am 100% correct in assuming that it was not Dr. Dean who wrote ANY of the legislative requirements for recognition of any Native American tribe for the purpose of real property rights and ownership.

It is the government and its laws/standards/rules wherein the actual responsibility ultimately lies, and this issue did not begin -nor shall it end - with Dr. Dean.

[tlagiloi]

257. Yeah we do

Good post LeahMira.
t

[Tinoire]

258. That was really well said... Here's an Akenabi post about this issue

<snip>

Most Indians are not simply Americans. They are dual-nationals, and all politics is local. Howard Dean has a real problem, it is his record, and his campaign's avoidance of both his record, and some gesture, some coded signal, that if he becomes the President, that he won't enlarge and extend that record, but that he will reverse it. Deaniacs, both unpaid and paid have offered proofs that Abenakis aren't Indians, that Indians don't vote, that the Indian Vote doesn't matter, that Indians don't make political contributions, that Indians don't ... exist ... within the Big Tent of the Democratic Party. That's not too good.

For four years we have no voice in Washington during GWB's first term. For the next four years we are sure to have no voice in Washington during GWB's second term. If Howard Dean is the nominee, we are sure to have no voice in the Democratic Party until the Deaniacs are purged, self-distruct, or grow up, and should GWB not be returned to power in January 2005, we are sure to have no voice in Washington for those same four years. Either way, we don't get the time of day, from either political party.

Sitting outside the political process, and being ignored, is not a credible threat to Tribal politicians, in the US or in Canada. I don't see how we can motivate Indian turn-out for an Anti-Treaty candidate, if anything, people in the privacy of the voting booth may vote for GWB, because they know how little time he has for indulging in his anti-Indian sentiments. Under the Deaniac theory of Red and Blue states and margins of error, that is no big deal -- after all, aren't they going to ride the landslide to overwhelming victory? Personally, I think it is going to be close again, and having a block of votes that is one, two, even three times the MOE in over a dozen states, several of which are likely to be battleground states, is an advantage it is beyond irrational to discard.

I'm above worried. Dems are letting Dean have a free ride on the Northern Racism issue. Letting him get away with his "Indians, Casinos, Crime" malarky. The pledge you quoted from doesn't commit Democrats to the improvement of their Party, only to unconditional loyalty to their Party. How can that work? Didn't we free the Party from that back in 1968?

Posted by Abenaki first, Democrat second at October 22, 2003 01:04 PM

http://wampum.wabanaki.net/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=566

[madfloridian]

10. Wow, another former Dean Supporter. A lot of them since yesterday.

I hate to think like that.
That issue has been covered here as well. Issues from over a month ago are being refreshed.

[LeahMira]

138. Some folks are keeping options open...

Wow, another former Dean Supporter. A lot of them since yesterday.

Maybe that's why it's best not to hang your hopes on any one candidate just yet.

Dean seems to have put his foot in his mouth a few times lately. Thing of it is that his supporters are all rushing to explain what he really meant and insist that he's not really the way he looks to be.

I know that people like Dean because he opposes the war, and people like Clark because he's a general who will look good up against Bush, and I know I'm oversimplifying it here. Just keep an open mind and pay attention to what each man actually says, and not what you wish he had said.

By all means, support your guy financially and with your time if you can, and vote your conscience in the primaries, but also understand that the rest of us are going to vote our own consciences.

Meanwhile, isn't it over 40% of voters who say they would vote for a Democratic candidate already, not even knowing yet who that will be? That means something.

[madfloridian]

143. You know what I mean.

You must have seen the many threads here lately.....they are all along the lines of used to support Dean, but now I can't. They are a little obvious.

"By all means, support your guy financially and with your time if you can, and vote your conscience in the primaries, but also understand that the rest of us are going to vote our own consciences....."

I would not want you to vote any other way. I did not even ask you to vote for Dean, did I? You vote your conscience, I will vote mine. Just don't come here to the forum with "I used to support Dean" meme (oops, I mean saying...meme not good).

That is what I meant.

[_NorCal_D_]

11. Clark has the utmost respect for Native Americans.

Here is one of his statements:
http://www.clark04.com/speeches/011/

<Snip>
Long before the Constitution was drafted, long before settlers happened upon this land, your ancestors lived this belief. And you continue to live it today -- in your respect for our environment and for the bonds of family, community and tradition. You live it in your service to this country - both here in America and throughout the world. Just look at your contributions to an institution near and dear to my heart: the U.S. military. Long before the Code Talkers of World War II...In Korea and Vietnam and other conflicts of the past half-century...And today, in Iraq, where a brave young woman named Lori Piestewa gave her life for our country last spring. American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians have answered the call, and you've served this nation with honor.</Snip>

I'm not trying to proselytize, but it would be an honor if you decided to join us in supporting Clark! B-)

[Hep]

21. That's not pandering at all!

This is like citizen Ruth!

[Skwmom]

24. No. I think Clark speaks from the heart.

If you'd only look with an open mind I think you'd see the same.

[TLM]

35. I did open my mind to CLark...

then I saw him saying it was Ok to muder journalists in war time and then saw him working as a lobbyist for defense contractors.

[Hep]

40. I'm not talkijng about Clark

I'm talking about the Clark supporters shitting themselves trying to appeal.

COME TO US COME TO US! We like you! PLEEEEEASE!

If it hadn't been for Dean, few of you would know a damn thing about this tribe in Vermont or any other Native American organization.

[_NorCal_D_]

59. With your

blustering and downright cruel rhetoric, it's no wonder that Dean supporters are falling away faster than autumn leaves.

[Hep]

81. YEah

We're really falling apart!

But thanks for ignoring the point. Kinda what I expected.

[Ediacara]

89. how is your vitriol any better?

"Dean's supporters are mean assholes that scream and yell and are driving people away because they're pure EVIL, and they deserve to go straight to HELL because they never ever ever EVER have anything nice to say!!!!"

-Random supporter of someone else but Dean

[_NorCal_D_]

27. How is commending Native Americans

for their service in past and present wars pandering?

[kispoko]

32. the thing about "pandering"

pandering isn't bad at all.... it doesn't necessarily carry all the negative connotations we seem to always associate with the word.

pandering with empty words carried with no action is the kind often invoked.... but hell, pander to me and back it up, and i'll love ya forever :P


clark's muh man now. no proselytizing necessary

[CWebster]

126. Like you weren't all along?

coming out of nowhere?

Yeah, right.

Something stinks.

[Hep]

41. LOL

Is that what you think? You think I'm claiming that commending native americans is pandering? That's rich!

I love how people here just don't know how to read. You have half a dozen people here falling over themselves trying to get the support of this one person and you don't even see it as it is!

Hooboy. Things are getting downright surreal here. Go rent Citizen Ruth.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[_NorCal_D_]

38. Are you saying this was orchestrated somehow?

Gimme a break. :tinfoilhat:

[TLM]

42. Oh no it was clearly just a coincidence…

That you were waiting in the wings with the response…


_________________________________________________
Here is one of his statements:
http://www.clark04.com/speeches/011/

<Snip>
Long before the Constitution was drafted, long before settlers happened upon this land, your ancestors lived this belief. And you continue to live it today -- in your respect for our environment and for the bonds of family, community and tradition. You live it in your service to this country - both here in America and throughout the world. Just look at your contributions to an institution near and dear to my heart: the U.S. military. Long before the Code Talkers of World War II...In Korea and Vietnam and other conflicts of the past half-century...And today, in Iraq, where a brave young woman named Lori Piestewa gave her life for our country last spring. American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians have answered the call, and you've served this nation with honor.</Snip>
_________________________________________________

[kispoko]

56. give me a fucking break guy

funny.... what did i say about perfunctory bullshit?

jebus, i must have channeled miss cleo

talk about being predictable.....


and as i said before, i'm hardly a newbie. probably been around longer than yourself even.... if you think you can guage that on posts alone, please take a course in logic before you consider posting on the grown-ups discussion board.

i'm not only not a newbiw, but a contributor..... even bought my al franken books through du so du could get the little extra money that brings.


now, we could get right into whose dick is bigger, mine or yours, or, you could quit insulting native people by some of the things that are flying off your keyboard and pretending my concerns here are invalid because they've been some kind of dynasty plot to make dean look like a bad seed. even if we did plan this in a back room, the concerns i brought up still have merit, and until you can address those and quit insisting that by throwing these ad hominem barbs at others you'll somehow be debating the issue i brought up, then you're not exactly handling yourself in this 'conversation,' and by extension, not doing much for the dean camp either.

i made this topic because after reading that article on indianz.com, i felt entirely let down.... and i wanted to express that, as well as the anger i had at putting as much as i did into dean.

so you don't like it..... fine. go play in the sandbox for all i care

[Hep]

57. You've been here so long

why have I not seen you defend or support Dean before?

[_NorCal_D_]

64. Did a quick search.

Looks like kispoko has been defending Dean for months.

Thank you Governor Dean
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=315980#324584

this was good from dean
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=310162

[kispoko]

69. wow......

-"Did a quick search."
Posted by _NorCal_D_
Looks like kispoko has been defending Dean for months.

Thank you Governor Dean
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=315980#324584

this was good from dean
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=310162



thank-you for looking those up norcal'.... i'm impressed. and i prolly wouldn't have bothered ;)

to anyone who isn't crazy (such as the person who asked for that, then subsequently when they got what they asked for, went in a different direction :) ), that's pretty telling.... i *did* like howard dean.... just cannot bring myself to support the guy now, save for in the case where he wins the nomination.

i don't think the people criticizing this understand how personal an issue this is, to me, and most native people at that.... and they certainly do themselves no favor by belittling it the way some of these people have gone about doing, all for some kind of pr for their guy....

not admitting when your guy has a fault, especially on what i see as such a leftist issue when the man clearly took a sharp right, is, to draw the analogy, too close to the behavior of freepers and their conservative champions..... they can do no wrong.

i don't like some things about clark.... but at least he never attacked the one thing that hits deepest in my soul. i don't expect these people to understand that, but i at least don't expect the attempts at negating what it is that means to me, and how much....

[Hep]

82. Cool, thanks

I can't search, so I appreciate your efforts. It's a rare quality for people to actually do the leg work. I really appreciate it.

[Melinda]

88. You have a "gold star" - you CAN utilize search. :-)

Check it out sometime. ;)

[Hep]

96. Damn!

When did I get a gold star? I rock!

[Tinoire]

102. You get kudos and big points for fairness

That rocked. I still don't like Clark but I must say that I've had to change my opinion recently about Clark supporters here. Not sure how many went quietly into the night but the majority of you guys are coming across like really sincere, thinking people.

[CWebster]

129. They all share your hatred of Dean

speaking of honesty.

[Tinoire]

154. I don't hate Dean the way I hate others but if Dean supporters keep

accusing me of hating Dean I may eventually believe it and that would be sad indeed.

Just because someone criticizes Dean or looks at him without rose-colored glasses doesn't mean they hate him. What is this? Some sort of a cult?

These are political primaries for goodness sake! It's not a Miss Congeniality contest or at least it shouldn't be.

[Rowdyboy]

183. Most Dean supporters aren't that strident

but the few that are seem to delight in being rude and outrageous. Dean remains my second choice if Clark fizzles but it sure as hell isn't because of the arguments of these cultists.

[Tinoire]

206. I know and I regret blowing my top like that

There are some good things about Dean but I see no need to focus on candidates' good points... It's their bad points & baggage I'm concerned about. I've looked at them all honestly. Some like Kerry, I looked at for years, others like Dean and more recently Clark, I've scrutinized as thoroughly as I can because of the short time and/or lack of a real record.

Having seen polticians from too close up, I'm too distrustful to accept words and promises.

Those were kind words and even encouraging. I am happy for Dean when he gets thoughtful people behind him- it's a little reassuring after the turn-off from a constant barrage of bizarre defenses.

That said with apologies to all the Dean supporters who don't engage in that.

I chalk it up to the youth and exuberance of a few but the snippiness is frankly tiresome. Those few make an awful lot of noise- very, very unfortunate.

[TLM]

125. Gosh you know I'm not sure which is worse...

If you were posturing for the purpose of spewing anti-dean shit... or if you're genuinely sincere. I think the latter would be even more discouraging, given the facts of this situation.

"now, we could get right into whose dick is bigger, mine or yours,"


No need, mine is clearly much bigger.


" or, you could quit insulting native people by some of the things that are flying off your keyboard and pretending my concerns here are invalid because they've been some kind of dynasty plot to make dean look like a bad seed. even if we did plan this in a back room, the concerns i brought up still have merit, and until you can address those and quit insisting that by throwing these ad hominem barbs at others you'll somehow be debating the issue i brought up, then you're not exactly handling yourself in this 'conversation,' and by extension, not doing much for the dean camp either."

The concerns you brought up are for the most part BS spin, sicne even the tribal leader of this tribe said Dean was great on most issues. Yet you come in here acting like Dean personally hunted them for sport and ate their children simply because he wouldn’t let them build a casino. When I see someone using BS spin to attack Dean, and they do so while they proclaim their conversion to Clark, AND get the hand off from Clark supporters who damn near make a career out of Dean bashing on DU, I call um as I see them.

You maybe very well be a long time lurker who just decided to jump out and bash Dean, and you may well be 100% serious about the crap you're spewing. Hell you may even believe what you're saying, though I seriously doubt it.

The point is, you actions are those of someone with an agenda. I assumed that was a push Clark bash Dean agenda, since that’s exactly what you were doing in your post.



"i made this topic because after reading that article on indianz.com, i felt entirely let down.... and i wanted to express that, as well as the anger i had at putting as much as i did into dean."

Oh I see, so you have kind of a jilted lover thing going on. That makes sense. You got all excited about Dean like most folks have, then see that he wasn't right in line with you on the issue of casinos, and now you hate him. Well certainly you can understand how that kind of blind reactionary vitriol can be confused with opportunistic posturing.

[kispoko]

148. mef

-No need, mine is clearly much bigger.

in a funhouse mirror


-The concerns you brought up are for the most part BS spin, sicne even the tribal leader of this tribe said Dean was great on most issues.

bs spin is saying that the tribal leader said dean was great on most issues.... they didn't. also bs spin would be calling my concerns bs spin, since they were subjective what i thought of them to begin with.... do you really not understand the implications of the words you use? you can think my opinions are bs, but when i say i ahev a porblem with dean's being against abenaki recognition, that's 'spin' how exactly?

-Yet you come in here acting like Dean personally hunted them for sport and ate their children simply because he wouldn’t let them build a casino.

this is bs spin as well..... very nice.

i see the problem is projection, looks like.

-When I see someone using BS spin to attack Dean, and they do so while they proclaim their conversion to Clark, AND get the hand off from Clark supporters who damn near make a career out of Dean bashing on DU, I call um as I see them.

if you call 'em as you see 'em, where exactly did i make a "conversio" to clark? again, you seem not to understand the words you use..... i was already a supporter of clark. at the time, as much as i was of dean and really couldn't decide between the two, as explained.... saying i "converted" implies that the level of support i had for clark didn't exist.

no, what happened simply is that dean dropped out of the running for me. clark was always in it.... big difference.

-You maybe very well be a long time lurker who just decided to jump out and bash Dean, and you may well be 100% serious about the crap you're spewing. Hell you may even believe what you're saying, though I seriously doubt it.

again, projection..... niiice

-The point is, you actions are those of someone with an agenda.

you're right. i have a pro-native rights agenda.... it's a huge part of my life. i only ask that you respect it, not that you agree.... but you even seem to have trouble with that.


-I assumed that was a push Clark bash Dean agenda, since that’s exactly what you were doing in your post.

that's funny, since i only mentioned clark in passing toward the very end of my post.... and apparently that wasn't even very clear since more than one person asked me questions about who i was going to vote for in the primary, who i supported now.... hell, even trying to "convert" me to the clark side.

yanno, you've made enough of an ass of yourself with your conspiracy theory bullshit on my reason(s) for posting, totally negating something i feel is important and central to me in the process, you don't have to go on making obvious embellishments on top of it.

talk about an agenda....


-Oh I see, so you have kind of a jilted lover thing going on. That makes sense. You got all excited about Dean like most folks have, then see that he wasn't right in line with you on the issue of casinos, and now you hate him. Well certainly you can understand how that kind of blind reactionary vitriol can be confused with opportunistic posturing.

opportunistic posturing.... such as continuing to throw the straw man of "casinos" out as though that were actually my beef with dean instead of his anti-sovereignty stance on the abenaki....

that's it, keep turning it into something it's not about, argue that because it's easier, and have your victory, king shit.... that doesn't change the issue, try as you may

[sangh0]

315. It must be BS spin

TLM accused me of the same thing, so TLM must be an expert on BS spin. :-)

[Hep]

44. No you guys aren't that organized!

It's just opportune!

Yeah, I have no way of verifying who the OP supported a month ago.

[Code_Name_D]

72. And within 4 minutes too.

Not to mention that there is about 4 other such threads currently under way. All started at the same time, and as vanity threads to scert the DU rules.

[JohnKleeb]

30. He forgot Ira Hayes the bastard (kidding around on my part)

btw those were some good words. Ira Hayes was one of the flag raisers of Iwo Jima, my cousin or uncle I dont know what he was, was one of the others. I thought those were some great words Clark made.

[CWebster]

120. proselytize? On this board? You made a wrong turn back there---

"Just look at your contributions to an institution near and dear to my heart: the U.S. military. Long before the Code Talkers of World War II...In Korea and Vietnam and other conflicts of the past half-century...And today, in Iraq, where a brave young woman named Lori Piestewa gave her life for our country last spring."

It astounds me to think that you would think to post this as a selling point!


Today I watched part of the protest in London on C-span--it was great--so encouraging that the world was not as unconscious as so many Americans are. Following that was Clark, and he sounded like a General discussing military strategy, totally out of step to alternative priorities. A better world is possible.

Night and day.

[tlagiloi]

259. No thanks!

It looks like it would end up being a dishonor.
We haven't met too many honest politicians in the last 500+ years.
;)

t

[kispoko]

12. jeez.... you guys are beginning to disgust me already

settin' records, are ye?


-from what I read, his office asked for proof


and Native Americans have all sorts of proof guidelines, including the blood-line system, so they should have that proof ready to go in a moment's notice right?

If 4 seemingly simple proofs were required, why not deliver them and be done with it? Oh, unless of course you have something political to gain.


do you understand how politicized federal recognition is in itself?.... do you even understand how difficult it is, ironically because of federal indian policy?

you clearly have no clue, yet have to decided to mouth off about it anyway. congrats

there have been some of us.... many of us in fact, whose ancestors were, while not outright extirpated, done away with nonetheless in 'pencil genocide.' it was illegal in many places, my state included, to even be indian, right up until the civil rights act was passed..... so entire generations of people have little to no hope of proving their native bloodlines, because of federal policies aimed at such goals as that in the future these groups, if they even survived, would nonetheless not survive culturally and/or politically.

the system is fucked. so don't go holding the system in high regard or anything. it's liebensraumpolitik american style.



and then this...

-6. I remember the guy who registered that complaint for the abenakis
was white, with a small amount of abenaki blood in him---he wanted the casino to open.


how do you know? and furthermore, so what?

it is white people who are overly obsessen with such things as blood quanta.... that has begun to pervade the native mindstate somewhat, but was never traditional.

only the abenaki can say who an abenaki is.... not you or i. even if a guy is mostly white, and looks white... that is not for you to decide who is accepted among another people.

or is it?... when did this become a duty of yours? or is it just a hobby you take up on the weekends?

i don't care either if he wanted a casino to open...... good! maybe the abenaki will not have to exist in penury and silence anymore..... in their own homelands even!!

[slinkerwink]

18. someone posted an article about it on an NCAI thread....

[loyalsister]

37. Re read what you wrote

it is white people who are overly obsessen with such things as blood quanta.... that has begun to pervade the native mindstate somewhat, but was never traditional.

"only the abenaki can say who an abenaki is.... not you or i. even if a guy is mostly white, and looks white... that is not for you to decide who is accepted among another people."

I had a conversation about this with a Native uncle who once worked for IAB. Do you understand that if there is no clear standard for recognition that people could use an assertion of Native American lineage illegitimately?????? Do you not get that this would diminish the meaning of that recognition?

[kispoko]

73. loyalsister....

-it is white people who are overly obsessen with such things as blood quanta.... that has begun to pervade the native mindstate somewhat, but was never traditional.

"only the abenaki can say who an abenaki is.... not you or i. even if a guy is mostly white, and looks white... that is not for you to decide who is accepted among another people."

I had a conversation about this with a Native uncle who once worked for IAB. Do you understand that if there is no clear standard for recognition that people could use an assertion of Native American lineage illegitimately?????? Do you not get that this would diminish the meaning of that recognition?


i reread it..... what's wrong with it?

all someone has to do is just prove descendency from a native american.... i wasn't asking that that be abolished or anything.

merely, i was asking that the native view of blood quanta be respected, and that it not be tossed about as a bone of contention.... i asked that the tribes be respected in making decisions for themselves as to who is considered by them to be one of their people..... that is all that matters.... that is all that ever mattered.


the recognition process has always been diminished by the unfair ways it was set up... there has to be a process though, for those who even want federal recognition.... i know many who don't care. i'm of that mindstate myself. but for those who do, i can respect that, too. and for those that deserve it, when the system designed to weed applicants out is so abysmal.... there is no way one can speak of it but to refer to it as diminished already.

[sandnsea]

84. Principles are tossed aside

When it comes to defending Dean. This is what so many have been trying to say about all of it. From the guns to AA to Sierra Blanca, all of it. What he did in Vermont never matches what he says today and it's shocking when so many suggest we should toss aside traditional Democratic values because Dean is so great. He says he's going to restore the heart of the Democratic Party and all I see is a Party with no heart but a full pocketbook. At the expense of the less fortunate.

[Myra]

13. Kucinich also an alternative. And here is Clark's position statement

On the subject:

http://clark04.com/issues/nativeamericans/

Topics covered:

RESPECTING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY
IMPROVING HEALTH CARE IN INDIAN COUNTRY
ACHIEVING MEANINGFUL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
HOMELAND SECURITY OUGHT TO INCLUDE THE ENTIRE HOMELAND

I don't agree with General Clark's stance on every issue (!),
and I don't know enough about this issue to have an opinion
on his stance.

[Tatiana]

14. I like Clark, personally.

But just ask yourself if this ONE issue, in the grand scheme of things, is worth completely disregarding Dean.

If it is, then that's cool... it's your choice. But I think we, as a party, are going to have to realize that we have to look at totality and enormity of the situation we are faced with and base our decisions on that totality and enormity... not just single issues.

[Tom Rinaldo]

85. You are right

Even if you view Dean's position in the worse possible light, I am confident Dean would be far better for Native Americans than Bush, and this is just one of many many issues to be considered. It would be foolish to disregard Dean based on this even if you did have trouble with his position. I back Clark though I still disagree with his flag burning position (though I understand where he is coming from, and I believe Clark overall is strong on civil liberties and the right to dissent). It is dangerous to have a one issue litmus test. Having said that, I do strongly back Clark's stand regarding Native American issues. I strongly back Deans position on some others. If you want someone who agrees with you all the time about everything, write your own name in on the ballot. Everyone has to decide for themselves how important a specific stand on a specific issue is to them, but dead people are the most rigid people I know. Where there's life, there's hope for evolution.

[kispoko]

95. hey tom

ya know, that's the one thing that irks me most about clark, too; the flag-burning amendment. kucinich as well.... especially kucinich. that seems to make even less sense.

but that's not as important for me as native issues have always been.... so yeah, you're gonna have to make concessions. and, that's one i won't do.

the flag-burning, i guess i'll have to deal with.... goes down a bit easier though.

[Tom Rinaldo]

269. OT reply to kispoko

Got temporarily locked out of DU by some softweare change, sorry getting back so late. Also sorry for all the unfair heat directed at you personally by some (by no means all) Dean supporters on this thread. You have a valid issue, and God knows you have a right to feel strongly about it. Others see it differently than you and that's their right too, but the "traitor/agent" type talk is paranoid and creepy. I wrote to the Clark campaign and complained about the flag stance, just so I wouldn't be hypocritical about my support for Clark. I also publically said I disagreed with him on that before, here among other places. It's not like Clark, or Dean or any other candidate walks on water, I don't have to pretend to agree with everything he says and does. Everyone has to draw their own line in the sand however. The thing is Bush has already crossed about three dozen of mine, so I hope you can still on some level support Dean if he is the eventual nominee.

I wrote at length on this elsewhere, but briefly: I heard Clark speak on the American flag amendment. He really believes it is the one symbol that is meant to unite all of us, even those most bitterly opposed to U.S. policy at any place at any time. He thinks the flag belongs to the opposition as much as it does to the establishment so to speak, and he thinks a unifying symbol is important in a diverse country. I think the real issue though, and he addressed this also, is the number of men he has seen fight and die under the flag, the amount of people he's seen buried below it, and in particular, the number of grieving families of dead servicemen he has personally presented with the American Flag. They took comfort in it and I think he empathises with their need for the flag to be sacred in some way. I still disagree with him, but I understand.

[Scott Lee]

15. welp....another Dean slime thread, another day

I'm beginning to be able to set my watch by this stuff.

Meanwhile, Dean widens his lead as front runner and continues to garner more support.

Have a good one.

[angka]

26. but this guy has a great solution...

vote for sharpton!

aren't there a bunch of rethugs gunning for sharpton, too?

tomorrow i'm sure dean will have been on the boat with columbus...and i am out of time for this divisive nonsense. we have our nominee, and as soon as the washington has-beens figure this out, the quicker we'll be able to focus on the real fight.

[Julien Sorel]

31. Really? How did he 'widen his lead?'

What 'support' did he 'garner?'

[deutsey]

43. This might be what the poster is citing:

Even as the RNC goes live on the air in New Hampshire with ads attacking those who opposed President Bush's war on Iraq, Howard Dean has expanded his lead in the Granite State, according to the latest ARG poll. The results, with November 5th's results in parenthesis:

Dean 38 (38)
Kerry 17 (24)
Clark 7 (4)
Lieberman 5 (4)
Edwards 4 (4)
Gephardt 4 (3)
Kucinich 3 (1)
Braun 1 (1)
Sharpton 0 (0)

http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/dem/
www.blogforamerica.com

[Julien Sorel]

51. Dean's numbers haven't budged.

Kerry's numbers slipping in one state mean Dean is 'widening his lead?'
It's a form of meme astroturfing by the Deanites.

[deutsey]

60. Hey, man

I'm just providing you with a link that the original poster may have been citing.

But, technically, with the second-place Kerry dropping in this poll, Dean's lead widens, doesn't it? Clark, Lieberman, Gephardt and Kucinich expanded their numbers, but they are nowhere close to Dean.

[Scott Lee]

111. When Kerry dropped, and Dean stayed the same, what do you think?

If I, for instance, take five steps away from car, even though the car hasn't moved have I WIDENED the distance between myself and the car, or decreased it?

You're welcome.

[oxymoron]

135. and Deanites take the bait every time...

I love how Deanies scream about inflamatary threads, yet keep them kicked by posting in them in droves.

[many a good man]

17. What else is new...

Show me one politician who's ever done anything good for Native Americans. There's not one out there in any position of responsibility.

Federal and state recognition is a highly controversial issue with enormous consequences. Its something politicians have always wished would just go away. Unfortunately inter-tribal politics are even murkier than the regular kind.

Few people know it, but there hundreds of tribal groups in the east seeking some form of recognition. Tribes that were defeated or never signed treaties are left in limbo. The bureaucratic loopholes they must jump through is simply mind boggling. And expensive. It costs something in the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to work one tribe's way through the process. The red tape is there on purpose to discourage it.

Of course there are financial and legal interests at stake, but at the heart of the matter are civil rights. Because of various laws, incuding endangered species laws, Native Americans are not free to practice their religion unless they are a member of a recognized tribal organization. It is a case of the government telling people what their identity should be.

Unfortunately, many eastern natives associate these legal barriers with liberal politics. And to a large extent they're right because noone bothers to aid them in their cause. You might hear a peep now and then around campaign season but after that nothing. Its always the same...

[tlagiloi]

260. Look! Dean's Nekkid !!!!

t&p,
careful now, we don't want anyone to see the emperor
isn't wearing clothes.... ;)

we don't really have any candidates in our corner.
a few are aware we still exist....
Dean is one that knows we exist and wishes we didn't.

another good joke in politics was when:
apple ben nighthorse campbell defected to the republicans....

t

[Hep]

19. You're a bit late

This round of Dean criticism took place about three days ago.

[TLM]

36. Got a link to that great thread?

The one that detailed the fact that the native american people on the ground were very happy with Dean, but it was this handful of tribal leaders who stood to get rich off a casino who were making a stink about this?

ANd even the chief of the tribe in question admits that Dean was great on other issues with that tribe, he just wouldn't go along with their desire to put a casino on protected land in VT?

[Hep]

45. That's the one!

Don't have a link, can't afford to search.

[Skwmom]

22. This one line of yours mimics what I said to a person the other day

"it's repulsive to me to see how howard dean has treated some of the meakest among us...."

[moz4prez]

25. you mean John Kerry?

[Hep]

46. LOL

So you spend more time talking about Dean than your guy in real life too?


Utterly amazing.

[TLM]

29. Wow only 118 posts and a sudden Dean Clark conversion...

So this is what they mean by droping Clark magic on DU?


That fact is the abenaki have been trying to get recognized since long before Dean came into the picture and couldn't get it because they do not meet the criteria. They got it once in the 70's but it was recinded.

Even you admit that "the abenaki have been in that area of the country for many thousands of years now." They've moved all around new england and parts of canada, and were not residing in VT for the periord of time required to grant them ownership of the land.

That's not Dean fault.

They wanted Dean to grant them state level recognition so they could sue to get federal recognition, so that they could then build a casino on the land in VT. Land which is protected in a state were very little develpment is allowed.

If some rich white dude wanted to build ANYTHING, hell not even a casino, say a Walmart out on this land, people would have a fit over that. So you feel that a tribe which has a tenuious claim to the land at best, should be granted the right to develop protected land and build a modern casino?

How can you claim that's about native rights or heritage? Where in the abenaki ways is it taught to rape the land for gambling profits?

So lets not pretend this was about anyting other than the MONEY that could be made off a casino. Try to wrap that up in claims of the welfare of the people, but we both know that's pretty much bullshit. Yeah gambling does make money for tribes, but just like in any other situation where a money is made of gambling, the vast majority of money goes into the pockets of a few people at the top.

And then you have issues of building roads to access the casino, which means more destruction of protected land. Then you have the trafic to and from the place. And lets not forget the fact were talking about gambling, which causes all kinds of problems for folks who can't walk away from it.

Add to that the fact that even the chief of the abenaki said Dean was great on just about every other issue witht hat tribe incusing burial grounds and heritage issues and grants.

So to try and spin this as Dean being some indian hatin whitey is empty and transparent. This is about a group of people who wanted to make a lot of money at the expense of the land in VT, and Dean wouldn't go along with it.

[kispoko]

47. tlm....

yer up....


-"Wow only 118 posts and a sudden Dean Clark conversion..."
Posted by TLM

So this is what they mean by droping Clark magic on DU?


trying to make an ad hominem point out of the number of posts i have, without regard to how involved i may be at du that might otherwise be belied by that number, is really fucking juvenile.

i don't post much, but i've lurked for about two years or so.... i've even given money when i didn't have much to spare, and will again. i never got my star, but who cares? i got my bumper sticker. so fuck all


-That fact is the abenaki have been trying to get recognized since long before Dean came into the picture and couldn't get it because they do not meet the criteria. They got it once in the 70's but it was recinded.

i don't know about that, but what does the fact that the abenaki have been trying to regain recognition have to do with dean scuttling their efforts when he was governor?

can you tell me that?

they haven't met the criteria..... YET! many groups simply need to collect more documents to be resubmitted... it has happened before that decisions have been reversed. so how all of a sudden does a group that doesn't meet the criteria and is deemed not indian suddenyl become just that?

they were all along, and trying to argue the merits of the severely stringent recognition procedures, given united states history even, is hardly grounds for such definitive statements as that (i.e. this group is deserving 'cause they passed the u.s.'s little test, this group isn't). indian people still know each other.... we still know who's who, even among countless frauds..... the abenaki in vermont are not frauds.

-Even you admit that "the abenaki have been in that area of the country for many thousands of years now." They've moved all around new england and parts of canada, and were not residing in VT for the periord of time required to grant them ownership of the land.

you don't know WHAT you're talking about....

i'm not even going to waste my time on that because i don't think you'd care to learn anyway..... but i would like to leave you with the curiosity of how a group such as, say, the iowa meskwaki could be granted that land and recognition when their homeland lies about 1,00 miles east.

aside from that, the abenaki bands (there are many bands of abenaki in the region) have historically always been in that area. so quit throwing shit on the walls and hoping it'll stick. you're denying a peoples' history here, and it's borderline bigoted.

-That's not Dean fault.

but it is dean's fault for how he treated the abenaki in vermont, is it not? or did he just have no control over his the affairs of his own state while he was governor or something?

jesus christ, you spinning bastards....

-They wanted Dean to grant them state level recognition so they could sue to get federal recognition, so that they could then build a casino on the land in VT. Land which is protected in a state were very little develpment is allowed.

so what? it's still their land.... why do you think white people need to be telling them what they should and shouldn't do with it?

awfully paternal of ya

-If some rich white dude wanted to build ANYTHING, hell not even a casino, say a Walmart out on this land, people would have a fit over that. So you feel that a tribe which has a tenuious claim to the land at best, should be granted the right to develop protected land and build a modern casino?

what protected land? i have problems believing they'd have developed on any real protected land.

that wouldn't have stopped them from doing so elsewhere.

but the real issue here is sovereignty, not casinos. and it is also important to keep reminding folks like yourself that these are abenaki homelands, and goddamn if any foreign governments should impose their will on them as has been done now for hundreds of years.... why is it you think indigenous people should have to bow to others on their own land? i want to know why you think native people should act so inferior....?

-How can you claim that's about native rights or heritage? Where in the abenaki ways is it taught to rape the land for gambling profits?

rape the land.... now non-natives are giving native people lectures on how to regard their own land?! fucking hell, what effrontery....

you also don't seem to understand, don't seem to care even, that natives have to live in an economy imposed upon them, and that means adjusting for survival..... so devloping gaming ventures to keep your tribe afloat financially is right along with that tradition. so eat it... you don't know a damn thing about abenaki culture and world views, so don't go talking on it

-So lets not pretend this was about anyting other than the MONEY that could be made off a casino. Try to wrap that up in claims of the welfare of the people, but we both know that's pretty much bullshit. Yeah gambling does make money for tribes, but just like in any other situation where a money is made of gambling, the vast majority of money goes into the pockets of a few people at the top.

even if it was all for money, as you say, since we all know injuns is greedy, downright avaricious even.... the abenaki still deserve sovereignty.

what they choose to do with it is their damn business.


-And then you have issues of building roads to access the casino, which means more destruction of protected land. Then you have the trafic to and from the place. And lets not forget the fact were talking about gambling, which causes all kinds of problems for folks who can't walk away from it.

what about problems abenaki have faced now for over a couple hundred years?

do you denounce the state lottery of vermont? i'm sure they probably have race tracks there too, horse and/or greyhound. do you denounce vegas and atlantic city the same? do the riverboats on the ogio and in the mississippi draw the same ire from you?

doubtfully.... certainly don't see you or anyone else complaining here with even the faintest hint of concern for the state of the abenaki over the years.... moral hypocrites.

and that's just it..... whites haven't given shit one for native people.... so excuse me if your feigned concern for gamblers and so-called protected land ring hollow when a people have suffered for generations.

-Add to that the fact that even the chief of the abenaki said Dean was great on just about every other issue witht hat tribe incusing burial grounds and heritage issues and grants.

blah blah blah.... then why was he criticizing him.... objurgating him really for his treatment of the abenaki on the most important issue(s)?

-So to try and spin this as Dean being some indian hatin whitey is empty and transparent.

so is your attempt to try and spin my feelings as being anything remotely close to that.

-This is about a group of people who wanted to make a lot of money at the expense of the land in VT, and Dean wouldn't go along with it.

THIS IS ABOUT A GROUP OF PEOPLE DESERVING OF RECOGNITION BUT EXISTING WITHOUT IT AND WHAT AN INJUSTICE THAT IS!!

GET IT STRAIGHT!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

66. EXCELLENT Response

I always detest when elite white liberals think they can speak for the concerns of people of color better than people of color can.

DTH

[Ediacara]

91. so white liberals have nothing useful to say?

thanks

[DoveTurnedHawk]

222. NOT What I'm Saying

Re-read, please. I'm criticizing those elite white liberals who "think they can speak for the concerns of people of color better than people of color can." Not all white liberals.

The quotations are incredibly arrogant, condescending and patronizing statements.

DTH

[Hep]

98. so why are you here?

Interesting that you would take Ward Connerly's opinion over mine, but nonetheless, whatever!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

223. When You Start Acting Like You Know Better Than Members of the Community

And by that I mean legitimate members of the community, not ones who've left it or are working against it, then maybe what I said would apply to you, too.

Until then, I recommend that you not choose to label yourself unless the shoe really fits.

DTH

[Hep]

229. Hypocrisy is alive and well at DU

And by that I mean legitimate members of the community, not ones who've left it or are working against it, then maybe what I said would apply to you, too.

This isn't a white person trying to say who is and who isn't a member of a different community, is it? I thought it was up to them.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

231. It Is Up To Us

This isn't a white person trying to say who is and who isn't a member of a different community, is it? I thought it was up to them.

And no, I do not have the white skin privilege.

Think before you accuse people of being fucking hypocrites. You can turn that finger right back around at yourself.

DTH

[Hep]

236. When

were appointed spokesperson for your community?

I didn't realize that there was no diversity of political thought there.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

237. Straw Man

Discuss all you want, but when white folks start lecturing and scolding people of color for daring to speak up about issues of importance to their communities, that's when you should check yourself.

As for your irrelevant "spokesperson" line, I've been fighting for issues of interest to people of color for over a decade. That makes me more of a spokesperson for people of color than any elite, condescending white person who thinks they can tell us how to live and think.

:puke:

DTH

[Hep]

243. This is the thing

Discuss all you want, but when white folks start lecturing and scolding people of color for daring to speak up about issues of importance to their communities, that's when you should check yourself.

Hello, alienation. I never like this kind of absolute speech. When I look for guidance on issues facing different communities, I go to the people in those communities. Yet somehow the same words coming from my mouth are meaningless, discredited before they pass my lips?

That's pretty fucking frustrating. I mean, you have no idea of how I feel about ANY issue, yet you assert that it doesn't matter in the first place. What good comes from that?

As for your irrelevant "spokesperson" line, I've been fighting for issues of interest to people of color for over a decade. That makes me more of a spokesperson for people of color than any elite, condescending white person who thinks they can tell us how to live and think.

The point was, what makes you more of a spokesperson than a person of color who disagrees with you? And if you are even trying to imply that I've ever tried to tell anyone how to live and think, other than telling them to live life fully and think objectively, you're in for a long night of DU searching.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

245. Come On

Hello, alienation. I never like this kind of absolute speech. When I look for guidance on issues facing different communities, I go to the people in those communities. Yet somehow the same words coming from my mouth are meaningless, discredited before they pass my lips?

What is with your continuing effort to try to attribute to me such extreme positions, which I haven't even adopted? It is an incredibly dishonest tactic.

This is about RESPECT. What you're describing is respectful behavior. And discussion about sensitive issues, when done SENSITIVELY, is respectful. No one reasonable would have any problem with that.

What I have a BIG FUCKING PROBLEM with is when people here start with the lecturing, "Oh, you shouldn't feel that way, oh, you're wrong, oh, those people of color don't want that anyway."

THAT is condescending and patronizing, and that is NOT respectful.

This thread is FILLED with white folks SLAMMING a person of color for daring to take a stand on an issue of critical importance to that person of color's community, just because it trips their "must defend candidate X at all costs" button.

And THAT is bullshit. All of these people are not only making themselves look bad, their making their candidate look bad.

That's pretty fucking frustrating. I mean, you have no idea of how I feel about ANY issue, yet you assert that it doesn't matter in the first place. What good comes from that?

So now you're trying you make YOURSELF the victim? Get a grip. Re-read this thread, I wasn't even referring to you when I went off on the original respondent. You jumped in with a big assumption, and took things personally, even after I told you that so long as you weren't one of the hectoring lecturers, I wasn't even talking about you.

If you still want to take offense, feel free. If you want to make yourself out to be some kind of victim, go ahead and try.

But that attitude is exactly why certain white liberals make the teeth of many people of color itch.

DTH

[Hep]

249. Be fair

This is the comment I first responded to:

I always detest when elite white liberals think they can speak for the concerns of people of color better than people of color can.

This is the absolute speech I refer to. Especially in message boards, people need to learn to refrain from "always" and "never". Either you always detset when (what you see as) elite white liberals lecture people of color, which makes you extreme in your position, or you don't, which betrays your words. You can't fault me for interpreting extreme speech as being extreme.

My original response to you, which was probably not well conveyed, was meant to point out that this board seems to a great extent to consist of white elite liberals pontificating about how everyone should live and think.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

251. Key Word in My Quote: Better

Random pontificating is fine. It's when the disrespect and condescension come into play that I get pissed off.

And yes, I pretty much get pissed off all the time when stuff like that happens, so while you might consider that to be "absolute" speech, it's also accurate speech, in my case.

You don't have to like it; you don't have to agree with it. But that's my view, and if you've spent time with communities of color, you know as well as I do that my view is commonplace.

It's one thing when a member of your family criticizes your mama, but you'd better watch out when someone outside the family does it.

DTH

[Hep]

252. The funny thing is

I probably agree with you on the issues. And I really don't begrudge your approach. I don't even know why I'm still posting.

[sangh0]

318. DTH, give it up!!

Hep has a long history of using straw men and argumentum ad absurdum. You talk about how some white people think they can do a better job of speaking for minorites than the minorities themselves can do, and Hep twists it into you saying "No white person can speak about racial issues"

He also falsely accused you of being white. He also falsely accused others of not being Indians

[Tinoire]

238. Quit Hep....

You're going after the wrong person on that issue.

[Hep]

244. No

We're going to work this out. The anonymity of internet posting breeds this kind of thing. All I know is a user name.

And this may be a bold statement, but yeah, I think I know more about what a community of color needs than someone in that community who voted for Bush.

I don't know any more about anyone here than they tell me. If it takes six posts of posturing and defensiveness on both sides to get the information out, then so be it.

[LeahMira]

276. Hep, et al...

And this may be a bold statement, but yeah, I think I know more about what a community of color needs than someone in that community who voted for Bush.

I'm getting all these communities mixed up here, Hep. You think you know better what a minority person needs than one of the minority persons themselves who happened to vote for Bush?

Anyhow, I'm white and I'm liberal, but I'm hardly among the "elite." My paycheck reminds me twice monthly how un-elite I really am! But I do have friends who are American Indians and I have learned to be quiet and listen, and then when I think I understand what they are saying, ask questions and listen some more. I learned that the hard way, BTW. Fortunately, Indians are generally very patient.

Indians aren't a monolithic group. There is diversity among them as well as there is in any community. But they all have definite ideas on sovereignty which, to date, the U.S. government is sedulously ignoring.

France doesn't have to go wild with the casinos just because Monaco does, but it doesn't tell a sovereign nation how to run its business. Italy doesn't have to go wild with the Catholicism just because Vatican State is smack in the middle of Italy, but it doesn't tell the Vatican how to run its business either. Why can't the U.S. recognize that there are sovereign Indian nations within its borders and the U.S. government has no place telling them how to run their business?

The dumbest part is the U.S. government telling these Indian nations that they don't exist or that they don't exist unless we say they exist! At least that's how it looks to me.

You've got some honest to goodness American Indians here who are telling you how it is. I'm learning as I read along. Trying to be nice here, please be still and listen. Ask questions and then listen some more. Think about how you would feel in their situation. You may still not be convinced, but at least you will understand a little more. OK?

[Hep]

293. I think the topic got more broad for me back there

I certainly don't think that I'm elite. Trust me, my paycheck is probably strikingly similar to yours. But there is an odd set of concepts at work in the broad sense that I hope I can make more clear than I did before. Sure, no one knows more about awhat people of color go through in life than people of color. But race, religion, etc don't guarantee a broad understanding of politics or sociology. When I say I know more about what a person of color needs than they do (if they voted for Bush), I'm not saying their expereience isn't valuable. I'm just saying that I've spent more time thinking and researching and speaking to influential people of color on the matter.

But this is all off topic. I see Native Americans telling me different things, and that's at the crux of this issue. Political thought in communities of color is as diverse as it is in my world, which is also colorful, by the way. Many NA's think that federal recognition is the only means of existence, and others think that their culture and heritage are strong without the piece of paper signed by the government. I'm not up on this issue. I see merit to both arguments. What I don't see is people working together.

[kispoko]

322. hep....

-But this is all off topic. I see Native Americans telling me different things, and that's at the crux of this issue. Political thought in communities of color is as diverse as it is in my world, which is also colorful, by the way. Many NA's think that federal recognition is the only means of existence, and others think that their culture and heritage are strong without the piece of paper signed by the government. I'm not up on this issue. I see merit to both arguments. What I don't see is people working together.


but, it isn't always as black and white as that, as what it would appear.... just because you're arguing for one thing does not mean you are doing it for selfish reasons (whereas when you argue for the opposite reasons, such as that you don't want a casino affecting you, etc., it is entirely self-centered and based on nothing other than that no matter what a person would want you to think).

you probably think, for instance, *i'm* in that camp you believe feels that federal recognition is the only means of existnce.

in reality, i don't care for federal recognition.... i don't even recognize these governments as legitimate over myself in my homelands! even though i abide by their laws in most instances.... as one put it, it is like recognizing the right of a thief to stick you for your valuables.... you don't ultimately recognize that right, but you acquiesce anyway so they you may go on living.


but my point was, while not necessarily for me, for other natives, if they choose to go that route, and DESERVE it, i believe in their right to have what they should never have lost anyway, and will fight for it.


i already used the "pro-choice" analogy to try and explain it, but i'll try another one instead.... i believe for instance homosexuals ought to have civil unions, marriages if you will, if they like, just as everyone else is able to.... now i'm not gay, and it's safe to say i'll never have any need personally for a gay marriage. but goddamnit, i'll fight for someone else's right to that if they want it because i agree with people being allowed what they should rightfully have.

there is likely a better analogy in something, but the explanation itself without that should be sufficient as is.

[Ediacara]

90. can you please

use some sort of notation for quoted text? like italics or bold or "quotes" or <<brackets>> or SOMETHING!?

[TLM]

115. You can repeat your rant over and over again...

but the last scream has no more substance than the first.

"trying to make an ad hominem point out of the number of posts i have, without regard to how involved i may be at du that might otherwise be belied by that number, is really fucking juvenile."


Almost as juvinal and transparent posturing over one-issue voting.


"i don't post much, but i've lurked for about two years or so.... i've even given money when i didn't have much to spare, and will again. i never got my star, but who cares? i got my bumper sticker. so fuck all"

Good for you... doesn't change what you did, nor how transparent it was. I mean if you are a long time lurker, that just makes it all the more disapointing that the only reason you bother to post is to spew this Dean bashing "I'm converting" crap.


"i don't know about that,"

That's rather evident in your rant...

" but what does the fact that the abenaki have been trying to regain recognition have to do with dean scuttling their efforts when he was governor?"


What it means is that they've been trying and were rejected before because they did not meet the criteria. Dean being Gov doesn;t change the fact that they STILL DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA.


"i'm not even going to waste my time on that because i don't think you'd care to learn anyway....."

LOL! Yeah typical... I'm so wrong that you won;t even bother demonstrating that I'm wrong.

Let me know when you come up with a substantive argument.

" but i would like to leave you with the curiosity of how a group such as, say, the iowa meskwaki could be granted that land and recognition when their homeland lies about 1,00 miles east."

Perhaps that tribe met the requierments?

"they haven't met the criteria..... YET! many groups simply need to collect more documents to be resubmitted... it has happened before that decisions have been reversed. so how all of a sudden does a group that doesn't meet the criteria and is deemed not indian suddenyl become just that?"


As you say, by meeting the criteria... by getting the proof and resubmitting the request. You're making my argument for me. They were nto recognized untilt hey were able to show they met the requierments.


"they were all along, and trying to argue the merits of the severely stringent recognition procedures,"

You just gave an example of a tribe only "1,00 miles east" that was able to do just that. Several other tribes have been able to do it as well. So to act as if this process keeps all tribes from meetign requierments is bogus. The sandards are there to keep any jackass who wants to take advantage of tribal exemptions from state and federal law, from lying about beign a tribe.


" given united states history even, is hardly grounds for such definitive statements as that (i.e. this group is deserving 'cause they passed the u.s.'s little test, this group isn't). indian people still know each other.... we still know who's who, even among countless frauds..... the abenaki in vermont are not frauds."

Maybe not, but as yet they do not meet the requierments for recognition.



"aside from that, the abenaki bands (there are many bands of abenaki in the region) have historically always been in that area. so quit throwing shit on the walls and hoping it'll stick. you're denying a peoples' history here, and it's borderline bigoted."

Again you say they've been in that AREA. Yet you know as well as I that their residence within the borders of VT is not consistant. The tribe moved around the whole area, through several states.



"but it is dean's fault for how he treated the abenaki in vermont, is it not? or did he just have no control over his the affairs of his own state while he was governor or something?

jesus christ, you spinning bastards...."

It is not Dean's fault that the tribe doesn;t meet the requierments. Is Dean supposed to grant tribal recognition to anybody who claims to be a tribe? Should there be no standards at all?

"so what? it's still their land.... why do you think white people need to be telling them what they should and shouldn't do with it?

awfully paternal of ya"

Most of the people in question are white people, save for 1/16th or 1/8th native blood. So lets not pretend this is a race issue, it is not. This is an issue of land use and ownership.


"what protected land? i have problems believing they'd have developed on any real protected land.

that wouldn't have stopped them from doing so elsewhere."


A goodly percentage of all of VT's land mass is protected land... building anything outside of designated development areas is against regulations in VT. Are you really this ignorant of land politics in VT?


"but the real issue here is sovereignty, not casinos."

No it isn't. The issue is casinos. Read the piece you linked to... Dean agreed to grant them provisional recognition if they agreed to abide by existing land use regulations and not build a casino... they said no.

So clearly this is not about the tribe, or scolarships, or heritage, it is about a cansino and the money a few folks could make off it.


"and it is also important to keep reminding folks like yourself that these are abenaki homelands, and goddamn if any foreign governments should impose their will on them as has been done now for hundreds of years.... why is it you think indigenous people should have to bow to others on their own land? i want to know why you think native people should act so inferior....?"

How is it inferior for the native people to have to abide by the same land use rules that everybody else in VT must abide by?

Are you saying that native sovereignty means they should have the right to trash the land and poluute the environment? We're not talking about folks who want to live on their homeland in the traditional ways... they want to build a modern casino.

So stop trying to act like this is about sovereignty or homelands or anything like that... it is about money.

"rape the land.... now non-natives are giving native people lectures on how to regard their own land?! fucking hell, what effrontery...."


It isn't the non-natives who want to shit all over the land with casinos. In fact it is the tribal leaders who want to destory the land they claim is part of their heritage, in order to build a giant modern casino.


"you also don't seem to understand, don't seem to care even, that natives have to live in an economy imposed upon them, and that means adjusting for survival..... so devloping gaming ventures to keep your tribe afloat financially is right along with that tradition."

Tradition? LOL! Yeah I recall reading about the great historical figure, Chief Tumbling Dice, and all the great work he did for his tribe at the turn of the centruy.

It is sick that you would encourage the total vulgar disregard for this tribe's history and culture though the building of a casino.

Yeah bet the native people can't wait for the abenaki burial ground casino and strip mall.


"so eat it... you don't know a damn thing about abenaki culture and world views, so don't go talking on it"


I know that cutting down trees and poluting the land, air, and water to build a casino isn't part of abenaki culture. Ripping off folks with gambling is white man's culture, and it is a shame to see you trying to encouge that tribes adopt this culture to get rich quick.

"even if it was all for money, as you say, since we all know injuns is greedy, downright avaricious even.... the abenaki still deserve sovereignty."

Sure they do, if they can meet the requierments.

"what they choose to do with it is their damn business."

Not when it has an effect on everybody else in the state.

"what about problems abenaki have faced now for over a couple hundred years?"

What about them? Lots of groups have faced lots of problems.

"do you denounce the state lottery of vermont?"

State lotteries I have little problem with, because they don't destroy land, hurt animals, and don;t really push gambling addictions. Not a lot of folks lost their homes over lottey tickets.

"i'm sure they probably have race tracks there too, horse and/or greyhound."

I do not like those. Not only are they cruel to animals, but they do tear up land.

"do you denounce vegas and atlantic city the same? do the riverboats on the ogio and in the mississippi draw the same ire from you?"


I like how you can not negte my points, so you attack my standards.

I do not mind vegas because it was build in the middle of a desert wasteland. Vegas and riverboats do encourage the same gambling problems, and that bothers me, but they are regulated.

"doubtfully.... certainly don't see you or anyone else complaining here with even the faintest hint of concern for the state of the abenaki over the years.... moral hypocrites.

and that's just it..... whites haven't given shit one for native people.... so excuse me if your feigned concern for gamblers and so-called protected land ring hollow when a people have suffered for generations."

Oh so because these people have suffered, they have a right to destory land to build a casino. So following that logic, black folks, asian folks, irish folks... sicne they had hard times in the US, should eb allowed to build casinos on protected land?


"blah blah blah.... then why was he criticizing him.... objurgating him really for his treatment of the abenaki on the most important issue(s)? "

She was criticizing him over the casino issue... and noted that on just about every other issue Dean was great. So your attack is not only baseless, but dishonest as well.

"THIS IS ABOUT A GROUP OF PEOPLE DESERVING OF RECOGNITION BUT EXISTING WITHOUT IT AND WHAT AN INJUSTICE THAT IS!!

GET IT STRAIGHT!"

Nope, read the piece you linked to... this is about casino money, and nothign more. The tribal leadership has made it about casino money, and nothing more.

It seems the white man's greed is catching on all over.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ediacara]

144. could you please

perchance indicate quoted text by something like italics, or
bold or quotes or brackets?

Italics are easy, just like this:

I want to italicize something [i]like this right here[/i] now
I'm done.

And Bold is just as easy:

I want to bold something [b]like this right here[/b] now I'm
done.

[CWebster]

109. Not only that but he got mighty fed up with your "shite" after only a post

or two.

;-)

[deutsey]

39. Good luck in your search for the perfect candidate

As someone else points out in this thread, I don't see where stopping a casino is hammering down the "meakest" among us, but if you do, so long it's been good to know ya.

[RetroLounge]

48. Sorry (it seems) you are a one-issue person

But as long as you vote against bush*, that's fine.

By the way, if Dean wins, are you going to vote for him in the general election?

[Capn Sunshine]

49. ASTROTURF

makes a lodge quite comfortable, I'm told.
It also gets you one thread in DU.

[Castilleja]

190. Indeed!

These types of threads (The original post) are getting tedious, I am sick of them. I wish everyone well in their personal search for just the right candidate, but I don't see a reason for the play by play thread posting, such as: "I used to support __, but this happened and no more!", or "Why I changed from __ to __, and you should too." I suspect dishonest motives for every one of theses threads I see. Please give it a rest!

[Tinoire]

208. So in other words

people shouldn't voice their concerns, share their evolution (especially when their support can be documented) or post anything less than complimentary about Dean?

If you're sick of these threads, skip them.

There is nothing to give a rest to on a political discussion board unless you want to reinforce the perception that we are blind cult-followers who don't know our candidates.

[Capn Sunshine]

338. funny, but that's the exact impression I'm getting lately

from all the new members piling on you-know-who.

[Eloriel]

52. I can understand your lament -- up to a point

TLM just posted some good responses with which I mostly agree. You seem to be holding Dean responsible for the whole schlemiel, and that's simply ill-informed or intentionally misleading.

Too, you seem to have ignored this, from the same article:

"There have been differences of opinion between Governor Dean and the Abenaki, but those were based on Governor Dean's well-known opposition to gaming in Vermont," said spokesman Garrett Graff.

He pointed out that Dean helped provide funding for the first Abenaki cultural museum, worked on economic development issues with the tribe and established a class on Abenaki culture in Vermont's schools.

"Governor Dean began his speech to the National Congress of American Indians by mentioning his personal opposition to gaming, but that, as president, would support it wherever it was legal," Graff said. "His directness was received by an enthusiastic and supportive audience of tribal leaders."

The Abenaki briefly won state recognition in 1976 from then-Gov. Thomas Salmon. But when Republican Richard Snelling took office the next year, one of his first acts was to revoke state recognition, largely fearing the tribe would exercise rights to unlimited hunting and fishing, as well as land claims.

Personally, I think it says a lot that he refused to pander. You seem unmoved. Your choice, of course.

You're also ignoring what I think is a superb policy for Native Americans, and the fact that he has Wilma Mankiller and LaDonna Hayes as advisors. Does Clark have Native American advisors? (Maybe he does. I don't know -- I'm asking.)

Speaking of Clark, I don't know about you, but I nearly gagged on the patronizing pablum posted upthread from Clark's speech. Were you not offended by that? I was, and I'm only 1/16 Native. Plus, couldn't he at least have found some "contributions" to the nation beyond MILITARY?

And I just skimmed the rest of his speech. If you find it worthy of your vote, as a Native American, terrific. I do not. I found it wanting. Apparently, so did a lot of other Native folks, compared to Dean.

I understand where you're coming from -- I just don't understand your somewhat limited vision on the matter. Angry with Dean for what you perceive he did (or didn't) do, and taking up with someone who's done nothing at all, panders, and promises little to boot.

YMMV. We each get to choose the candidate we support, for whatever reasons -- or none.

Eloriel

[Evanstondem]

54. The Rutland "Anybody but Dean" Herald

seems to have only one purpose in life. Is it even a real newspaper?

[Tinoire]

71. The Abenaki are PISSED. ANd they have every right to be

I just did various quick googles on Dean and the Abenaki and this is nothing new. It is simply something most people aren't aware of under all the smoke and mirrors of Dean being the greatest progressive since sliced bread. Instead of ragging on the paper which is reporting issues near and dear to the heart of the residents, why don't you research this subject and form your own opinion?

Do not. Please do not bury your head in the sand because you think you found a good candidate and are too emotionally invested in him to to scrutinize him objectively. The future of our country is at stake and if Dean isn't the right person, it's best people find out NOW and not 4 years later where we can join ranks with those idiot Republicans and wring our hands saying "we didn't know". If we don't know, it's because we refuse to know!

Googles:

Dean + Rushlow + Abenaki

Howard Dean + Abenaki

[Scott Lee]

108. Are they pissed enough to comply with law to get recognized?

Or is this once again proof that Howard Dean is the sole cause of all the world's trevails?

[FrenchieCat]

62. Good for you on your support for Clark....

Clark will win because Clark can and will beat Bush....
and that's the overarching priority....

Congrat,
You have picked a winner...


WELCOME TO THE WES WING!

[ACPS65]

63. Can't say I blame you.

2004 is a complete loss with Howard Dean at the helm.

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Classical_Liberal]

67. So he didn't support casino gambling

I don't see where it has been a magic tonic for native americans anyway. Alot of the owners seem to throw it for republicans.

[Tinoire]

68. Whoa! And people will bury their heads and ignore this. I am shocked!!!

I am sorry for your pain and disappointment. Two of my Lakota friends signed on to Kucinich recently not only because of his stance on Native American issues but because of the entire balance of his platform.

I just researches this briefly and found that Wolf Clan Saco of the Abenaki has repeatedly denounced what Dean did to them as has April Rushlow who fought to prevent the bulldozing of an Abenaki cemetary in Vermont. Dean maintained the Abenaki weren't technically American Indians and not protected and allowed their cemetary to be bull-dozed. He actually hung up on Chief Rushlow as Rushlow was trying to at least get the action delayed. It was all the Swanton Abenakis could do to risk arrest to collect whatever bone fragments (skulls and long bones was all they managed to grab) before they were hauled off and the bull-dozers moved in. I remember seeing this on 60 Minutes or some other documentary years ago and hating the Governor in question. I hadn't realized until your post that it was Dean. Jim Jeffords, bless his heard, did bend over backwards to help them and even inserted special clauses in laws to protect them from technical loop-holes.

Thank you for posting this. This is very important to me also.

==============

Vermont’s Secret

Abenaki Indians have begged the state to intervene when builders disturb their ancestors’ burial grounds. So far, Vermont has done little to help.


Houses on the banks of the Missisquoi River, where Abenaki Indians lived for 10,000 years (Stephanie Woodard)

In the 1950s, homeowners and developers discovered an area of prime real estate in the hilly northern Vermont farming towns of Swanton and Highgate. Since then, builders have constructed 57 new houses in this stretch of pine and birch forest along the placid Missisquoi River.

<snip>

"It’s one of the most important archaeological sites in the state and clearly sacred," says Deborah Blom, an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Vermont. In September 2000, Blom helped members of the Abenaki tribe piece together about 30 sets of remains that had been crushed during a cellar excavation.

<snip>

Unlike federally recognized tribes, such as the Navajo or Cheyenne, the Abenakis have no backing from the U.S. government, which might otherwise assist in a burial site disruption. Though the tribe petitioned for federal recognition in 1986, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs still has it on a waiting list. Recognition would give the Abenakis access to money for business ventures, a health clinic, the safeguards of the National Historic Preservation Act, and the protection of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, which pertains to burials.

According to Brown, Howard Dean, the current governor, opposes federal recognition of the tribe. Dean's administration has offered several objections, including the speculation that the Abenakis might open a casino, although current state laws prevent them from doing so.

<snip>

http://www.nationaltrust.org/magazine/archives/arch_story/012502.htm
-------------

Abenaki chief: Efforts a 'joke'

<snip>

April St. Francis Rushlow, chief of the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi, questioned whether the delegates at the national gathering were aware of Dean's record of dealing with the Abenaki. "I think they need to take a look at his record in Vermont before they decide to vote for him on Native American issues," Rushlow said, calling Dean's overtures to them "a joke." "He didn't do too much for us when he was governor for 11 years," she said. "He denied that we existed, unless it brought money into the state of Vermont."

Dean's disagreements with the Abenaki were well chronicled. He opposed state or federal recognition of the tribe, fearing they would launch land claims or attempt to open a casino if the federal government approved their status as a sovereign Indian nation.

<snip>

The Abenaki briefly won state recognition in 1976 from then-Gov. Thomas Salmon. But when Republican Richard Snelling took office the next year, one of his first acts was to revoke state recognition, largely fearing the tribe would exercise rights to unlimited hunting and fishing, as well as land claims.

<<snip about the Abenaki fighting to have that Republican decision overturned but William Sorrel, state AG, close ally of Dean, filed a formal response denying this just before Dean left office in Dec 02 saying the trible failed to meet 4 of the 7 criteria! / What a joke when you see what the historians, archeologists and everyone except the land developers were saying.>>

<snip>
Rushlow said Dean once offered her state recognition during a meeting.

"He said if I would sign a claim that I would give up land claims and gambling, then we would be recognized," she said. "And those decisions are up to the community and its citizens. And since I don't have those rights, I can't give them up." :wtf:

<snip>
http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/74859.html


Here are more artciles for those who care enough about justice for the Native Americans:

Vermont's Abenaki Fight for Recognition, Heritage
'Tribe's' Battle With State Raises Issues of Land and Identity
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A23896-2002Dec7¬Found=true

Abenaki press for recognition over Dean's objections
By David Gram, Associated Press, Jan. 19, 2002, http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/Archive/Articles/Article/40922

Is Dean Being Real with Native Americans? Really?

Concerning certain statements made by Presidential candidate Howard Dean to a gathering of American Indian leaders on Wednesday in Albuquerque, New Mexico, drew sharp criticism from April St. Francis Rushlow, Chief of the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi (Abenaki tribal organization in Vermont).

"'He's talking out of both sides of his mouth,' said April St. Francis, chief of the Abenaki tribal organization in Vermont. 'I'm outraged.'" Excerpted from: Abenaki rap Dean: Stump speech contrary to his Vt. position, they say; Burlington Free Press; 11/20/2003.

http://question-dean.blogspot.com/


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here is Kucinich's stance on the Indigenous Peoples of America:

The Kucinich Plan to Strengthen Federal Policy Regarding American Indians and Alaska Natives

The past must be healed through Trust and Reconciliation in order for the federal government to establish a new level of trust with AI/AN now and in the future. The dominant culture does not pay much attention to the historic plight of the First Nations in our country. Indeed, racism regarding Native Americans remains a large issue. The lack of historic truths about war, wholesale killings, roundups, and relocations of Indian peoples, the Hollywood stereo-types in the movies, and current racial profiling keep the general public from a basic understanding of what Indian peoples are facing, and who they really are.

The federal Government has failed in its chosen responsibilities as a guardian of Indian resources and as a treaty partner. The mismanagement of Indian lands and Indian mineral rights is appalling. Forced to live on reservations, which inhibit their cultural practices because of land mass size and economic development because of location, tribes are forced into poverty, resulting in other social problems. The federal government has failed to live up to its treaties and to its responsibilities for the welfare of our First Nations.

As President, Dennis Kucinich will re-affirm the U. S. commitment to honor its treaties with tribal governments, to maintain strict adherence to tribal sovereignty, to increase funding for tribal programs, especially health care, housing, environmental protection and education. This Presidency will enforce existing laws and enact necessary laws for the following:

Protection of tribal cultural practices through environmental protection and natural resources conservation funding and tribal consultation

Protection of Sacred Sites through federal policies and legislation as required

Protection of historical sites and grave sites through strengthening the Native American Graves Protection Act, and greater consultation with tribes.

Protection of the Alaska Natives, and Indigenous Peoples everywhere from persistent organic pollutants and the effects of global warming through reduced emissions of hydrocarbons, adherence to the Kyoto Protocols, and an aggressive energy strategy that maximizes our country's development of renewable energy sources, energy efficient automobiles, and conservation.

As President, Dennis Kucinich will insure that incentives are built into all federal programs that will maximize the ability of tribal governments and tribal peoples to develop economic enterprises that will benefit Indian peoples and create jobs for America. The federal government will work tirelessly to insure that royalties are managed properly with full accounting to tribes and individual royalty owners, and that problems of the past are rectified.


"Dennis Kucinich is a leader with integrity and demonstrated courage. His commitment to democracy, equity, constitutional rights, environmental justice and peace is honorable and longstanding. Building alliances between Indigenous peoples, peoples of color, and communities committed to environmental and social justice is key to building a true and sustaining society and democracy."

Winona LaDuke
Human rights campaigner, Native American activist and former Green Party Vice-Presidential candidate
http://www.kucinich.net/firstnations/

Kucinich has also been endorsed by the following Native Americans:

Dennis Banks (American Indian Movement), John Eagle Day, Rev. Dr. Holly Haile Davis, Earl Hatley (Tribal Environmental Management Services), Winona LaDuke, and Dennis Lee Rogers
http://www.kucinich.net/endorsements/
====

Nov. 18 — Rep. Kucinich spoke to the National Congress of Native Americans Monday morning in Albuquerque, focusing on sovereignty for Native American nations, the Iraq situation and the overall need for "healing" in the country, which Kucinich likes to refer to as "repairing the breach" between races when speaking about racial tensions. The Iraq war was heavy on the audience's minds, as the Congress said special prayers for the two Native Americans who have died in the war so far, one of them being Lori Piestewa, a member of the now-famously ambushed 507 who was Jessica Lynch's best friend.

Although Kucinich was not the only candidate to speak at the event, he might be the only one to regularly include Native American tribal dances and rituals in many of his day-to-day campaign events; on his announcement tour almost every event was kicked off with tribal dances in which he often participated. He appeared touched by the gifts several supporters gave him, including a vessel filled with ashes a group of women prayed over and gave him to plant for himself, as well as a tribal blanket.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/DailyNews/fieldkucinich-2.html
========================================

Woe ksue yea.

[Code_Name_D]

77. Thuough, as always.

And disterbeing. I will have to waigh this.

[Tinoire]

94. It's disturbing, It's sad and this is where our individual consciences

need to weigh things (like you're doing).

Does the good Dean brings outweigh the bad? Maybe :shrug:

For me no but I respect that everyone's criteria is different.
One of my biggest Leftist friends at DU is a Dean supporter because the bad he has was outweighed by her faith that he can balance the budget and that's important to her. I can respect that because she's going by her priority and not burying her head to certain inconsistencies. She was the first person, during the "Dean is an antiwar Liberal" hoopla to admit he was neither a Liberal nor antiwar. I gained even more respect for her than I already had and know that anything she tells me about Dean, I will believe because like you, she's weighing it all in.

Thank you for always treating this election seriously and not as a foot-ball game.

[kispoko]

97. another good post tinoire....

like i said before, i could understand why some of these things (*some* of them, mind you.... i would think all decent people would be affected by the way that cemetery was done, and the abenaki trying to defend it), don't hit folks the same way they do me.... i don't expect them to.

where i've gotten pissed though is having the fact that these things are deeply disturbing to me.... to see those kicked through the mud and devalued, for, it seems, just political pr and damage control.


these things mean a lot to me... i wouldn't think it's too much to respect that, particularly if i'm going to respect others in acknowledging that they will undoubtedly not feel the same, and not do to that what was done to my views.

[Code_Name_D]

103. This is the danger of personalityes.

It was what I saw quite quickly with Clintion, Karry, Leabermen, Clark, and a few others. When you place your faith in the man, you also assept the mans sins. And we all have them, rest asured. No one is perfict.

But there are two things I look for, respect for the system, and respect for personl sovrenty. Going over your information a second time forced me to ask thoes hard questions of Dean that I have already had to ask of Clark. And its also good to know Dennuse K. came to an honrable position.

One trick however is not to make up your mind too early. That is the best way to keep an open mind. Like you, I wish more would take this to heart.

I will have to admit that there was something of a condition reaction on my part. After all, the Dean asults here on the DU have been as reletless as they have been disgusting. Such as the Confederate Flag flap.

[CWebster]

136. That Bush has the very real possibility of winning,

that this progressive board is swarming with supporters of a General, (who you profess to admire as a far Leftist), a General whose affectionate words for the US military - just a few posts back should fill any Leftist with alarm, should know by now that Kucinich doesn't have a chance. Whose head in buried in the sand?

[Tinoire]

161. Excuse me?

I can certainly admire the comportment of the Clark supporters which has greatly improved over the last month without admiring the General. I think I made it rather clear that I do not like Clark. If you have any doubts about that, then ask clearly.

What I do NOT admire is the comportment of too many Dean supporters who act like juveniles tossing insults at everyone who points out that their hero just might have feet of clay.

But you can bet your sweet ass that I understand the process of the Primaries and will support the candidate I prefer rather than acting like a Dean cultist that if we say one negative word about Dean we are jeopardizing his guaranteed win because you know what

Dean hasn't won squat. The Primaries are months and months away!Whose head is buried in the sand?! Yank it out before Bush is assured a second 'victory' because too many people on this board are acting like a bunch of teen-agers at a rock concert and aren't exhibiting the intellectual integrity and required thought to make damn sure they know what they're buying and that whoever it is can really unite people to vote against Bush.

[kispoko]

86. tinoire

thank-you so much for posting and adding so much more to the dialogue.... can't thank ya enough. even educated me further, and that's a blessing....


yanno, there were a few posts i wanted to get to, but i think i can address the crux of them in one fell swoop, and reiterate the main point.....

THIS IS NOT ABOUT CASINOS! IT IS ABOUT RECOGNITION AND THE SOVEREIGNTY AND SELF-DETERMINATION THAT COMES WITH THAT FOR NATIVE PEOPLEs!


maybe now that it's in caps, it will get through better.... but for some who seem to have had such poor reading comprehension to begin with, or who maybe more insidiously just chose instead to manipulate what i was saying as though my words were malleable and i did not really mean them, i'm not sure it will do any good....


i'm aware there have been others involved in these attempts at squashing and usurping tribal sovereignty, in vermont and elsewhere..... and i don't support them either. there is no need to mention them because i didn't support them prior as i did dean. they couldn't let me down, because i already thought they were worthless to begin with....

was that difficult to understand as well? must've been, i keep seeing the theme repeated, wondering why i dare jump on poor howard dean's shit over this "minor" infraction.


again, this wasn't about dean not wanting the abenaki to have a casino.... it was about fighting to deny them their due recognition because of that issue, which is plain ol' wrong (dean didn't even have to allow them one, the way the laws are set up. so there). it is what that tells me about dean's value for justice...

the denial around here is sickening.

[w4rma]

146. Chief April Rushlow seems to disagree with you, kispoko

…
Rushlow said that while the group has not made a decision on whether they would seek to open a casino or pursue land claims if they won federal tribal recognition.

"We're not saying we would and we're not saying we won't, the tribal council hasn't taken it up," she said, adding there were other reasons the tribe was seeking federal status.
…
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/74859.html

"dean didn't even have to allow them one, the way the laws are set up."

[kispoko]

204. what?

-Rushlow said that while the group has not made a decision on whether they would seek to open a casino or pursue land claims if they won federal tribal recognition.

"We're not saying we would and we're not saying we won't, the tribal council hasn't taken it up," she said, adding there were other reasons the tribe was seeking federal status.
…
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/74859.html

"dean didn't even have to allow them one, the way the laws are set up."


what was it she was supposed to be disagreeing with me on? i don't see anything that contradicts what i said... you're reading too much into to what she said, not understanding it and the laws involved here....

again, the tribe, upon being federally recognized, can seek to open a casino all they want.... but because vermont laws appear not to allow class III gambling, they would have to get the governor's approval and make a compact.... they can't just open one of their own without it.


you need to look into the gaming laws.... but in the meanwhile, if you don't believe that tribes have to bow to state laws and whims, why is it you think none of the tribes in oklahoma, all 30+ of them, have no real (re: class III) casinos? is it because you think none of them want that?.... no, it's because state laws do not permit class III gambling, and the state will not enter into a compact with any of the tribes granting it.

[TLM]

218. THere are ways around the laws...

Some tribe here in my state got around laws, and have slot machines that print out script, so techiniacly it is a lottery machine.

They have craps tables wth no dice, instead a card machine spits out two random cards between 1 and 6.

[w4rma]

145. Abenaki get green light for burial ground suit

Can proceed against developer, state preservation officer

Posted: November 01, 2000 - 12:00am EST
by: Jim Adams / Managing Editor / Indian Country Today

SWANTON, Vt. -- Eleven months after going to court over desecration of a historic burial site, the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi won a go-ahead on a suit against the building developer and the state official in charge of preservation.

Superior Court Judge Matthew Katz of Washington County refused to dismiss two of the tribe’s complaints against developer Michael Jedware and State Commissioner of Housing and Community Affairs Greg Brown.

"The judge has said the tribe has alleged sufficient facts to go into court," the tribe’s attorney Michael J. Straub said. "Depending on the decision of the parties of the case, there will be depositions of evidence."

The Sept. 4 ruling also gives the tribe leverage for an out-of-court settlement, although Straub declined to speculate any further. The suit originated with Abenaki attempts to block home building on Monument Road between Swanton and Highgate.

Excavation on one lot in May 2000 uncovered 30 sets of remains. Archaeologists and historians estimated that as many as 80,000 Abenaki ancestors might be buried in a 120-acre area of traditional campsites and a historic Jesuit mission.

Acting Chief April Rushlow led a tribal effort to preserve the remains and obtain court injunctions against further building, although the courts declined to block two homes under construction.

Rushlow said the two houses were completed this summer and other excavation went forward. Although no remains turned up in that work, she said construction in a neighboring town exposed two bodies.
…
http://www.indiancountry.com/?245

[TLM]

199. I see you left this out ....

You quoted this part of the piece...

"'He's talking out of both sides of his mouth,' said April St. Francis, chief of the Abenaki tribal organization in Vermont. 'I'm outraged.'" Excerpted from: Abenaki rap Dean: Stump speech contrary to his Vt. position, they say; Burlington Free Press; 11/20/2003.


but left out this part...

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/specialnews/dean/160.htm


"St. Francis did credit Dean for assisting the Abenaki on cultural and ancestral burial grounds issues. ''I'm not saying that everything he did was bad,'' she said. ''He did help us in some ways.''"

[Tinoire]

209. One positive statement out of hundreds

and that is the only one you want to focus on.

No one said he did only horrible things so does that statement mean anything? We are talking about the BIG thing he did to them not the "some ways" in which he did a few helpful things.

I've given up. There is too much denial and apologetics going on here.

[TLM]

215. You go around saying Dean bulldozed grave yards...

yet here's a quote in a piece you linked to saying the tribal leader credit Dean with helping on that issue.


Obviously, what you claim is not accurate.

[Tinoire]

221. Here- Knock yourself out

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Howard+Dean%22+abenaki

Do a little research for a change instead of spinning apologetics.
-----

April St. Francis Rushlow, chief of the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi, questioned whether the delegates at the national gathering were aware of Dean's record dealing with Vermont's Abenaki.

"I think they need to take a look at his record in Vermont before they decide to vote for him on Native American issues," Rushlow said, calling Dean's overtures to them "a joke."

"He didn't do too much for us when he was governor for 11 years," she said. "He denied that we existed, unless it brought money into the state of Vermont."

<snip>

She grudgingly gave Dean credit for some of his work with the Abenaki.

"He proclaimed the first week of May Abenaki Heritage Celebration Week and gave us some grant money for our tribal museum," she said. "But he only did that because it could bring cultural tourism to the state of Vermont."

<snip>

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Story/74861.html

-------------
Abenaki burial site still threatened

Posted: October 25, 2000 - 12:00am EST
by: Jim Adams / Managing Editor / Indian Country Today

SWANTON, Vt. - Days away from the end of a court stay on construction-digging in a major burial ground, the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi is trying to force a reluctant state government to step in.

But the local towns are driving for more development on a site that yielded the bones of 30 to 40 Abenaki earlier this year. The land around Monument Road between the towns of Swanton and Highgate, with a 20-acre subdivision, was once a major Abenaki village and later an 18th century Jesuit mission.

On the eve of an Oct. 18 meeting between town officials and the state government, the Select Board of Swanton voted money to dig a culvert for a lot on the road.

"I would consider that to be a continuation of the town's ignoring the existing toll of excavating activity at that site," said Michael Straub, lawyer for the St. Francis/Sokoki Band of the Abenaki.

<snip>

April Rushlow, acting chief of the St. Francis/Sokoki Band, offers several explanations for the official reluctance to protect the graves. The towns, she speculates, are rushing development of the site because they don't want the land to be taken off their tax rolls.\\<snip>

http://www.indiancountry.com/?article=590
======================

I first learned about the problem three years ago when I received a call late at night from the Swanton Band of Abenaki's chief, April Rushlow, that Dean was allowing bulldozers to plow through the largest known Abenaki burial ground in Vermont (this was documented, btw, by that bastion of radicalism, the journal Historic Preservation.) After contacting the Vermont State Archy (who I knew well, as I used to work for the CT state archy), I began to get more details about the terrible relationship between Dean and the Vermont Abenakis (and there are more than one tribe, though only one is pursuing federal recognition.)

The crux of the dispute is that the Vermont Abenaki have been seeking state and federal recognition, and as governor, Howard Dean did whatever he could to undermine that application, including hiring an outside firm and "borrowing" two members of the AG's office to try and prove the Abenakis were not a "tribe", in the sense of BIA reqirements. He rationalized this to the public initially by claiming that he was trying to prevent the tribe from building a casino in Vermont. When it was pointed out to him that Vermont doesn't have gambling, so the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (FIGRA) doesn't apply, hence no Indian gaming, he finally admitted it was land claims and tribal sovereignty he feared. Dean asserted that he wanted "equal rights" for all Vermonters, and the Abenaki, when seeking tribal sovereignty, wanted "special rights" (yes, that is the phrase that was used here.) This is quite in line with Dean's "state's rights" philosophy seen elsewhere, e.g., gun control, civil unions, etc. He is not comfortable with the nation to nation status federally recognized Indians hold, as it means that within states there are these separate entities which have not subordinated their rights to the states. He thinks it's just too messy, as it allows tribes to have their own laws and courts and police. And then there's the tax thing. State's can't collect taxes on FRIT (federally recognized Indian Tribe) income.

I've been hard on Dean, but I've also taken tremendous steps to try and allow he or his staff to clarify these issues. I've contacted the campaign, my state vice-chair (a Dean supporter) has contacted the campaign, Joe Trippi emailed me and assured me he would get an answer from the campaign, etc. This morning, I called the Vermont Abenaki's tribal historian, to make sure I had the latest, since, perhaps, who knows, they had resolved their issues with the former Governor.

Not at all. Things are actually worse than I imagined. They're so angry, Republicans are trying to get them to campaign against Dean, and I imagine many will if he should get the nomination. She told me some things which made the hackles on my neck rise, including how he was caught in the middle of the halls of the Legislature making offensive comments regarding Abenaki ethnicity (and this from a well-known writer and biographer.)

Since they are also members of the Wabanaki Confederacy, we are obliged by treaty and tradition to support them. For our part, this means we will be organizing letter writing campaigns to tribal members throughout the US, as well as taking out advertizing in tribal newspapers. Oklahoma, Arizona and New Mexico, all hold primaries on February 3rd, and have large Indian populations within the Democratic party, so we will be contacting them first.

I'll have the opportunity to bring this up with Dean personally, as he has confirmed that he will be attending Maine's JJ Dinner next month. I heartily look forward to it.

----

follow-up post: And it seems that if Dean wants to be true to his whole "states rights" credo, now that he isn't Gov. anymore, he ought to support letting states and Indian tribes act as they see fit, because surely this is a state and not a federal issue.

Actually, the recognition process is purely a tribal and federal issue - the states have no place in trying to disrupt that process, for whatever reason, including whether or not they want casinos or tribal courts within their state boundaries. Dean's attempts to subvert the nation to nation relationship is not only anti-Abenaki, but goes against the US Constitution, which removed all rights to create and enforce treaties with sovereign entities from the states, and shifted those responsibilities exclusively to the federal government and the Senate.

http://swingstateproject.typepad.com/swingstateproject/2003/10/new_map_list.html

===
If this post is correct, this is NOT looking good:

While some poll out last week had Dean in a relative tie for first place in Maine, I think people are deluding themselves that he'll walk away with the state. I've been closely watching the Dean ground operations here, and so far, it's pretty weak. They have now brought on someone from Tom Allen's office, but there is no grassroots for Dean growing here (they didn't even reach their very modest fundraising goal on Dean for Maine.) And while you all argue that the "Indian" thing doesn't matter most everywhere, this is Wabanaki country (all the tribes are closely related to the Vermont Abenaki), and we are the largest minority group in the state. And Dean's dismissal of single-payer doesn't exactly play well in a state in which the House passed single-payer, and it lost in the Senate by one vote (btw, that vote wouldn't have been lost if Democrats had maintained their healthy majority in the state Senate - a campaign headed by Dean's current field director.)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/10/15/131132/25

I like this KOS! What a bunch of thoughtful posts with no apologetics or head burying- just a bunch of people out to learn and discuss things intelligently and honestly. What a refreshing change! And on a Kos run by a Dean supporter participating in the discussion civilly with no spinning, denials or snippiness. Wow! That is exactly the kind we need more of here.

[Code_Name_D]

285. I find this most telling.

SWANTON, Vt. - Days away from the end of a court stay on construction-digging in a major burial ground, the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi is trying to force a reluctant state government to step in.

So there was already a court inforced stay on devlupment in place. No doubt to alou for an appeal. Other portions of your report indecates that the land was re-aportiond for devlupment. As the land was not already declared as a bural ground, this is well withen the areas right to do under emonent domane.

Dean only failed to interveind on local situation. Faling or declining to act is a far cry from the dubuse impositon you would paint on Dean. The more I read on this issue, the more I am inclined to beleive this is just another part of an orcistrated smear campain against Dean.

[Hep]

78. Here's what the Dean critics will never accept or understand

What Dean did for the Ademaki in Vermont was essentially guarantee that down the road they would be granted recognition on state AND federal levels. By helping them establish a presence in Vermont, their political influence is undeniable.In time, they will be recognized, and that will be in part thanks to Dean's efforts on their behalf, which they readily recognize and appreciate.

[kispoko]

113. that won't help hep

-What Dean did for the Ademaki in Vermont was essentially guarantee that down the road they would be granted recognition on state AND federal levels. By helping them establish a presence in Vermont, their political influence is undeniable.In time, they will be recognized, and that will be in part thanks to Dean's efforts on their behalf, which they readily recognize and appreciate.


they've already had a presence in vermont.... one going back thousands of years. if you understand the recognition process, nothing dean has done will assist with that....

if the bia site is up and running, you should go and check it out. you'll see better

[slinkerwink]

118. the abenaki has been ALL over New England, not just Vermont

so it's hard to prove their claim of solely occupying Vermont.

[kispoko]

173. slinker'.....

-"the abenaki has been ALL over New England, not just Vermont"
Posted by slinkerwink
so it's hard to prove their claim of solely occupying Vermont."


well fortunately, they don't have to.

you don't know what you're talking about.... stop!

[Hep]

123. Help me out

Can you give me a link to the graveyard thing? I tried looking it up, but failed.

My understanding of the recognition process is limited. I will certainly grant you that. But I thought that one of the criteria was a consistent political influence in the area for something like 100 years. And I thought that the tribe going underground had undermined that. And I concluded that Dean's help established that political influence.

I don't want to be wrong. Any info you can share would be appreciated.

[kispoko]

160. hep

check tinoire's posts for the the info about the cemetery.... eh, lemme check real quick on indianz.com.

nothin'.... just look at her posts. she did a very good job and service by putting it up.... it's something i'd forgotten about in all of this even.


-My understanding of the recognition process is limited. I will certainly grant you that. But I thought that one of the criteria was a consistent political influence in the area for something like 100 years. And I thought that the tribe going underground had undermined that. And I concluded that Dean's help established that political influence.

they can go "underground" and still maintain required ties, or, extertion of "political influence" over 'members.'

it can actually be anything even along the lines of attending the same church and meeting there (a tribe in michigan used this... matchebeneshewish potawatomie i think).... just a continual presence and something demonstrating there had been group interaction in each decade, going back to the early 1900's i believe is all.

this doesn't seem too difficult on its surface.... in some instances it hasn't been. but given the political climate of the earlier half of the 1900's, if there were any such gatherings outside of places such as churches, they were ketp quiet, and without a paper trail. they had to be


the bia site is still down.... when you get a chance someday though, you should just browse through, and if nothing else, take a look over the recognition process native people have to go through, of course placed inside the context of american history, should they choose to subject themselves to it.

[Hep]

232. Well this is trouble

Because I have trouble taking anyone's account at face value when I see the kind of editorializing I've seen here from critics. I don't think I can be faulted for that.

I've read her posts, and I do not dismiss her claims outright. But I give it the credibility that I give it, you know?

[TLM]

202. The term graveyard is misleading...

it implies markers and a set site.


This is a whole area that has been camp grounds for years, and was a mission... where they think up to 80,000 bodied could have been burried over 10,000 years.

[LeahMira]

331. Maybe call it a burial site?

it implies markers and a set site.

Well, that's the way we do ours.

This is a whole area that has been camp grounds for years, and was a mission... where they think up to 80,000 bodied could have been burried over 10,000 years.

That makes it all the worse. 80,000 people? That's quite a bit of desecration don't you think?

Actually, the first human bone anyone finds on a site and all work stops. Then the Indians are called on to get their ideas about the best course to follow.

So, imagine if someone wanted to build a shopping mall and discovered the remains of a whole group of Revolutionary War soldiers. Would those remains just be plowed under? Not on your tintype!

So, you think American Indian remains don't deserve the same respect as you'd give your own ancestors?

[Scott Lee]

114. No fair! You're making Dean look good! MOM!!!!

I'm telling.

[Tinoire]

119. OMG @ !

He bull-dozed their cemetery! The most important proof of their heritage! He fought against their petition to be re-recognized as a tribe which would have over-turned the recent Republican theft of that recognition. One of the reasons his administration gave was that the Abenaki did not meet 4 of the 7 criteria for being recognized.

And you have the audacity to say that by destroying one of those much needed, recently discovered proofs and destroying a sacred burial ground he helped them?.
:wow:

Congratulations.

Dean apologetics just hit a new low. This is spin of the worst sort but it's only going to reflect on you and not all the Dean supporters who are trying to understand what he did, why he did it and either accept or defend it for x, y, or z reason.

That was a real low! That's akin to saying it's ok that we decimated an entire people because stealing their lands ensures that down the road they would be granted recognition on state AND federal levels their political influence is undeniable

Let me ask the other tribes just how much they readily recognize and appreciate all the White Man's 18th, 19th, and now 20th century efforts on their behalf.

Wow.

[Hep]

124. He bulldozed their cemetary?

I knew about his wall street gig, his doctor thing, and his whole political stuff, but he worked construction?

You speak of events as if I'm already familiar with them. Before this thread I had no idea of any graveyard getting bulldozed, and I've spent the last haf hour trying to search google and the thread for a post that provided the information. It appears as though my focus on media production in college instead of native american history has really come back to haunt me.

Yeah, I defend Dean, but you don't know me at all. Nice to see that prejudice lives in the hearts of those who claim it in others. I guess we'll just have to live with that reality.

[Egnever]

128. Rofl Hep!

:yourock:

[RetroLounge]

162. OMG! Dean drove the Bulldozer?

Is this his Dukakis moment?

Are there pictures and was he wearing a hardhat?

[Tinoire]

166. Yeah yeah... once again with the juvenile guffaws. n/t

:eyes:

[kispoko]

172. exactly.....

and they don't even realize how offensive all that is, making a mockery of what happened like that.... hoping to exaggerate another's points to make their own seem better in comparison....

can't describe the frustration at that type of attitude... and anger.... can't sit and stew on it too long i guess


bunch of fake progressives..... these are progressive issues!

[Hep]

234. Yeah, you're so right

You should be able to use whatever loaded language you feel without getting called on it. Meat is murder!

[Hep]

233. Wow, thanks for the help

Maybe if you would lay off the sensationalist imagery, you wouldn't get the sarcastic literal interpretation.

[Tinoire]

241. Hep you're always guffawing and mocking

It makes for an unpleasant discussion no matter how sincere you are.

On edit: probably not always but an awful lot at least these last 2 days. These things are very serious to some of us- especially as non-Whites whose people have not been well treated by the US government. You'll have to forgive some of us if our sense of humor is lacking.

[Hep]

246. funny of you to say

I won't even address the absolute speech you use in making your point. You can edit subject lines too.

This discussion has been unpleasant for me because of these images of an eeeevil Howard Dean driving a bulldozer through graveyards.

I won't begrudge your taking this issue seriously. And I won't begrudge your anger. And I'll ask you to forgive me if my approach to this has been insensitive or offensive. I, like others, have been way too involved in other threads where criticism has been less then credible. As a result, I've lashed out inappropriately at times. I am young, politically, and I haven't been able to harness my energy very well.

I am open minded about Dean. He and I don't line up on every issue, and I've been willing to express my disappointment when I've disgreed with a policy or a tactic in the campaign. I do want to know more about this. But the defense mechanism kicks in when what I'm reading is overly confrontational in my eyes.

As a white, middle class, christian raised man of german descent, I realize that I represent the most oppressive combination of cultures in the history of the world. I'm all about making it right.

[Tinoire]

254. Yeah I know

which is why I haven't slammed you once- at least not like I wanted to. I know perfectly well that your heart is in the right place. I went to your web-site and that was enough. And I could tell you're well, younger than me shall we say, quite exuberant and that your cheekiness comes with no harm intended.

I am sorry to be part of the group that could dampen your enthusiasm- that's not at all the intent and it's even distasteful to know you (I)might be doing that.

We have months before the primaries and as long as people are willing to look, and weigh, we're going to be just fine. A few bloody noses by the time we get to them, but we'll be just fine.

[DemBones DemBones]

193. Yes, Dean did work construction -- in Colorado during his "ski bum"

time, which came just after he got a 1-Y draft classification after showing up for his draft physical with a set of X-rays and a letter from an orthopedist about his "back problem."

The NY Times has a story on this today and you can bet that a lot of voters will resent this rich guy's getting out of the draft for a "bad back" and then spending almost a year skiing and drinking, pouring concrete for spending money until the weather turned cold, when he switched to washing dishes.

Howard's back was so bad he couldn't serve in the military but he could ski, pour concrete, stand on his feet all day washing dishes?


N.B. It doesn't matter what I think about Howard. It doesn't matter how much you Dean supporters spin for him at DU. All that matters is the voters' opinion.

[TLM]

205. Pouring concrete and washing dishes...

yeah sounds like a real rich spoiled brat...


"Howard's back was so bad he couldn't serve in the military but he could ski, pour concrete, stand on his feet all day washing dishes?"

Tell me exactly how sking, pouring concrete, or doing dishes is more stressful on the back than combat or boot camp, please?

[DemBones DemBones]

261. Skiing, pouring concrete, and standing for hours are hard on the back,

generally speaking.

Tell me why Howard didn't allow himself to be drafted and find out if his back would hold up in boot camp?

The irony of this story being in the NY Times on November 22 is that JFK had a bad back, bad enough that the Army rejected him when he tried to enlist during WW II. His father pulled strings to get him in the Navy, where he not only made it through training but saw combat in the Pacific and was decorated for bravery.

[TLM]

316. WHy not answer the question?

Here's the question again....

"Tell me exactly how sking, pouring concrete, or doing dishes is more stressful on the back than combat or boot camp, please?"




"Tell me why Howard didn't allow himself to be drafted and find out if his back would hold up in boot camp? "

So you think Dean should have lied to the draft board and hid his condition, then see if he's get injured in bootcamp or worse in combat where he would endanger the lives of other soldiers?

Are you that hard up for something to ash Dean over that you'll say he should have lied about his condition so he could get himself into bootcamp to see if his back would hold up?

If you have to lie to the doctors at the induction physical in order to get in, you have no business being in the military.

And JFK's back issue wasn't the same condition.

[TLM]

203. The tribal leader of the Abenaki said otherwise...

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/specialnews/dean/160.htm


"St. Francis did credit Dean for assisting the Abenaki on cultural and ancestral burial grounds issues. ''I'm not saying that everything he did was bad,'' she said. ''He did help us in some ways.''"

[Tinoire]

212. Who are you trying to fool??!

with your insinuation that whoever said the other things was a nobody? It was the same person, the tribal leader of the Abenaki who said all those other things and is leading the Abenaki campaign against Dean.

Who do you think was doing all the talking above? Some other person? :wow: The denial of some is too THICK.

------------------

"He's talking out of both sides of his mouth,'' said April St. Francis, chief of the Abenaki tribal organization in Vermont. ''I'm outraged.''

St. Francis said Dean had hurt her tribe's progress by refusing to grant it state recognition on grounds that if he did, it would trigger federal recognition and allow the Abenaki to open a casino on their lands near Swanton in northwest Vermont, as well as making land claims.

Dean, as governor, based his opposition to state recognition for Abenaki on a Vermont attorney general's opinion that said the Abenaki presence has not been constant during the past 100 years, a requirement for legal recognition.

''That's baloney,'' St. Francis said. ''We're the only race that has to prove who we are.'' The Abenaki have argued they went underground at times in history to avoid oppression.

<snip>
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/specialnews/dean/160.htm

[TLM]

217. My point is that you're leaving out half of what the tribal leader said...

yeah she is pissed off over the recognition issues, but clearly said that Dean was helpful on other issues.

You are screaming Dean bulldozed grave sites and was pretty much evil in every possible way... yet his TOP CRITIC on this issue admits he was helpful on some other tribal issues. And she does not seem to blame Dean for the grave site issue like you're trying to.

[Tinoire]

225. Half? In all the research I did on this, that is the rare positive thing

she said. Read post 221- I even marked one sentence in red for you to make sure you don't miss it.

After reading # 221, count all the other things she's said and you'll see that your assertion about 'half' doesn't stand.


On edit: I'll even repost most of 221 here for you:

April St. Francis Rushlow, chief of the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi, questioned whether the delegates at the national gathering were aware of Dean's record dealing with Vermont's Abenaki.

"I think they need to take a look at his record in Vermont before they decide to vote for him on Native American issues," Rushlow said, calling Dean's overtures to them "a joke."

"He didn't do too much for us when he was governor for 11 years," she said. "He denied that we existed, unless it brought money into the state of Vermont."

<snip>

She grudgingly gave Dean credit for some of his work with the Abenaki.

"He proclaimed the first week of May Abenaki Heritage Celebration Week and gave us some grant money for our tribal museum," she said. "But he only did that because it could bring cultural tourism to the state of Vermont."

<snip>

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Story/74861.html

-------------
Abenaki burial site still threatened

Posted: October 25, 2000 - 12:00am EST
by: Jim Adams / Managing Editor / Indian Country Today

SWANTON, Vt. - Days away from the end of a court stay on construction-digging in a major burial ground, the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi is trying to force a reluctant state government to step in.

But the local towns are driving for more development on a site that yielded the bones of 30 to 40 Abenaki earlier this year. The land around Monument Road between the towns of Swanton and Highgate, with a 20-acre subdivision, was once a major Abenaki village and later an 18th century Jesuit mission.

On the eve of an Oct. 18 meeting between town officials and the state government, the Select Board of Swanton voted money to dig a culvert for a lot on the road.

"I would consider that to be a continuation of the town's ignoring the existing toll of excavating activity at that site," said Michael Straub, lawyer for the St. Francis/Sokoki Band of the Abenaki.

<snip>

April Rushlow, acting chief of the St. Francis/Sokoki Band, offers several explanations for the official reluctance to protect the graves. The towns, she speculates, are rushing development of the site because they don't want the land to be taken off their tax rolls.\\<snip>

http://www.indiancountry.com/?article=590
======================

I first learned about the problem three years ago when I received a call late at night from the Swanton Band of Abenaki's chief, April Rushlow, that Dean was allowing bulldozers to plow through the largest known Abenaki burial ground in Vermont (this was documented, btw, by that bastion of radicalism, the journal Historic Preservation.) After contacting the Vermont State Archy (who I knew well, as I used to work for the CT state archy), I began to get more details about the terrible relationship between Dean and the Vermont Abenakis (and there are more than one tribe, though only one is pursuing federal recognition.)

The crux of the dispute is that the Vermont Abenaki have been seeking state and federal recognition, and as governor, Howard Dean did whatever he could to undermine that application, including hiring an outside firm and "borrowing" two members of the AG's office to try and prove the Abenakis were not a "tribe", in the sense of BIA reqirements. He rationalized this to the public initially by claiming that he was trying to prevent the tribe from building a casino in Vermont. When it was pointed out to him that Vermont doesn't have gambling, so the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (FIGRA) doesn't apply, hence no Indian gaming, he finally admitted it was land claims and tribal sovereignty he feared. Dean asserted that he wanted "equal rights" for all Vermonters, and the Abenaki, when seeking tribal sovereignty, wanted "special rights" (yes, that is the phrase that was used here.) This is quite in line with Dean's "state's rights" philosophy seen elsewhere, e.g., gun control, civil unions, etc. He is not comfortable with the nation to nation status federally recognized Indians hold, as it means that within states there are these separate entities which have not subordinated their rights to the states. He thinks it's just too messy, as it allows tribes to have their own laws and courts and police. And then there's the tax thing. State's can't collect taxes on FRIT (federally recognized Indian Tribe) income.

I've been hard on Dean, but I've also taken tremendous steps to try and allow he or his staff to clarify these issues. I've contacted the campaign, my state vice-chair (a Dean supporter) has contacted the campaign, Joe Trippi emailed me and assured me he would get an answer from the campaign, etc. This morning, I called the Vermont Abenaki's tribal historian, to make sure I had the latest, since, perhaps, who knows, they had resolved their issues with the former Governor.

Not at all. Things are actually worse than I imagined. They're so angry, Republicans are trying to get them to campaign against Dean, and I imagine many will if he should get the nomination. She told me some things which made the hackles on my neck rise, including how he was caught in the middle of the halls of the Legislature making offensive comments regarding Abenaki ethnicity (and this from a well-known writer and biographer.)

Since they are also members of the Wabanaki Confederacy, we are obliged by treaty and tradition to support them. For our part, this means we will be organizing letter writing campaigns to tribal members throughout the US, as well as taking out advertizing in tribal newspapers. Oklahoma, Arizona and New Mexico, all hold primaries on February 3rd, and have large Indian populations within the Democratic party, so we will be contacting them first.

I'll have the opportunity to bring this up with Dean personally, as he has confirmed that he will be attending Maine's JJ Dinner next month. I heartily look forward to it.

----

follow-up post: And it seems that if Dean wants to be true to his whole "states rights" credo, now that he isn't Gov. anymore, he ought to support letting states and Indian tribes act as they see fit, because surely this is a state and not a federal issue.

Actually, the recognition process is purely a tribal and federal issue - the states have no place in trying to disrupt that process, for whatever reason, including whether or not they want casinos or tribal courts within their state boundaries. Dean's attempts to subvert the nation to nation relationship is not only anti-Abenaki, but goes against the US Constitution, which removed all rights to create and enforce treaties with sovereign entities from the states, and shifted those responsibilities exclusively to the federal government and the Senate.

http://swingstateproject.typepad.com/swingstateproject/2003/10/new_map_list.html

===
If this post is correct, this is NOT looking good:

While some poll out last week had Dean in a relative tie for first place in Maine, I think people are deluding themselves that he'll walk away with the state. I've been closely watching the Dean ground operations here, and so far, it's pretty weak. They have now brought on someone from Tom Allen's office, but there is no grassroots for Dean growing here (they didn't even reach their very modest fundraising goal on Dean for Maine.) And while you all argue that the "Indian" thing doesn't matter most everywhere, this is Wabanaki country (all the tribes are closely related to the Vermont Abenaki), and we are the largest minority group in the state. And Dean's dismissal of single-payer doesn't exactly play well in a state in which the House passed single-payer, and it lost in the Senate by one vote (btw, that vote wouldn't have been lost if Democrats had maintained their healthy majority in the state Senate - a campaign headed by Dean's current field director.)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/10/15/131132/25

[Eloriel]

250. You're scraping bottom yourself, Tinoire

It's not as if you're an objective "reporter" here, with no biases, no candidate you rather fiercely (and sometimes shrilly) support yourself -- or that you've been that "fair" to Dean in the past. I can particularly remember an utterly ridiculous (embarrassing, really) theory you had a few months back that the DLC was dissing on Dean precisely because they wanted him to win. Gag me with a spoon. You outdid yourself with that one, and undermined your credibility for future Dean critiques.

I had read about this whole thing several months ago. It seemed overblown to me then from the accounts I read (again, not exactly unbaised, not exactly well-documented, not exactly fair in the blame-placing), and it still seems overblown and all the rest to me. But of course, it IS possible to try to make it the goddamned end all-be all of Dean's whole campaign and record.

I've seen far too many things about Dean posted here at DU that have been hyped and skewed and stretched beyond recognition. Like the Dean draft deferment for his back, for example. I don't see quite enough substance and lack of bias in what has been posted in THIS thread to come to quite the outraged, apoplexic reaction you are having.

But it suuuure makes good copy for the Deanophobes, doesn't it?

Eloriel

[Tinoire]

256. Eloriel- you outdid yourself months ago

and have little credibility when it comes to Dean. We shall simply agree to disagree and I shall continue to ignore you as I have done for several months now.

If you choose to fall for smoke and mirrors that is your problem. You've lose all objectivity and credibility with me. You never document anything- just come out slamming people whenever they say a word about your precious candidate, wringing your hands and getting all hysterical.

Spare me ok? You're not one of the Dean supporters I view with admiration or to whom I would go for any information on Dean.

Here's a picture of your friend at the DLC's annual meeting delivering his greeting. Too bad I can't find the ram for you but you'd just deny it.


http://www.newdem.org/annualmeeting/

Most recently, the firm designed NDN’s 2003 Annual Meeting and developed a media plan to earn the group major media coverage of the event. The Annual Meeting is the centerpiece of NDN’s calendar. This year, NDN unveiled an expanded mission, announced its "Agenda for the First Decade of the 21st Century," launched its "Democratas Unidos" Hispanic Project and issued a multiyear New Majority Coalition Research Project. The group releases its annual agenda at this event and hosts some of the Party’s most prominent officials. This year's presenters included Gen Wesley Clark (ret.), Gov. Howard Dean (VT), Sen. Bob Graham (FL), Sen. Joe Lieberman (CT), Sen. John Kerry (MA) and Gov. Bill Richardson (NM).

http://www.rabinowitz.com/case_study_ndn.htm

[tlagiloi]

262. :wtf: ????????

horseshit!
what plain & simple bullshit.
People like you need to realize that not all people are
as ignorant or unaware as you might believe.
disgusting.........

it's a shame you can't understand the outrage.
so what's the deal? Is Dean like one of those doctors
you meet now and then that have a GOD complex?
Is Dean one of those that believes HE knows what's what.

Hep said:
"What Dean did for the Ademaki in Vermont was essentially guarantee that down the road they would be granted recognition on state AND federal levels. By helping them establish a presence in Vermont, their political influence is undeniable.In time, they will be recognized, and that will be in part thanks to Dean's efforts on their behalf, which they readily recognize and appreciate."

[sandnsea]

79. He does have this pattern

Most of the time it's just prickling things, like when he told a woman if she had any dignity she wouldn't be on welfare, or that a teacher would know which 5 year olds would go to prison. But then there's the comments that Affirmative Action should be class based, not race based and his new southern strategy to ignore social issues and focus on the economy. Don't let god, guns and gays be the issues. Or minorities or Native Americans. Or criminals either because he resented paying for indigent defense and said "95% of them are guilty anyway". He's made so many comments and done so many things along this line that I just don't see why he has the support of Democrats at all.

[Hep]

83. Every opportunity

to get it wrong, you jump on it. I'm amazed, yet somehow not.

[Lorien]

87. I don't know how most Natives feel about Dean

but I'll ask my cousin about it next week. she's Chippawa and extremely prominent in the Native community-I don't think there's a tribal leader anywhere who doesn't know her, so she'll certainly know.

I DO, however, know how most Natives feel about Bush*. As Charlie Hill put it; "we call him 'Walking Eagle", because he's so full of shit he can't fly"! I've no doubt whatsoever that the majority would take Dean over Bush any day!

[Bertrand]

92. An excellent thread about this topic

http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=744511

[gristy]

100. Thanks for sharing!

:hi:

[CWebster]

105. Well you were bound to find something,

if you search hard enough to make a case. Then you can pound the table with righteous indignation and wounded good faith and fill the air with lament over your fallen hero.

We can all dig up the dirt on anyone of them if we search for it--even Kucinich, Tinoire. A balanced view is essential in weighing all pluses and negatives.

Otherwise, how very convenient it all is as a testimonial to seeing the light of Clark, perhaps, while landing a well-places kick at Dean?

[Tinoire]

134. That's not fair to the poster

That was my initial impression the first few seconds of reading the post, that it was a plug for Clark

but see post 64 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=758713#759143

You're right about finding dirt when we look but the thing that is disturbing to me about Dean is that there is plenty of it. Doesn't it disturb you that his records are sealed? How much more information like this is referenced therein?

When you start adding it all up, Dean doesn't come out like a Progressive at all but as a Centrist opportunist hitching his compaign on the backs of angry Progressives so eager to oust Bush that we are buying our car from the best salesman as opposed to buying the best car (my apologies to whichever DUer said that first).

A fair and balanced view is indeed necessary but please don't think this is Dean's first strike for me. I started weighing him on the Palestinian issue the minute his name was tossed in the ring and was sorely disappointed then and can point you or anyone else to information available about his stance, at that time, before he changed what he was saying to make it more palatable. There was plenty more and I've honestly tried to lay off Dean only out of respect for the too many sincere Dean-supporting friends I have here but he has been running a smoke and mirror campaign in my book.

He speaks to our anger very well but is that enough? Is that why we have to excuse the inconsistencies that are increasingly coming to light?

I fully understand the emotional investment in Dean but what good will it do us if we dismiss so much that he makes it to the primaries and is not the best candidate? What good will it do us if there's enough in his sealed files to so totally upset people that they prefer to just sit this election out or make a statement by voting third party.

One big mistake the Dean camp, nay the Democrats, are making by gambling on ABB is that because things just got bad for us these last 4 years, we think that's when it got bad for the other groups whose votes we're counting on. There is a smug sense in certain communities that had it bad before Bush ever came on the scene of "Oh now it's a tragedy cause it touches you" - we best not count on all those votes because they're not as angry as we are. And then we'll be alienating many voters who are returning to the Democratic Party but not to elect what they see as a Centrist. Not to mention the dirty tricks that will be played, the secret files that will be opened... My goal is to get the best candidate up there. With every passing day I feel it's Kucinich because I don't have to stand here and defend him against yet another faux-pax and his support keeps growing by the day especially among the non-internet crowd, the left-behind crowd, that still votes and that the Democratic Party would have bird in hand if we only addressed their needs.

Sorry for rambling... Just wanted to point out that the poster was indeed a Dean supporter. I even had a strong exchange one day over some populist issue.

If Dean is the candidate, I will probably vote for him but I will not campaign for him because I can't believe in him and whatever trust I started out with has been destroyed. I'm sorry but it's at least more than I can say for some other candidates.

[CWebster]

153. So, is it time for me to dig up the dirt on Kucinich?

The suggestion of using racial divisiveness, the long history of virulent anti-choice voting and the sudden epiphany prior to declaring candidacy, the reactionary position on flag-burning, the obligatory mention that he was exempt from military service due to a heart murmur. If I bring any of this up, John Kleeb will roast me alive. But, I generally don't bring it up for a few reasons. One is I respect Kucinich. But as I mentioned in a previous post, in this country, at this time, he is unelectible (see NYPete's excellent post about our current state of affairs).For crying out loud, look at the adulation over a General, whose supporters you, ironically enough, find common cause with--while I, as a Leftist, despise all the Right-wing qualities they desperately cheer on as the best bet against Bush. So while you bang your head against the wall trying to figure out why Progressives would support a centrist, I can't understand why you would throw your vote away and possibly increase the liklihood of a real "right wing", as Ted Rall put it, DLC frontman take the advantage.

Now about the Palestinian thing. It was the one thing that caused me to withold support at first, but Dean came around and he took the heat for even mentioning a more even-handed approach. Lieberman, and Kerry, so-called liberal, grilled him over it repeatedly, and where the hell was Kucinich? Nary a peep. NOT ONE FUCKING WORD when he had the opportunity to do and say the right thing. And when one of those Israel cheerleading votes makes the rounds in congress, Dennis sits it out.

[Terwilliger]

156. at least Kucinich doesn't pander to racists

but, by all means, CWeb, go after Dennis...spend your time

[w4rma]

159. Dean doesn't pander to them through racism though.

If he did that, I wouldn't support him. He doesn't do that. He panders to them through Democratic policy on economics.

[CWebster]

163. C'mon Ter

You know that is dishonest.

Besides, I understand that Kucinich did quite a bit of pandering to poor whites in his early Cleveland campaigns with a real intent to use racially divisive tactics as opposed to economic appeals. You really shouldn't go there.

[Terwilliger]

171. Not dishonest at all

He made the comment twice and I know EXACTLY what he was doing when he said it.

As I said last post...go on with your Kucinich dirt. More power to ya.

[Tinoire]

192. About the Palestinian thing then

I was raised not to believe the empty words of a politician and to this day I will not because the the proof is in their record, their actions, and their words PRIOR to their run.

At the same time that Dean was sepaking glowingly of the apartheid wall and meeting with Sharon, Kucinich was denouncing that wall. How strange of you to say NARY a peep from Kucinich when he's been advocating and working towards an even-handed approach for YEARS. I know how much you care about this issue but don't think your research was thorough enough. To this day "Jewish Voice for Peace" won't back Dean. Not one word from Howard Dean to Rachel Corrie's parents or to the Rachel Corrie Foundation either.

When those Israeli cheer-leaders were making all that rhubarb in Congress, Kucinich was one of the FEW who not only REFUSED to vote but issued a CLEAR, non-pandering statement which summarizes the years of his statements AND consistent votes on the matter.

What has Dean really done besides issuing a bunch of contradictory statements? One day he says he wants to QUADRUPLE Us military aid to Israel and the next, because Arab-American voters are howling about the things they've found out, that he supports an even-handed approach. You are free to trust him if you want. I do not. I do not despise him as I despise others but I do not trust him.

By the way, Kucinich Tops the Arab American Institute's Scorecard of Issues . They don't seem to think very highly of Dean at all adn point out "that there have, however, also been disturbing reports that in a closed-door meeting with American Jewish leaders Dean expressed support for the Israeli policy of targeted assassinations, Israel’s control of East Jerusalem, and reiterated his targeting of Saudi Arabia and Syria."
http://www.aaiusa.org/dean.htm

Here's an article that just appeared in the Palestine Chronicle about Dean:

Is Howard Dean the Real Deal as a Peace Candidate? – Letter

Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 06:11 PM EST

"'Until such time as Howard Dean can prove himself to be an honest broker in terms of peace in the Middle East considering him the 'peace' candidate is a cruel joke .."

And least we forget, Steve Grossman, former head of AIPAC is his campaign chairman...

Howard Dean's recent gaffe about the Confederate Flag could be dismissed as a "Johnny Reb" type support of the rebel that lies in the heart of most Americans or it could be a sign of something more sinister, covert racism. What is particularly troubling is his nearly unswerving support for Israel and its policies and presumption that Israel's enemies are America's enemies, namely the Arabs.

Not once has he brought into question Israel's 36 year long brutal occupation of Palestine. Why doesn't he condemn the superhighways that cut through the heart of Palestine which are for Israelis only, while Palestinians are forced to use dirt roads or ones that have been dug up and made treacherous?

<snip>

Water is severely rationed to Palestinians while illegal Israeli settlers water their lawns and fill their swimming pools. According to the United Nations, the average Palestinian now has one meal a day and lives on $2 a day. Why aren't Israel's policies examined as incitements that spawn the deadly rash of suicide bombers? Aren't they the real terrorist? Until such time as Howard Dean can prove himself to be an honest broker in terms of peace in the Middle East considering him the "peace" candidate is a cruel joke.

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=20031112181159350
------------

They're also not too pleased about him siding with the Bush Administration and Isael when it came to Israel's attack on Syria:

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean, asked to comment Tuesday by CNN's Judy Woodruff on the show "Inside Politics," said, "If Israel has to defend itself by striking terrorists elsewhere, it's going to have to do that. Terrorism has no place in bringing peace in the Middle East. You know, the attack, deliberate attack of men, women and children, is not permitted under the Geneva conventions, and nations have the right to defend themselves just as we defended ourselves by going into Afghanistan to get rid of Al Qaeda." http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.10.10/news2b.dems.html

If you read the whole story, you'll see Dean's response was pretty much in line with the entire gaggle of "major" Democratic candidates: Lockstep, kneejerk, mindless support, right down the line.

There was nothing defensive -- and nothing remotely justifiable -- about the raid on Syria. It was a simply a symbolic effort by the Sharon government to divert attention from the failure of its own insane policies. It contributed nothing to Israel's security, nothing to the fight against terrorism, and nothing to the "peace" process, such as it is.

<snip>

It's obvious -- to me, anyway -- that I made a mistake in endorsing Dean. As they say about second marriages, it represented the triumph of hope over experience. At the time, I thought Dean was trying to let some light into the dark dungeon of U.S. policy in the Middle East, he was being smeared for it, and I felt obliged to defend him in whatever small way I could.

This was dumb. It was all just primary politics, which I should have realized from the start. Dean might or might not be willing to break with the prevailing orthodoxy if he wins the White House, but looking for evidence one way or another in his campaign rhetoric is a fool's errand -- as his most recent comments demonstrate.

<snip>
So I'm un-endorsing him. I could spend a lot of time and effort trying to explain why this one, single issue is so important to me it would cause me to do a political 180 on a presidential candidate, but I'm not really in the mood. Suffice it to say that whatever else I like or admire about Dean -- and there are some things -- they weren't enough to persuade me to endorse him before the Israel issue came up, and they're not enough to keep me endorsing him now.

<snip>
So I'm back where I should have stayed all along: in the Anybody But Bush camp. Three cheers for the generic Democrat! And may the least worst man or woman win.

http://billmon.org/archives/000768.html

-------

May 2002 (before Dean made his famous call to the AIPAC to present his Presidential ambitions and went on his AIPAC-sponsored junket to cloister himself with Sharon for 3 days)

I declare my support for the State of Israel and for the security of the Israeli people. I also declare my support for a Palestinian state and for the security of the Palestinian people. So I will vote present today because I believe the security of Israel requires the security of the Palestinians.

I will vote present because I believe the United States can do better through honest brokering, and a principled commitment to peaceful coexistence.

Today, we are missing an opportunity to lead people of the Middle East toward a secure and stable future together. This resolution equates Israel's dilemma, which is the outcome of the Palestinian's struggle for self-determination, with the United States' campaign against the criminal organization, Al Queda.

Unfortunately, our own policy is undefined, amorphous, without borders, without limits, and without congressional oversight. For this Congress to place the historic Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the context of the current fashion of US global policy pitches Israelis and Palestinians alike into a black hole of policy without purpose, and conflict without resolution.

The same humanity that requires us to acknowledge with profound concerns the pain and suffering of the people of Israel requires a similar expression for the pain and suffering of the Palestinians. When our brothers and sisters are fighting to the death, instead of declaring solidarity with one against the other, should we not declare solidarity with both for peace, so that both may live in security and freedom?

If we seek to require the Palestinians, who do not have their own state, to adhere to a higher standard of conduct, should we not also ask Israel, with over a half century experience with statehood, to adhere to the basic standard of conduct, including meeting the requirements of international law?

There is a role for Congress and the Administration in helping to bring a lasting peace in the Middle East; however, this resolution does not create that role. After today we will still need to determine a course of action to bring about peace. This course will require multilateral diplomacy, which strengthens cooperation among all countries in the region. It will require focused, unwavering attention. It will require sufficient financial resources. And it will require that our nation have the political will to bring about a true, a fair, and a sustainable resolution of the conflict.

When this Congress enters into the conflict and takes sides between Israel and Palestine we do not help to achieve peace, but the opposite. Similarly, the Administration should consider that when it conducts a war against terrorism without limits the principle of war is quickened everywhere in the world, including the Middle East. When it talks incessantly about invading Iraq, the tempo of war is picked up everywhere.

If we truly want peace in the Middle East, this resolution is counter-productive. I will vote present because I do not believe that this resolution dignifies the role towards creating peace, which this Congress can and must fulfill.

----------------

840 MEMBERS ENDORSE THE TIKKUN/KUCINICH RESOLUTION FOR PEACE IN THE MIDEAST
A Resolution for Middle East Peace
http://www.tikkun.org/community/resolution/

Whereas we recognize the humanity and fundamental decency of both the
Israeli and Palestinian people, and wish to see them living in peace
with each other, side by side in a safe Israel and a safe Palestine,

And Whereas we abhor acts of terror, violence and denial of human
rights,

And Whereas the continuation of this conflict is destructive to the
people of the Middle East, counter to the best interests and values of the United States, and might contribute to an increase in Anti-Semitism and anti-Arab sentiments both worldwide and in our own community,

Be It HEREBY RESOLVED THAT THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES URGES THE PRESIDENT TO:

Support dramatic steps for an immediate end to violence and terror in
the Middle East by introducing an international buffer of genuinely
unbiased and neutral forces to separate and provide protection for
Israelis and Palestinians and meanwhile use all of the resources of the U.S. to bring about the following resolution of the conflict:

(a) Return of Israel to its pre-1967 borders, with minor border
modifications mutually agreed upon (to allow Israel to retain sections of Jerusalem with a Jewish majority as of 1993, and a few border settlements);

(b) Creation of an economically and politically viable Palestinian
state in all of the pre-1967 West Bank and Gaza including East
Jerusalem (except for the sections of Jerusalem that already had a
Jewish majority by 1993);

(c) An international fund to provide reparations for Palestinians and
to resettle Palestinian refugees in the new Palestinian state, and to
provide reparations for Israelis who fled from persecution in Arab
lands, and to resettle Israeli settlers within the pre-1967 borders of Israel;

(d) Recognition of Israel and the newly-created Palestinian state and
peaceful relations with all surrounding Arab and Islamic states;

(e) Sharing of the water and other resources of the area and joint
cooperation to preserve regional ecological balance;

(f) Active participation of Palestine, in cooperation with
international forces, to protect Israelis from those who may continue
to struggle against Israel even after it has returned to its pre-1967
borders, and active participation by Israel and in cooperation with
international forces to protect Palestinians from those who may use
acts of violence to destabilize or undermine a new Palestinian state;

(g) International guarantees of the safety and security of both Israel and Palestine, either through bilateral mutual defense agreements with the United States, or some similar arrangements with a credible international force which will protect Israel and Palestine from other states which may have hostile intentions;

(h) An international Truth and Reconciliation Commission, such as that which functioned in South Africa, to be created after the above points have begun to be implemented, and aimed at building a foundation for future trust and cooperation between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.
-end-

Endorsed by the following members of April6Vt Citizens' Lobby:
<names snipped>

http://www.april6vt.org/events/tikkun.html

===============

Now about the Clark thing- there's no way ever that I'm voting for Clark. Every single avowed Democratic/Liberal General I worked with would have to vouch to me that they knew something I didn't about Clark before I could buy the post March 2003 metamorphosis. I see your point and I feel your pain but I just can't do it. It's a matter, sincerely, of principle. Kucinich is the better candidate for me and always has been. We still have months and months before the Primaries. Why would I jump on the Dean band-wagon when I don't like him as a politician, still see he has ties to the DLC (ok, News Dems which is a Lieberman-founded DLC II) simply because Clark entered the race? Why should I throw my vote away because the corporate powers that be are foisting on us the belief that the race is between a Centrist and a DLC front-man?

I really really am tired of this "lesser of two evils" game that keeps us cowed into voting in corporate-friendly politicians. My vote means an awful lot to me and I consider anything, besides voting for the right man, especially during the Primaries, throwing it away.

If Dean is the right man for the job, he'll get past the primaries without my vote. If he can't beat Clark who has so much baggage and who is not really doing that well, then there's no way he's going to beat Bush.


Why should all Leftists be rallying behind a man who's not even a Liberal? That makes no sense to me. Most of the Clark supporters range from Centrists to Conservative to Reagan Democrat to Disgrunteled Republicans who are still Republicans (oh yeah I know there are a few real Liberals in there and I know why but too many Lieberman supporters and known DU hawks jumped on that wagon with a wee bit too much zeal)- they can't carry this Primary so I am not afraid of them. If they do carry it then our party is too f-d up for words.

I'm going to work my fingers to the bone for Kucinich whose support is growing by the day and if he doesn't win, if an acceptable Dem candidate doesn't win, I'm moving out of the country because the path we're on is so dangerous that only, imo, a Kucinich-style 180 turn from business as usual (to include Clinton's) can possibly save us.

About his flag-burning... Ironically, I feel the same way. The abortion thing too- I am anti-abortion but pro-choice so I have no problems with his evolution over the years (which was completed) before he even thought of running. Do you know that Kucinich was drafted? After he gave that stirring "Prayer for America" when we wondered why few others were speaking up (Dean btw was for the attack on Afghanistan), people like me started a Draft Kucinich campaign. There's NO way I'm going to settle for a Centrist. That makes it too easy for whoever to manipulate yet another election for ho-hum politics. Hope you can understand that...

Very sorry to disappoint a fellow Leftist but that's how things stand for me right now.

[CWebster]

266. You want to talk about Kucinich's record on Choice throughout his entire

career until, conveniently, right before he declared his candidacy? Don't give me that shit, I can pull up reams of documentation as well to condemn his previous record. Ah, but Kucinich has evolved, he has grown, he has come to the realization....but that is a consideration reserved for Kucinich. And, excuse me, Tinoire, I didn't hear him during that debate where they ripped Dean apart, I didn't hear him go out on a limb, or state the truth in a loud clear voice for the world to hear. Kucinich complains about not getting any coverage, but he could've made a statement in front of the world that night that would've made everyone stand up and listen. But no, he always takes the safe route behind the scenes, so he shouldn't expect headlines.

Kucinich refused to vote, WHEN HE COULD'VE VOTED NO, says it all.

And yet, Dean was the only one to even suggest that we should re-evaluate our policy, and you are intent on attacking him, not the others---Lieberman, Kerry, Clark who tow the lobby dictates and not the ones, Kucinich or Sharpton who were not willing to take the political risk in opposing them on national television.

As to your words in blue, I appreciate the sentiments and am ready to leave with you, but until Kucinich addresses the whole country and not just the Left, he is still at the starting line.

[LeahMira]

177. This is true, but...

A balanced view is essential in weighing all pluses and negatives.

... among both Clark and Dean supporters especially I haven't seen any indication of admitting any negatives. Now Clark supporters admit Dean's negatives and vice versa, but no one wants to admit that his or her guy misses the mark once in a while.

Some of us are really not one issue voters but "few issue" voters in that there are three or four or so really important issues that a candidate must be on the right side with or else.

Although I'm not America Indian, anyone I vote for has to be doing the right thing by the Indians. That's one of my "few issues" and while I can't say I now see "the light of Clark" I can say I see the "dark of Dean."

Thanks, Tinoire, Kispoko and others here, for your many good posts.

[Tinoire]

220. It was my pleasure. It's been a learning experience for me

I had seen a segment re this on television long ago but didn't realize the person involved was Dean until now. Contrary to some people's opinion, I am not out to smear Dean and have been rather gingerly in my handling of him- mostly because of the respect I have for some Dean supporters I implicitly trust and respect who I KNOW would not be spinning some of the yarns we've seen here tonight.

As a person of color with Taino blood, I'm deeply saddened by the inability to make people understand what this issue is about. It's not about casinos, it's not about smearing Dean, it's about the shabby manner in which a sacred promise to people whose land we stole was broken. If Kucinich had done this, I would be howling. There is no justification. But the saddest thing isn't Dean... and it's not the people who pointed at that he's at least better than the DLC because they sincerely believe that and that's cool- they could be right- it's the pathetic, head-burying spin.

Is it with this kind of thought process & denial that we're going to find the right candidate to unite behind?

I would welcome the person who could show us that Dean or any of the other candidates is the right one and often there are posts for each of them that make valid points but TOO FEW and the rah rah cheer-leading threads aren't cutting it.

Color me waaaay too serious since Bush took office. I wish I could take this with a little more levity...

---

And I remind you that a great mystery has guided the unfoldment of these United States from the day of our inception through our greatest times, and through our worst times, through our biggest successes and through our biggest mistakes. The greatest, most powerful act we could do now is to ask God to forgive us for our mistakes; to atone for our errors; to take a fearless, moral inventory; to ask God to remove our own character defects; to just handle it already; to just say the words, to pray to God to forgive us for genocide of the native American Indians; to pray to God to forgive us for slavery; to pray to God to forgive us for the racist underpinnings of so much social and economic policy in this country; to pray to God to forgive us for Vietnam; to pray to God to forgive us for the imperialism, and at times even the anti-democracy of some of our own policies; to admit to God that we have our own errors and our own shadow, just like everybody else does; to ask God to forgive us.

http://www.renaissancealliance.org/imagine/Healing/remeb911.htm


Peace

[pruner]

107. Indians enamored of Dean despite his refusal to pander to them

…While candidates Dennis Kucinich and Wesley Clark made their appearances Monday and were politely applauded for their pro-sovereignty and pro-veteran stances, Indians couldn't seem to get enough of Dr. Dean.

<snip>

What was most interesting about Dean was his refusal, even in the midst of 3,000 American Indians, to carve out positions tailored only to Indian voters.

He's done this before. In September, when he came to Albuquerque for the first televised debate, he declined to go too far into Hispanic voter appeals.

"I think Hispanics want what everyone else wants," he told me then.

He said essentially the same things to Indians Wednesday.

"The problems that you have as Native Americans are the same problems that everyone else has," Dean said. "The truth is, we all share a common agenda. Every American needs health care. Every American needs economic determination."

It's an extremely portable campaign philosophy, but you might think it could get you into trouble. A group gathers, invites you to its event, and waits for you to tailor your presentation, to say what its members want to hear. Not necessarily so with Dean.

But if it hurt him, it hardly seemed evident Wednesday.

http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news03/112203_news_shea.shtml

[whirlygigspin]

130. My uncle the Abanaki chief

I remember about 20 years ago, an uncle of mine in Swanton VT
tried to claim an island in lake Champlain for his Abanaki tribe.

The rest of us in the family were suprised to find out about his
new status as a long lost Abanaki. It was quite hilarious.

Now, if we can only find the Ferrengi home planet.

(this is very funny, if you only knew)

[w4rma]

131. gambling and land claims

…
Dean's disagreements with the Abenaki were well chronicled. He opposed state or federal recognition of the tribe, fearing they would launch land claims or attempt to open a casino if the federal government approved their status as a sovereign Indian nation.

The Dean campaign acknowledged the sometimes stormy relationship, but pointed out that he also reached out to the tribe during his tenure.

"There have been differences of opinion between Governor Dean and the Abenaki, but those were based on Governor Dean's well-known opposition to gaming in Vermont," said spokesman Garrett Graff.

He pointed out that Dean helped provide funding for the first Abenaki cultural museum, worked on economic development issues with the tribe and established a class on Abenaki culture in Vermont's schools.

"Governor Dean began his speech to the National Congress of American Indians by mentioning his personal opposition to gaming, but that, as president, would support it wherever it was legal," Graff said. "His directness was received by an enthusiastic and supportive audience of tribal leaders."
…
According to Rushlow, 2,800 Vermonters identified themselves as Native American in the 2000 census. She grudgingly gave Dean credit for some of his work with the Abenaki.

"He proclaimed the first week of May Abenaki Heritage Celebration Week. And gave us some grant money for our tribal museum," she said. "But he only did that because it could bring cultural tourism to the state of Vermont."

Rushlow said Dean once offered her state recognition during a meeting.

"He said if I would sign a claim that I would give up land claims and gambling, then we would be recognized," she said. "And those decisions are up to the community and its citizens. And since I don't have those rights, I can't give them up."

Rushlow said that while the group has not made a decision on whether they would seek to open a casino or pursue land claims if they won federal tribal recognition.
…
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/74859.html

…
The former physician, who gets plenty of media attention for his fund-raising and poll-grabbing, stopped by the NCAI Wednesday before meeting with Gov. Bill Richardson.

Interest in Dean was enough to derail what was supposed to be a closed-door meeting with his Native American Advisory Council prior to a full-convention speech Wednesday morning.

Before long, the closed doors turned into a standing-room-only Q&A session. Conventioneers peppered him with questions, praised him for his campaign statements and jockeyed for a closer look at Dean - the shortest and whitest guy in the room (if you discount me).

When his handlers finally got him out the door and up to the podium, he delivered a speech that hit the right notes - tribal sovereignty and health care - and got some decent applause.

Government relations, he said, should not be just "states and cities. It ought to also be about sovereign nations and tribes," he said.

Casino gambling, while not something he likes personally, "is a state issue."
…
http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news03/112203_news_shea.shtml
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=90113

[JaneQPublic]

137. No MORE Dean for you? Did you ever support Dean in the first place?

It's pretty lame to see people stepping forward to say they used to be for Dean but they aren't any more -- when even a DU search doesn't reveal any past record of them every publicly supporting Dean.

How convenient!

[chaska]

141. Boy, did you just step in it.

There are links to Kispoko's pro Dean comments posted above.

Is that the secret to a high post count, not actually reading the thread?

[kispoko]

151. hehehe

-There are links to Kispoko's pro Dean comments posted above.

Is that the secret to a high post count, not actually reading the thread?


lol....

and she did step in it, didn't she? ooohhhhhh, janeqpublic..... caught ya slippin' :eyes:

insert foot in mouth.... then, take it out for a minute and check the posts.... it'll just naturally go back afterward :P


once again, thanks to norcal for doin' that.... i oughta have a star for donating, and maybe now i'll complain and get one knowing what not having one can get ya into when people choose to make stuff up about you.

kinda sad, ennit?

[chaska]

149. I just read this whole thing.

And what really stands out is the anger, the absolute truculence, coming from the Dean people in this thread. There are a lot of good Deanies. I give them my respect. But think about this. This is one man leaving the group over an issue that (apologies to Kispoko) nobody really cares about apart from those directly involved - unfortunate, but probably true.

If the Deanies had just ignored this thread it would have died a quick death. But Dean attracts a certain type of supporter that is just frankly belligerent. Why? Because the candidate himself is belligerent.

I won't say that Dean absolutely can't win, but if he does he will set a new precedent in doing so. Angry candidates don't win. Bulldogery is the job of the vice president. The pres must remain above that sort of thing. Those know-nothings that will determine this election's outcome will vote for who they *like* the best. Do you know anyone who is angry all the time? Do you like to spend a lot of time around them? The more sober Dean supporters should give some thought to this point. I understand loyalty. Loyalty is an admirable quality. But defeating Bush, in this case, is more important.

Call this bashing if you want, but this is a sincere observation. Dean is my no. 2 choice.

[oxymoron]

152. as an undecided, i fully agree...

Of course my views are irrelevent. I'm considered a newbie.

[chaska]

155. Don't that piss you off?

I went through it too. Idiots will be idiots.

[JanMichael]

164. Look, I'm not a Clarkie OR a Deanie but the fact is that Clark...

...supporters body slammed this board a few weeks ago and have been the most belligerant partisans that I've had the dis-pleasure of dealing with. I don't think I'm the only one that thinks that way either, many of his supporters have been a disgrace (By being so bloody obnoxious) to his campaign.

Better yet...I LIKE CLARK!

[oxymoron]

178. sorry, but i disagree...

i don't think the clark supporters have been any more beligerant than the supporters of other candidates.

[JanMichael]

191. Fine.

I do.

[oxymoron]

227. congrats. (nt)

[RetroLounge]

167. Maybe Dean Supporters are angry

because we hear the same bullshit attacks on Democrats everyday on every news and cable outlet, all across the internet, in every newspaper and every radio station in the USA. Unsubstantiated and petty bullshit attacks. The "gore-ing" of our candidates.

So we come to DU as a haven against these attacks, and guess what?

All we see here are our fellow Democrats doing the EXACT SAME THING to Dean.

So fuck yeah we are pissed. And sick to death of it and not going to stand by and ignore the thread. When we do that, it becomes an anti-Dean cluster-fuck circle jerk of nasty Dean Bashing.

Anger and truculence, disdain, and sickening loathing abound. Thanks for being part of it. You should be proud.

[TLM]

219. It is such crap...because as others have noted...

Some of the clark supporters are the most insulting and abusive... yet we get the "hot hend angry" label.

I think it is because we're not the type to sit back and do nothing while being atacked. You're right... there's so much spun garbage tossed at Dean every day... then whenever any of it is refuted the person is accused of being angry.

[RetroLounge]

270. Exactly.

Thanks...

"there's so much spun garbage tossed at Dean every day... then whenever any of it is refuted the person is accused of being angry."

[LeahMira]

335. Dean supporters should get over anger...

All we see here are our fellow Democrats doing the EXACT SAME THING to Dean.

Actually, I haven't mentioned which of the candidates I favor because I still (yes, still) haven't made up my mind. All of them are good. I happen to prefer Lieberman least though. He seemed like a good guy when he ran with Al Gore, but of late I've been seriously disappointed in him. So, when primary day comes, he's not the one I'm going to vote for.

Now, that leaves a few others. I've looked at their websites, I've seen a few of them on Meet the Press etc., and I've eliminated some of them. It's down to a very few now, and Gov. Dean has just taken a beating in my opinion in the last few days.

BUT, heaven forbid I should mention that around some of the Dean supporters. (Well, I just did, so now I should duck.) What is it here? Does everyone have to agree with you all 100%? Or else?

Or is it that you think the Freepers are reading these boards on a daily basis to cull any dissatisfactions they see and use them against our candidates? Really? I think they are all entirely too busy congratulating themselves for what they perceive as their own erudition and lovingly admiring their own navels to have any time left for us.

Honest, guys, I'll vote for the Democratic candidate and if it's Dean I'll vote for him for President.

Right now, though, I'm not thinking about who can beat Bush as much as I'm thinking about who can represent me the way I want to be represented.

I think any of the Democratic candidates can beat Bush. Even Lieberman.

[eileen_d]

242. "the anger, the absolute truculence, coming from the Dean people"

So true. Not all Dean people, not even all Dean people on this thread... but you're right about how it dominates this thread, and add PATRONIZING IGNORANCE.

[JanMichael]

157. This is a bullshit attack. It's all about gambling, that's it.

Guess what?

One can be pro-Native American Rights and NOT be pro-Roulette.

K'?

[RetroLounge]

168. No way! Get with the meme here JM

Dean bulldozed their graveyard after all... <sarcasm off>

[kispoko]

169. heh

-Guess what?

One can be pro-Native American Rights and NOT be pro-Roulette.

K'?


yeah, that's true....

but one cannot be pro-native american rights and also be against their sovereign right to decide for themselves whether or not they want roulette.

therein lies the distinction.

k'?

[w4rma]

175. A monopoly on casino gambling in the state.

That could potentially be worth a great deal of money. The same deal with with potential land claims.

[kispoko]

179. w4rma

there is great confusion about such things as indian casinos.... obviously.

you say this: "That could potentially be worth a great deal of money. The same deal with with potential land claims."


the abenaki couldn't have such a monopoly in the state unless the state granted it to them.... if they did, the state would then be able to extort money from them for "allowing" them to have something their sovereignty should've granted them anyway!

the laws are incredibly corrupt in that way to favor states, and everyone complains because they think tribal nations have it soooo good.

technically, any land a casino would be on would be abenaki land anyway, and shouldn't be subject to state laws and caprices, or even considered a part of vermont.... but as i said, the laws are incredibly corrupt, and the states benefit greatly.... it's just another racket, extorting money from indians the same as every other tactic before

[w4rma]

182. I think I understand Dean's position on gambling, since I am also

personally opposed to gambling.

If the Abenaki were given land, say the land around their burial grounds near Monument Road along the Missisquoi River in Swanton. It is my understanding that that land is then considered tribal land by the federal government and they receive special rights, separate from states' rights, on how they may use their land. One of those rights is their right to build a casino to help fund their tribe. Since casinos are illegal in Vermont, that casino would be the only casino within Vermont's borders. A monopoly on casino gambling in Vermont.

…
Rushlow said that while the group has not made a decision on whether they would seek to open a casino or pursue land claims if they won federal tribal recognition.

"We're not saying we would and we're not saying we won't, the tribal council hasn't taken it up," she said, adding there were other reasons the tribe was seeking federal status.
…
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/74859.html

[kispoko]

189. wrong w4rma

-If the Abenaki were given land, say the land around their burial grounds near Monument Road along the Missisquoi River in Swanton. It is my understanding that that land is then considered tribal land by the federal government and they receive special rights, separate from states' rights, on how they may use their land. One of those rights is their right to build a casino to help fund their tribe. Since casinos are illegal in Vermont, that casino would be the only casino within Vermont's borders. A monopoly on casino gambling in Vermont.


this is wrong...

since gambling (not all gambling mind you... there are three classes) is illegal in vermont, that means the abenaki couldn't establish a casino. they can only do what state laws would allow as far as gaming is concerned.

that is part of what i was speaking of earlier about the shameful laws they've enacted that shit on tribal sovereignty.

the only way they could have a casino is if the governor signed a special compact with them allowing it.... this would also allow the state to take whatever portion of proceeds they deemed fit.

it's extortion... tribal governments should not even have to deal with states on their own land. but the gov. has made it so... like i said, just another way of taking advantage of indians. they always find a way

[w4rma]

207. I'll defer to KaraokeKarlton who starts posting at #185 (n/t)

[Tinoire]

235. Not in Vermont

If the information in post 221/225 is correct, there wasn't even a chance of this

When it was pointed out to him that Vermont doesn't have gambling, so the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (FIGRA) doesn't apply, hence no Indian gaming, he finally admitted it was land claims and tribal sovereignty he feared.

I am not an expert on this part though and haven't read all of the posts in this thread ((working my way down and keep getting stuck responding)). Maybe it's already been addressed. As a sticker for correct information, I would appreciate knowing how true that is. They guys sounds like he knows very well what he's talking about.

[Zynx]

181. You make it sound like Dean has something against Native Americans.

Do you honestly believe this?

Let me also add that we have had problems with Indians here in Wisconsin who have erroneously(forgive my spelling) claimed territory here in the past due to very small traces of Indian ancestory. In one case back in the early seventies, there was an Indian, I don't remember his name, claimed a section of a highway as tribal land and began setting up a toll booth operation up there. My father was involved in handling this situation when he worked for the Justic Department and this was one of many claims made by various individuals and tribes at the time. The point of that story is that many tribal claims are not legitimate and many people exploit very loose ties to tribes for financial or other gains.

[KaraokeKarlton]

185. If you were wise you'd do more research on this issue

Vermont's abenaki doesn't meet the qualifications for state OR federal recognition because they have not been an organized group for the required period of time. Virtually all of the Vermont Abenaki left the state and went to Canada ages and ages ago. The bulk of the abenaki in Vermont now and most of the last century or longer have more European blood than Abenaki blood. Add to that the fact that the main reason they are pushing for recognition is so they can open a casino in Swanton, Vermont. I've been to Swanton and it's a small town. The people who live there and in the neighboring communities don't want a damn casino coming to Swanton because it will totally destroy life as they know it there. Crime will skyrocket and all kinds of problems would come along with a casino and we don't want it. We value Abenaki culture and history but we DON'T want a casino. We live in one of the most pristine states in the nation and we will fight tooth and nail to keep it that way. The Abenaki was given state recognition in 1976 and it was revoked in 1977 because it was discovered that they didn't qualify during a huge battle over the abenaki being given special hunting and fishing rights that were harmful to other Vermonters. The facts in the case never changed since then and Dean made the right call by not pandering to a small group of casino proponents who look more Irish than Abenaki.

Do your research from more than just those on the side of state recognition for the Abenaki in Vermont. It should prove to be very enlightening.

[Zynx]

187. I trust you on this much more than someone outside Vermont.

There are Indian issues in Wisconsin that go back a ways that people outside our state wouldn't likely understand.

[KaraokeKarlton]

195. Thanks

Dean has done a lot of good things for Abenaki Issues in Vermont, but he couldn't give state recognition because they just don't qualify for it. Tribes have to meet certain standards in order to be granted sovereignty and they simply don't meet those requirements. Personally, he also didn't want to give it because they want to build a casino that virtually everyone in the state doesn't want here. By the way, one of my children has more Vermont Abenaki blood running through her veins than most of those fighting for state and federal recognition. Her paternal grandmother is one of the rare 50% Abeankis in the state. She's nearing 70 years old. She supports Dean 100% and intends to vote for him. She's lived in Vermont all of her life and is fully aware of this issue. She still likes and supports Dean. That, in and of itself, should tell you an awful lot about about this issue.

[kispoko]

194. appears i'm not the only one needing more research

-Vermont's abenaki doesn't meet the qualifications for state OR federal recognition because they have not been an organized group for the required period of time.

i'm not aware of state requirements there.... usually, states have no real requirements. tribal groups usually just petition and, with enough push, are granted state recognition. there really isn't much with that though....

i don't even think the abenaki have had their petition heard by the bia yet.... i think they petitioned in '95 or something, and as there are still groups who've been waiting over 2 decades to have theirs heard, i doubt the abenaki jumped them for any reason.

that said, it bears repeating that criteria for federal recognition are extremely difficult to meet, particularly for eastern remnant groups. i know this first-hand

-Virtually all of the Vermont Abenaki left the state and went to Canada ages and ages ago. The bulk of the abenaki in Vermont now and most of the last century or longer have more European blood than Abenaki blood.

so what? you people keep trying to make a point of this when there is none to be made.... the federal gov. doesn't care about that in in judging criteria, and neither do most tribal groups either.... so why are non-natives so pre-occupied with it?

-Add to that the fact that the main reason they are pushing for recognition is so they can open a casino in Swanton, Vermont. I've been to Swanton and it's a small town. The people who live there and in the neighboring communities don't want a damn casino coming to Swanton because it will totally destroy life as they know it there.

kind of like life was destroyed for the abenaki when the ancestors of the people of swanton and vermont in general came bounding in to the area to begin with?

.... some of you seem not to think much before you say things.

that said, who cares if the abenaki really do want a casino? the issue is whether or not they are a legitimate group. yes, a casino may come from that.... but that would be the abenakis right to do as they please.... these are still their lands, and should they gain federal recognition, they will again legally (in the eyes of u.s. jurisprudence) be theirs, and not the people of vermont's.....

you've got no more business telling abenakis what to do with their land than you have of telling quebec the same.

-Crime will skyrocket and all kinds of problems would come along with a casino and we don't want it. We value Abenaki culture and history but we DON'T want a casino.

so you just want them as sort of living history pieces, eh? they have to eat, too.... and in the even of recognition, fund a government.... much the same as vermont does with its gaming proceeds.... which would make complainers of the abenaki doing the same hypocrites, wouldn't it?

sure would....

-We live in one of the most pristine states in the nation and we will fight tooth and nail to keep it that way. The Abenaki was given state recognition in 1976 and it was revoked in 1977 because it was discovered that they didn't qualify during a huge battle over the abenaki being given special hunting and fishing rights that were harmful to other Vermonters. The facts in the case never changed since then and Dean made the right call by not pandering to a small group of casino proponents who look more Irish than Abenaki.

again, you bring up blood quanta circumlocutiously.... please get off it. it's irrelevant.

i can understand you wanting your pristine land.... but you have to be big enough to understand not only that this is homeland for the abenaki, and that you should respect that, but also that they ought to ahve a right to determine their own destiny.... and in today's world, that requires money.

it would not be nearly as bad as you imagine though.... it will not be like the dirty side of atlantic city. it will probably be more like the casinos in connecticut, and the oneida nation.... look into those and see if it matches up with your premature nightmares.

-Do your research from more than just those on the side of state recognition for the Abenaki in Vermont. It should prove to be very enlightening.

do yours...

and stop being so self-centered.... i'm sorry, but those are abenaki lands, for 10,000 years! you and the other vermonters are but a small blink in time there, and it is shameful, just as it is in the rest of the country, to still see immigrants and their descendents controlling native people and native lands to such an extent.... and to even think these things are acceptable.

they are not

[KaraokeKarlton]

201. My own child has more Abenaki blood than most of the tribal leaders

I am very close with her grandmother, who is 50% Abenaki. We've talked about this issue before and her opinion is that anyone (Native American or not) who supports putting big ugly casinos on the land their ancestors hunted and lived on don't truly value the heritage or culture of Native Americans, that they are just greedy. She's right.

Do you live in Vermont or do you just read one sided internet articles? I want to raise my Abenaki daughter in a safe place where she can be around nature, wild animals and beauty. I don't want to raise her in a place with gambling, crime, hundreds of thousands of cars driving by polluting her air to indulge in an addictive and self destructive past time. I want her to learn of her heritage from people like her grandmother and associate Abenakis with the culture and history, not with gambling, casinos and greed.

[kispoko]

211. it's like this....

-"My own child has more Abenaki blood than most of the tribal leaders"

you still don't understand that that doesn't matter.... it doesn't matter!

one thing that pisses elders off is when someone either comes by waving their card, or wavering their blood quanta..... it doesn't matter! i wish i could make you understand that.... please quit talking about it though as if it were a real point. it's just an interesting sidenote....

how connected one is to one's culture is what truly matters.... it's always been that way, particularly with the eastern tribes, who took in a lot of whites and africans and made them their own.... truly their own. believe me


-I am very close with her grandmother, who is 50% Abenaki. We've talked about this issue before and her opinion is that anyone (Native American or not) who supports putting big ugly casinos on the land their ancestors hunted and lived on don't truly value the heritage or culture of Native Americans, that they are just greedy. She's right.

she may be.... i would have to respect her opinion, and if she's a true elder in the abenaki culture (you don't just get to be an elder by bceoming old), then her position should be even more respected within the tribe.

but you have to understand, my point is that, the abenaki shouldn't be denied recognition just on the off-chance that they *might* develop a casino somewhere.... don't you see how wrong that is, to deny what's long overdue on a mere possibility? christ, that's like going to war pre-emptively over non-existent wmd some crazy bastard *might* use even though they haven't threatened us....

the abenaki ought to be recognized, irregardless of what they choose to do thereafter.... that is for the abenaki to decide, and hope your mother-in-law can play a role in that.... hopefully though, she can live to see that day.

do you think she would agree with the line of thinking i just mentioned above, where they would deny the abenaki recognition just because of what they might do?.... i don't know this woman, but i couldn't see that.... things like that are to be dealt with in council, within the tribe.

-Do you live in Vermont or do you just read one sided internet articles?

no, i live in west virginia. what's it matter though? i've been aware of the abenaki situation for awhile.... it is repeated in every state throughout the country.... i don't have to read articles. i've lived the same things, and talked to others who have experienced more. it's all the same....

-I want to raise my Abenaki daughter in a safe place where she can be around nature, wild animals and beauty. I don't want to raise her in a place with gambling, crime, hundreds of thousands of cars driving by polluting her air to indulge in an addictive and self destructive past time. I want her to learn of her heritage from people like her grandmother and associate Abenakis with the culture and history, not with gambling, casinos and greed.

ski lodges in vermont have done more damage than a casino has.... how many of those do you have?.... and how many complain of them?

..... thought so.

in any case, i can respect you wanting to raise your daught the way you like.... being abenaki though, she ought to enjoy recognition as such, in her ancestors' homelands.

let me ask just to make it clear though.... are you for abenaki recognition or not?

[KaraokeKarlton]

228. It's not a black and white issue

That seems to be what you want to make it. I am 100% for carrying on traditions, culture, protecting burial grounds and setting aside wild lands for any Native Americans who choose to embrace and pass on the traditions, culture and lifestyle. I also support federally funded museums and Native American history to be a mandatory subject taught in all public schools. I believe in the government helping tribal members aquire the funding and support for small businesses. What I strongly oppose is the government allowing tribes to skirt the laws every other person has to follow just because of what was done hundreds of years ago. As awful as that all was, it is no more right for unfairness to non-Native American people here than it was for the unfairness to Native Americans all those years ago. A tribe should not have the power to wreak havoc on the lives of others, and a casino in a rural area has that kind of affect. It's NOT okay. Casinos are not part of Native American heritage and culture. There were no slot machines and high stakes bingo games in Native American history.

So, there is a very delicate balance where this issue is concerned. Some things can be done to help the Abenaki in Vermont preserve their history, culture and way of life that aren't only good for the Abenaki, but also good for everyone and not harmful or unfair to anyone else. Those responsible for the tragic events in the history of Native Americans are long since gone. Those here now should not be punished or held accountable for things they didn't do. In many cases entirely innocent people DO get punished for things they played no part in and that causes resentment and hard feelings that otherwise wouldn't exist. Both sides of this debate need to sit down and talk, meet in the middle and be willing to consider the impact their desires and attitudes have on others.

I should also add that there is much that you don't know about why I feel as strongly as I do about this. You say that what truly matters is how connected someone is to the tribal culture. I must ask if you're speaking of the true culture and history or if you are talking about the the greed, vindictiveness and mean spiritness that poisons the lifestyle and culture of modern day tribes? I ask because I don't believe the true spirit of the Native American lifestyle can co-exist where there is greed. If you are wise you will understand what I'm saying.

It seems as if you are saying that unless a Native American embraces the modern day tribal agenda that they are in some way "less" Native American. There are many Native Americans who value the history, heritage and culture deeply but who strongly disagree with and disapprove of the direction tribes have been moving for quite some time now. It might even lead some Native Americans to choose not to share their heritage with other Native Americans simply because they don't want to be associated with an agenda they don't approve of.

[kispoko]

279. heh

you didn't really bother answering any of the questions i tossed out..... eh


-That seems to be what you want to make it.

it's 'right or wrong' here.... if you read 'black and white' into it, i can't help you. if you want to try to offend my sensibilities by pretending as though i'm polarizing issues, when you're not understanding the concepts i'm throwing out to begin with (e.g. tribal fucking sovereignty), that's entirely on you. don't put it on me. i've made my positions clear.

-I believe in the government helping tribal members aquire the funding and support for small businesses.

natives don't really need that.... they just need the gov. to allow them to enjoy the sovereignty they're supposed to have. *that's* been the problem, and that's been my point about sovereignty in general. it's the u.s. government's interference which has created these problems, just as they do in other countries around the world they've exploited.

-What I strongly oppose is the government allowing tribes to skirt the laws every other person has to follow just because of what was done hundreds of years ago.

you are woefully ignorant about indian law, you know that? and i am tired of having to straighten out arm-chair experts on the subject who have ridiculous things fly out of their mouths as such.

natives don't "skirt" *any* laws. federal laws still apply, and even some state laws, even though that is immoral and unethical to subject sovereign tribes to lesser governments.... which seems to be what you want, you know, making the indians servile to every polity they can be subjected to.... it's wrong!

natives don't "skirt" the laws.... in cases of recognized tribes, they have *different* laws, and not because the u.s. did bad stuff to 'em, but because of the treaties that were made. and treaties are the supreme law(s) of the land. read the fucking constitution!!

and that's fine, if you want natives to give up the rights they were giaranteed in those treaties, then non-natives should have to give up theirs as well.... but people like yourself want a double-standard... can't stand the red man having shit, even when it's a pittance gotten from a deal where you being a u.s. citizen have received so much more than they.

you have no perspective, and no historical or legal grounds from which to speaking here.


-A tribe should not have the power to wreak havoc on the lives of others, and a casino in a rural area has that kind of affect. It's NOT okay. Casinos are not part of Native American heritage and culture. There were no slot machines and high stakes bingo games in Native American history.

there were no slot machines in europe either, but people like you never seem to have qualms about states allowing them.

why's that?.... ok for states to do as they please on their land, but not ok for tribal nations to do the same on theirs? explain that thinking for me.....


-So, there is a very delicate balance where this issue is concerned. Some things can be done to help the Abenaki in Vermont preserve their history, culture and way of life that aren't only good for the Abenaki, but also good for everyone and not harmful or unfair to anyone else.

ya know what? fuck everyone else.... that's right, fuck 'em. there was no concern for the welfare of the abenaki before people learned they might actually be getting something they either wanted themselves or just didn't want the abenakis having......

so fuck 'em. let the abenaki make their own decisions for their people on their land, just as they've been doing for thousands of years now, and quit pretending you or anyone else in vermont have the right to babysit and monitor them.

-Those responsible for the tragic events in the history of Native Americans are long since gone.

and you say you're native?.... sure lady :eyes: you'd know better than to ever have anything as stupid as that come out of your mouth.... and the funny thing is, you probably don't even know what i'm talking about.... exactly my point!

-Those here now should not be punished or held accountable for things they didn't do.

and yet the abenaki living now should suffer?

-You say that what truly matters is how connected someone is to the tribal culture. I must ask if you're speaking of the true culture and history or if you are talking about the the greed, vindictiveness and mean spiritness that poisons the lifestyle and culture of modern day tribes?

first of all, shut your mouth. you don't speak in such general terms of all tribes as though they're filth..... shut your mouth

and to answer your question, if you really have to ask, you'll never understand anyway. i thought it was pretty obvious.

-It seems as if you are saying that unless a Native American embraces the modern day tribal agenda that they are in some way "less" Native American.

it seems to me that you're just wanting me to have intended that for your own reasons.

you don't even know what the "modern day tribal agenda" is. you're just too content to stereotype.

-There are many Native Americans who value the history, heritage and culture deeply but who strongly disagree with and disapprove of the direction tribes have been moving for quite some time now.

*yawn*

-It might even lead some Native Americans to choose not to share their heritage with other Native Americans simply because they don't want to be associated with an agenda they don't approve of.

then they are cowards. plain and simple.

i hate much about the u.s. government, but i would still tell people i was american.... just an american with reservations, probably the same as they.

if you can understand that, tribal affiliation runs much much deeper than some superficial nationality, and anyone too ashamed, for any reason, to share it, doesn't deserve being affiliated with it anyway. so, no big loss

i really don't think that's happening though, save for those who aren't involved much if any with their alleged people anyway. so who cares....

[Hep]

295. Forgive me, but

you have done some complaining about your points getting dismissed and now you've turned around and dismissed the points of others.

You're judging people for disagreeing with you, calling them cowards, yawning beligerently. Could have sworn you were here for the discussion. It looks more like browbeating to me.

[kispoko]

319. you're forgiven

because i know you don't understand, *can't* understand even, some of what i'm 'browbeating,' which probably would make someone in that position scratch their heads over it.... and i really don't expect you to necessarily. or anyone else..... but i do expect, if you're going to comment on them, at least to make an effort to try and look into what's being said....

if you want to try and understand, look at the points i'm making.... particularly the objective, factual ones (such as those regarding certain rights, processes, and more importantly this person's lies about land claims claiming the property (now propert*ies* of her friends)) and you might start to see where i'm coming from.... and then where my obvious frustration over having to deal with this shit as though it weren't a joke, is coming from.

we can disagree on more subjective matters, but to then sully the dialogue by doing some of those things, is simply inexcusable

[Duder]

188. Might not count but...

...you can vote for any candidate that damn well suits you. The Abenaki's complaints are certainly well known among other indigenous peoples. Your concerns are not shared by all.

I believe that Dean is the only candidate with a Native American Advisors Council.
LaDonna Harris and Wilma Mankiller who will be serving as Howard Dean's Indian advisors, are remarkable women in their own right and worth a read:

The National Women's History Project Bio of LaDonna Harris
LaDonna Harris embodies her Comanche heritage and is one of the most influential, inspired, and determined Native Americans in politics. Since 1970, she has served as the president of Americans for Indian Opportunity (AIO), a national multi-tribal organization devoted to developing the economic opportunities and resources of American Indians throughout the United States...
MORE: http://www.nwhp.org/tlp/biographies/harris/harris_bio.html

Radio Interview with LaDonna Harris
Native America Calling, 1/19/98
Native American Public Telecommunications Board Chair LaDonna Harris devotes her life to building coalitions, organizations, and working relationships that create change. An NAPT board member since 1994, Harris is a consistent and ardent advocate on behalf of Tribal America and she is active in the movements for civil rights, the environment, women's issues, and world peace. She is a founding member of Common Cause and the National Urban Coalition and is an ardent spokesperson against poverty and social injustice...

...Welcome to NAPT's Media Archives. Browse the topic and guest categories to listen to classic episodes of our favorite talk show in Indian Country, Native America Calling
http://www.nativecalling.org/archives/guests/harris.html

Americans for Indian Opportunity
http://www.aio.org

Who is Wilma Mankiller?
Wilma Mankiller became Deputy Chief of the Cherokee Nation in 1983. Two years later at the young age of thirty-one she became Principle Chief of the Cherokee Nation. This was the first time a woman had held this position. Mankiller grew up on a reservation in Oklahoma. The Bureau of Indian Affairs moved her family and others to San Francisco as part of their tribal relocation program in 1956 so as to "urbanize" poor rural native people. During her time there she participated in the women's movement. A 1969 demonstration by Indian college students who took over Alcatraz Island inspired her to dedicate her life to the uplifting of her people....
IT'S ALL AT: http://www.fl.essortment.com/wilmamankiller_rsly.htm

Wilma Mankiller Talks Straight but Makes Mischief, too
by Mark Trahant, Seattle Times Columnist
Canku Ota - A Newsletter Celebrating Native America - June 3, 2000

"Wilma Mankiller is someone I feel I've known in this lifetime and many lifetimes before.
I recognize in her the greatest beauty, dignity, and truthfulness. An honesty that embraces.
A candor that heals. A radical love for people and empathy with the earth.
- - Alice Walker
"A young man once asked Wilma Mankiller what he should call her. She was then principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, and twice elected as the leader of some 200,000 people. But this young man was uncomfortable with what he called a "male" term. "Should we address you as chieftainess?" he asked. Mankiller didn't say a word. Then, after hearing the suggestion "chiefette," she responded. "I told him to call me 'Ms.-Chief' or 'misChief.' " Mankiller still makes mischief. She's no longer leader of the nation's second-largest Indian tribe, but she travels across the country writing and speaking about American Indians, stereotypes and racism...
MORE: http://www.turtletrack.org/Issues00/Co06032000/CO_06032000_Mankiller.htm

Rebuilding the Cherokee Nation
A speech by Wilma Mankiller, Former Chief of the Cherokee Nation ,
Sweet Briar College , April 2, 1993
http://gos.sbc.edu/m/mankiller.html

[LWolf]

197. Wilma Mankiller.

I've heard of her. ;-)

Dennis Kucinich has a couple of native endorsements; Winona LaDuke and Earl Hatley:

http://www.kucinich.us/firstnations/index.php

[Zorra]

198. Here is Dennis Kucinich's First Nations Webpage.

Looks and sounds good to me, and a lot of space devoted to tribal issues here.

The federal Government has failed in its chosen responsibilities as a guardian of Indian resources and as a treaty partner. The mismanagement of Indian lands and Indian mineral rights is appalling. Forced to live on reservations, which inhibit their cultural practices because of land mass size and economic development because of location, tribes are forced into poverty, resulting in other social problems. The federal government has failed to live up to its treaties and to its responsibilities for the welfare of our First Nations.

As President, Dennis Kucinich will re-affirm the U. S. commitment to honor its treaties with tribal governments, to maintain strict adherence to tribal sovereignty, to increase funding for tribal programs, especially health care, housing, environmental protection and education.

http://www.kucinich.us/firstnations/

[diamondsoul]

226. After reading the whole blasted thread-

I think I'll just go vomit now.:puke: :puke: :puke:

Look, I've got NA blood, and who gives a flyin' feck but me? I'm not looking to gain anything by stating that, and I've never claimed rights to anything because of it even though it would probably make my life a LOT easier.

Here's the deal, feckin' happy white folks houses were built on top of a KNOWN GD BURIAL GROUND!~

Yeah, I could deal if Dean said I didn't know about the burial ground, but G-dammit-all HE DID FECKIN' KNOW! He just didn't damned CARE. Knock off the excuses already, BS is BS and Dean is sending out plenty of it! Do not sit here and tell me oh, it;s ok because we do it all the time. NO it's NOT OK! NO we do NOT take away evidence of an entire peoples existence just because we want a new neighborhood! No we do NOT treat people as if they don't exist without the aforementioned proof! NO WE DO NOT, and if we do, then dammitall speak UP! Don't sit back there on your Dean Defense Team and tell me it's feckin' OK, because it damned well is NOT OK!

I don't care if the Tribe wants a feckin' WHOREHOUSE on the land that rightfully belongs to them! The point is IT BELONGS TO THEM and they can decide how to use it! Just as soon as Dean deigns to admit they exist and their problems are NOT the same as mine.

*on edit, removed personal insult.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

230. Another Excellent Post

People here who have the gall to lecture and scold people of color on how they should feel about issues of critical importance to their communities should be fucking ashamed of themselves.

I guess a keyboard and monitor make lots of people bold.

DTH

[zeemike]

240. I haven’t read all of this

Because I got to it late, but of all I have read KaraokeKarlto seems to be the only one that understands Native American culture.
Gambling is not a part of Native American culture and in fact flies in the face of its spiritual aspects. And I would point out that the tribes that have done the best to maintain their culture, the Navajo and the Hopi, have rejected gambling.

[eileen_d]

247. Depends on who is defining "Native American culture"

And I'll leave it to the Native Americans to do so. But no culture is static over time. Are horses not part of "Native American culture" because they were introduced by Spaniards?

[zeemike]

268. Right you are about horses

But you must also recognize that the introduction of horses caused warring among the relatively peaceful Native Americans of the pre Spanish America. Any instrument of power such as horses guns and gambling have there negative effects.

[sangh0]

323. "relatively peaceful Native Americans "????

You're kidding, right?

Guess what? Native American are people too, and like all people, they are capable of engaging in some awful behaviors.

[Tinoire]

248. This has nothing to do with gambling!

This has to do with not honoring yet another promise made to Native Americans by the US government and allowing them the autonomy they were promised.

It has to do with destroying a sacred burial ground - a doubly obscene crime because that burial ground was needed to be another proof of the 7 criterium they needed to be recognized to get their educational etc rights.

Rejecting or accepting gambling is a MUTE, irrelavant point in this discussion. It's as irrelevant as what kind of sex two people have in the privacy of their home.

Please read post 221. Better yet, do your own independent research.

Is this one of the reasons Dean had his records sealed? Bad. Very bad move.

[diamondsoul]

255. Zeemike, I AM Native American!

It's not about gambling, it's about whether the non-natives somehow have the right to decide how we use land that belongs to us. That's it, end of story.

Do we have a right to be acknowledged as existing? I know I exist today as a white woman. What if tomorrow I opted to claim my First Nations Tribe? Would I exist or would I have to leap through hoops to prove it? Again, BS is BS no matter how much you try to cover the odor, it still stinks.

[zeemike]

267. Living in New Mexico as I do

I have the greatest respect for the Native Americans of my state. And I would say that most of the tribes here are doing great at maintaining their culture and heritage.
But the ones that do the best are the ones that reject the temptation to open casinos. They recognize that gambling is a white man game of evil that draws them away from there true spirituality.
But I sympathize with them that want a better life, they deserve it, but I see better ways to do it other than submitting to an evil to get equality.

[Astarho]

273. You speak of Native American culture

as if there is only one. Each tribe has its own culture, which could be organized into larger cultural types. North America alone had about ten different cultural types.

Gambling is not a part of Native American culture and in fact flies in the face of its spiritual aspects. And I would point out that the tribes that have done the best to maintain their culture, the Navajo and the Hopi, have rejected gambling.

Many tribes had a tradition of games of chance and gambling. The Navajos are the largest tribe in the country and the Hopis have isolated themselves to maintain their culture. I'm no fan of casinos, but they have helped. The Yavapai-Apache have opened their tribal museum and managed to buy back some of their artifacts and even started a language program with casino profits.

[KaraokeKarlton]

275. And the ancestors would be rolling over in their graves

if they saw the level of greed that exists in modern day tribal agenda. They would be ashamed.

[Astarho]

280. huh?

What does this have to do with what I said?

[zeemike]

283. I think

That there is a difference between games of chance and gambling. And if you cannot see the difference between them, then that is the reason the ancestors are turning in there grave.

[Astarho]

294. I know the difference

between games of chance and gambling. Many Native cultures had both. Many would bet on their games of chance and their games of skill.

Personally, I think the ancestors would be happy that their descendants are recovering what was lost.

[KaraokeKarlton]

299. Perhaps if they were betting over who shot an arrow the farthest

Recovering what was lost? I see it as them embracing what led to the loss in the first place...greed. And no, they would not condone it or be happy about it. Not by a long shot. They would be glad to see the good things, but not the greed, not at all.

[Astarho]

303. So

You do not think the ancestors would be glad to see their descendants using the white man's greed against him? You think they would not condone the buying back of artifacts, the creation of cultural museums and programs to teach the young people of the tribe their ancient language? You consider these things 'greed'?

"Perhaps if they were betting over who shot an arrow the farthest"

It doesn't get more stereotypical than that. Do you think the Indians did not have their own games or they would not have bet on them?

[KaraokeKarlton]

304. You're obviously not even reading all of what I write

I support the federal government providing and funding the museums and education as well as protection of burial grounds and providing land for a tribal community. Obtaining the artifacts would be included in that. There are better ways to protect the culture and heritage than casinos. But alas, greed fuels the battle and tribes are asking for the wrong things. There is a lack of trust as a result, and that prevents many good, positive things that could be happening.

No, the ancestors would NOT be glad to see ANY of their descendants embracing greed. The entire tribal lifestyle was built upon the premise of taking only what you needed. Tribes didn't embrace the ways of the white men, they knew it threatened their existence. They were very wise because that greed is just as harmful now as it was hundreds of years ago. Too many tribal leaders choose comfort over the values of old and teach that it is okay and that the ends justify the means.

[Astarho]

306. I've read it

The Federal government should be providing money for these things, but it is usually not enough (Ask any Native what they think of the BIA). I don't care much for casinos either, but they are bringing in needed funds.

BTW gambling wasn't just the way of the white man, the native peoples had some form of it before the whites arrived.

[KaraokeKarlton]

307. Stop it

You know full well that games Native Americans played centuries ago were nothing at all like casinos. There are other ways to bring in funds for tribes and if tribal leaders would get their priorities straight they could not only get about all the federal funding necessary to do most of the things they want that are good, but people would be more than happy to donate time and energy to help. Unfortunately, the greed causes resentment and that makes thing even harder. Tribal leadership needs to reassess their agendas and try a different approach. I really wish you would stop making excuses for the casinos. You know the point I'm making and I can tell that you see merit in it, but you still want to defend what you know deep down is not true to the Native American culture. Sometimes the best way to help and support a tribe is to be honest with your criticism of them when it's warranted. This criticism is warranted. They need to look for other ways to find money instead of doing the quick and easy way. The path of least resistance is not usually the best path to take.

Time for me to catch the debate replay. I won't answer for awhile.

[Astarho]

308. OK

The games they played centuries ago were not like modern casinos, but they would gamble on them just the same, sometimes loosing much in the process. I've seen people on this thread mention Native Culture like it's this single monolithic entity that shuns all worldly things like gaming, and that is not true.

I see your point and to be honest, I'm not much for the casinos, but I have seen what good it has done for a tribe like the Yavapai. Their casino has funded the projects I've mentioned. While the Navajo and the Hopi have rejected casinos (and I think that's great), not all the tribes are in that position. Not every tribe has handicrafts to sell like rugs, Kachina dolls, or jewelry. Perhaps in the future they will reorganize the tribal leadership and find alternate sources of income (and I hope they do). Many of these cultures are dying out and the casinos bring in the needed money now.

Whether the criticism is warrented or not, the it is ultimately the tribes should and have made their own decision. We're obviously not going to change each other's minds here.

[KaraokeKarlton]

309. That's much better, thank you

This is where I think the tribes are making a huge mistake...rather than battle for "independence" they should be battling for support and assistance to preserve the culture and protect burial grounds, artifacts and the history. As long as tribes and the government are fighting against each other, the things that are important get lost in the process. In reality, in most cases the tribes don't need independence from the government, they need assistance with the things they want to do. As long as a combative stance is taken things aren't going to get accomplished. Tribes wouldn't feel like they needed to rely on casinos and gambling if they would ask for support and help, present their case in a non-combative way and not make so many unfair and unrealistic demands in the process. It's not the government of the frontier tribes are dealing with now. There is plenty of possibility for real advancement of Native American causes if it's approached in a more sensible manner. Yes, gambling does bring in a lot of funds. Rather than open all kinds of casinos and high stakes bingo games on Indian lands why not ask the government to allow for a nationwide Native American lottery similar to Powerball. Take all the revenues from the lottery and put it into a federal fund overseen by a nationwide Native American Council who would be responsible for deciding what projects to fund. The Council could be made up of tribal leaders from every tribe in the country. Such a program run in cooperation with the government on a national level could fund education to teach languages, crafts and museums. Something like this would not adversely affect the towns and states tribes reside in, either. This is just one potential solution to the problems tribes have. Others could be found as well with a simple change in focus.

[Desertrose]

310. Sorry, but IMHO you still don't really get it

Tribes wouldn't feel like they needed to rely on casinos and gambling if they would ask for support and help, present their case in a non-combative way and not make so many unfair and unrealistic demands in the process.

You seriously think they haven't tried this??
Do you think no one has thought of this in the last...hmmmm....couple hunderd years??
Do you really think the federal govt wants to do anything- ANYTHING- that will give the tribes any of their requests???

unfair and unrealistic demands???? WTF???

...you mean like wanting to be recognized and wanting their sacred land honored...oh yeah...so unreasonable.....


In reality, in most cases the tribes don't need independence from the government, they need assistance with the things they want to do.

You have to be kidding,right? I live next to the largest tribe in the US- the rez is larger than your state....they have their own President & governing body...I'd like to see you present this idea to them. This statement is very hard to swallow coming frrm someone of supposed "Native blood".
Native American lottery similar to Powerball. Take all the revenues from the lottery and put it into a federal fund overseen by a nationwide Native American Council

Hell, I don't trust the federal gov't with MY money...I sure as hell can't think they would be too fair with money earmarked for N Americans...like they've done so great being responsible up til now with N AM money/land....as in never honoring any treaties made with any of the tribes. You keep acting like all the tribes are in agreement on everything. I live near the Navajo & Hopi's who are still having land disputes...do you think the tribes will agree on who gets what & how the monies get divvied up??

You strike me as naive and clueless even if well intentioned....and very concerned that a casino simply doesn't disrupt your world...never mind the impact the monies could make on the tribe in a good way.

Seems to me it is up to the individual tribes to decide on casinos...yes there are those who are greedy- just as in the white world- but greed is an individual karma...but there can be benefits to the tribes having an influx of money. Some use it wisely- some don't. You can't control everything but you have to give people the opportunities to make their own choices.

Do you seriously think that any of these already existing casinos would close in favor of a lottery?? Do you have any idea of how many people would be out of a job??? Do you care as long as it wouldn't change your little world? I wonder.....

Kadéeshte

DR

[KaraokeKarlton]

336. The government wouldn't have any control over it, ideally

It would be controlled entirely by a tribal council. If the council couldn't agree on things, proceeds could be divided up equally among tribes. If a tribe didn't want to give up their casino, they don't get included. Grandfather clause would allow those who already have them to keep them, but not allow new ones.

Treaties made so long ago aren't going to be honored willingly because the reality has changed. It's not the same situation now as it was then. The whole issue needs to be rehashed and sorted out in a way that fits in with today's world.

NOW the tribes need to try a different approach. They haven't tried the course of action I suggested in a VERY, VERY long time. A perfect example of why things need to change would be the situation the Passamaquoddy tribe currently finds themselves in. They got what they asked for, but it didn't turn out to be all it was cracked up to be. They didn't want to have to follow any of the laws and rules that everyone else did, and it's a classic case of "Be careful what you wish for". I have to run out so I'll just suggest that you look it up online. It's ironically tragic, but exactly what they wanted, well, not exactly. Greed is not all it's cracked up to be.

[Astarho]

340. That would not work

It would be controlled entirely by a tribal council. If the council couldn't agree on things, proceeds could be divided up equally among tribes.

A council with all the Native nations from the US on it? Like NCAI? Or is it just to bring in money I like the idea, but I guarantee they would not agree on anything. Then would the money be divided equally among tribes, despite population differences? Would the 250,000 Navajos get the same $ amount as the few hundred Zunis?

If a tribe didn't want to give up their casino, they don't get included.

I think many would opt out because the casino money is coming in NOW, as opposed to money that would be tied up in a federal/council bureaucracy. Why should that be a condition on who is or isn't represented on the council anyway?

NOW the tribes need to try a different approach. They haven't tried the course of action I suggested in a VERY, VERY long time.

They probably never tried it because they were NEVER a unified entity.

Treaties made so long ago aren't going to be honored willingly because the reality has changed.

Sorry, according to US law, treaties are the law of the land, so they MUST be honored. The fact that they are not shows the reality has not changed that much.

[KaraokeKarlton]

341. If the issue isn't rehashed out it won't ever be solved

That's the reality. So, tribes can go on fighting a battle over something promised ages ago, all those involved long since dead...or they can sit down and work out a new agreement based on the reality of today. Yes, it would involve less land, but there are less people who would be using it today than there was when the treaties were originally agreed to. So there would be some losses, but there would also be some significant gains. As times change, so do knowledge. There are just as many benefits to reworking things now as there are losses, and they will balance out. Look at the mess the Passamaquoddy tribe finds themselves in now. Because of the dollar signs they saw in their eyes over the settlement they can't get sovereignty in the way they envisioned it. It was greed for the almighty dollar that they were ultimately after. It wasn't the right to govern themselves or be independent. When push came to shove, they chose the monetary advancement over everything else.

I think something like I mentioned could work, and it wouldn't take that long to implement. The organized tribes should be the ones to decide how profits were to be divided. The best way to do that would to be to look at not only the size of the tribe, but also their financial need. Obviously if a large tribe is running a casino and has plenty of money, they wouldn't have the same need as a tribe with less members and no money. The only role the federal government would have to play in such an endeavor would be to allow it, provide the resources to let the council set it up and do occassional audits to make sure no one is doing anything wrong, like embezzling or misusing the funds. I think something like this would pass if tribes that don't have casinos would sign at least a temporary moratorium on opening new casinos to give such a program a chance and would make the effort to put a halt on lawsuits and combative actions that weren't absolutely necessary to give it a chance to see how it works. And the way I see it, trying something like this can't be any more of a waste of time and energy than any other efforts have been.

The biggest roadblock to Native Americans getting the things they ask for is that all too often the things they ask for come at an unfair price to their neighbors who also have just as much interest in their communities as those tribes have in securing their own communities. You can't just act without due consideration of how your neighbors feel. That's wrong and is exactly what got everyone on both sides of this battle where they are in the first place. Repeating history isn't the solution, and two wrongs don't make a right. It just serves to harm more innocent people. It's not okay to do that.

[KaraokeKarlton]

274. I do understand it...the good and the bad.

My grampy was full blooded Abenaki. His parents disapproved of my grammy and he became an outcast. I had always felt proud of my heritage until my best friend's family became the victim of one of the rampant and mean spirited land claims. They lost the home and land that had been in their family for over 100 years. The pride turned to shame and embarassment over the level of greed and hateful, self centered behavior I saw. I haven't spoken of this for a very long time because it brings up very bad memories and grief. There are many tribes who I feel are genuine in their desire to carry on the traditions of their people. Likewise, there are many who I don't feel are genuine in their goals. Those tribes that want recognition for power, greed and the wrong reasons I would rather not see get any recognition at all. Unfortunately, that greed tends to prevent tribes from being able to preserve and protect the history, culture and burial grounds. If only their priorities were in the right place things would be much different. The whole situation really breaks my heart.

So, both of my daughter's grandmothers are 50% Abenaki. My wish for her is that she be able to have the pride I lost. I hope that by the time she gets old enough to understand things that the greed will fade away and be replaced by the true spirit of what our culture, heritage and history means. If tribal leaders such as those in Vermont win, that will never happen. I think this will be my last post on this thread. This discussion has left me very upset and has stirred up many unpleasant memories and feelings. All I would ask is that people use common sense and fairness before deciding it's wrong not to grant recognition and sovereinty. There are many gray areas to be considered.

[kispoko]

278. ok karaoke'....

i think you're just a liar now....

now all of a sudden, *you're* abenaki as well? if both sides of your family were abenaki, why'd you mention only one before?


but that's the least suspicious of what you've said.... here's the kicker: "I had always felt proud of my heritage until my best friend's family became the victim of one of the rampant and mean spirited land claims. They lost the home and land that had been in their family for over 100 years. The pride turned to shame and embarassment over the level of greed and hateful, self centered behavior I saw."


as far as i'm aware (and that's a far-reaching awareness in this regard, let me tell ya) that has NEVER HAPPENED! if it did, who then, was responsible? what people?

you're clearly bullshitting, and i predict you'll pretend to have had your feelings hurt or something and be above answering to my inquiry above so you won't have to respond to that point, 'cause i'll shove those lies right back at you.... you're clearly a propagandist.

and more to the point, if you really felt any amount of pride in your heritage, the actions of others, even those sharing it, would have *nothing* at all to do with how you felt about what your ancestors passed down to you....

so more bullshit, on top of a big enough pile already.


you're trying to sway peoples' sentiments by pretending to be one of those token minorities that doesn't go along with is perceived as the 'norm,' as well as being 'on the inside.' but it is only perception, and only outsiders are fooled.... how shameful though to hijack others' heritage so you can do this with it. no decency with some, and furthermore you don't belong on this board with that garbage mentality....

i'm not fooled karaoke'.... and neither do i think you'll answer my question as to who supposedly took your best friends' property. you can't, and you know you can't, without revealing your prevarications.

so i'm challenging you.... if i'm wrong, i'll grovel. prove me wrong.... where'd this happen, and who did it?

[zeemike]

282. I have no Idea

Whether KaraoKekarlton is being honest or not abut things like that, no more than I can know whether you are real or not either.
But what I do recognize is that Karao understands the spiritual aspects of the Native American religion and culture and that you do not.
And I am not a Native American but I do know something of there religious and spiritual belief, and I would encourage you to study it some.

[Tinoire]

286. Spirituality is not this discussion. Dean blocking tribal recognition is

It has to do with forked tongues that won't honor a promise made to the Native Americans from whom an entire country was stolen.

It has to do with opposing granting gaming rights as Governor but now saying you support granting gaming rights as a presidential candidate.

FIAGRA doesn't apply to Vermont so the entire hoolaballo about casinos is bunk. Dean as Governor knew that, even if his defenders do not.

To what extent will we go to justify more land theft?
=============
<snip>

The comments came a day after Gov. Howard Dean told reporters he was urging lawmakers to be very careful before endorsing a resolution saying the Abenakis should be granted limited state recognition.

Dean said even such a limited government endorsement could lead to much more powerful federal regulation for the state's estimated 1,700 Abenakis. He said that could lead to extensive legal battles over Abenaki land claims and possibly allow the Indians to build casinos in Vermont.

<snip>

Sen. Julius Canns, R-Caledonia and a key sponsor of the pro-Abenaki resolution, said it was now being bottled up in committees — at the governor's behest — despite support from all 30 Senators and 110 co-sponsors in the House.

The resolution first “recognizes the tribal status of the Abenaki people,” and then tries to respond to the concerns voiced by Dean by adding:

“That, while this recognition is not intended to confer any special rights upon the Abenaki people, such as claims to Vermont lands or privileges not extended to other minority groups, it is intended to ensure that the Abenaki people receive the same recognition and privileges extended by the state of Vermont to any other minority group.”

<snip>

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/Archive/Articles/Article/40922

[KaraokeKarlton]

287. You're wrong about gaming and Vermont

In the past there has been a dog race track in the state. We also have lottery tickets, megabucks and now powerball. The state is considering allowing the race track to reopen. I pray that it doesn't, because if it does and the Vermont Abenaki do get federal recognition it will be devastating for this state because the tribe WILL manage to open a casino. Ironically, I'd almost bet that if they do manage to get recognition the first thing on the agenda will be to file land claims for the burial grounds in Swanton that they have been trying to prevent from being developed. If they win that, you'll most likely see a casino right where they don't want houses going. Dean did the right thing for the state he was leading by blocking the efforts to bring a big ugly casino to Vermont. What many people fail to realize is that the ONLY reason the federal and state governments try not to give federal recognition is because so many tribal leaders are greedy and shoot themselves in the foot on the issues that SHOULD matter because of that greed. Everyone could get behind protecting burial grounds and giving land for carrying on the way of life and culture. It's the ignorant greed that gets in the damn way.

[kispoko]

288. what was i wrong about?

-In the past there has been a dog race track in the state. We also have lottery tickets, megabucks and now powerball. The state is considering allowing the race track to reopen.

and? what's your point? all that means is that the abenaki could only have at most the equivalent of what vermont allows.... and so then why is it ok for vermont to have these things but not for abenakis on abenaki sovereign territory?

-I pray that it doesn't, because if it does and the Vermont Abenaki do get federal recognition it will be devastating for this state because the tribe WILL manage to open a casino.

even if they do, it would be no worse than those ski lodges littered throughout the state.... like i said, look at the casino on oneida nation territory in neighboring new york. that would be about the most the abenaki would likely have, and that place is a nice resort!

-Ironically, I'd almost bet that if they do manage to get recognition the first thing on the agenda will be to file land claims for the burial grounds in Swanton that they have been trying to prevent from being developed.


listen.... you're confused on things, AGAIN.

htye cannot file claims for land just because it's a burial ground. they can only file claims on land they can demonstrate was taken against u.s. federal law. that's it!

-Dean did the right thing for the state he was leading by blocking the efforts to bring a big ugly casino to Vermont.

what he blocked was the right of the abenaki to be recognized.... you can keep making it about casinos all you like. vermont didn't even have to allow one if they didn't want to. so clearly that wasn't the real issue, it was just a guise.

-What many people fail to realize is that the ONLY reason the federal and state governments try not to give federal recognition is because so many tribal leaders are greedy and shoot themselves in the foot on the issues that SHOULD matter because of that greed. Everyone could get behind protecting burial grounds and giving land for carrying on the way of life and culture. It's the ignorant greed that gets in the damn way.


if they choose to be greedy, it is their own goddamn business.... they even have a RIGHT to be greedy if they so choose as autonomous peoples! the u.s. and its 50 confederated polities have no moral ground anyway to stand on to speak about greed to indians..... the audacity!

but if you think that's the reason against recognition, you're fooling even yourself.... these people don't want indians having that much power. that's why they did what they could to take it away to begin with.

[KaraokeKarlton]

292. Is your name Tinoire?

I don't approve of having ANY gaming in Vermont. It attracts crime. I like my low crime rate state. Ski resorts don't attract crime. There is a difference between the types of tourism Vermonters want to promote in our state.

And greed is NOT part of Native American heritage, culture and history. Not the REAL heritage, culture and history.

[sangh0]

324. Do you approve of stealing land?

If not, then why make the return of the land contingent on the rightful owner's making a promise to do what you want them to?

And greed is NOT part of Native American heritage, culture and history. Not the REAL heritage, culture and history.

And keeping someone property from them because you don't think they're nice people is also NOT a part of NA heritage and culture.

[kispoko]

326. yeppers

excellent points all sangh0....

some people either don't stop and think about what they're saying and the implications thereof, or just don't care, as long as it sounds good }(

[KaraokeKarlton]

333. What living person stole land from Native Americans?

Is it any better for Native Americans to punish entirely innocent people for what was done long before they were even born?

Every American has to abide by laws and rules regarding land use. Where I come from you can't even build a deck on your house without a building permit. I can't do anything at all with my land that I want to if it adversely affects my neighbors and changes their quality of life. Tribes don't believe these same standards should apply to them, and this is part of the problem. Let's say a tribe claimed land next door to you and had sovereignty and the laws you had to follow didn't apply to them in most cases. Now let's say they decided to open up a strip club and X-rated drive in adjacent to the backyard your kids' play in. Would that be fair to you and your neighbors? Would you be happy about it? Most, if not all states allow business like that, so a tribe could do that if they wanted and you would have no recourse whatsoever to fight it.

[kispoko]

343. sigh.....

-Is it any better for Native Americans to punish entirely innocent people for what was done long before they were even born?

who's been punished?.... oh, right.... these imaginary "friends" you have.... and by "some tribe" in some locale.... heh


-Every American has to abide by laws and rules regarding land use. Where I come from you can't even build a deck on your house without a building permit. I can't do anything at all with my land that I want to if it adversely affects my neighbors and changes their quality of life. Tribes don't believe these same standards should apply to them, and this is part of the problem. Let's say a tribe claimed land next door to you and had sovereignty and the laws you had to follow didn't apply to them in most cases. Now let's say they decided to open up a strip club and X-rated drive in adjacent to the backyard your kids' play in. Would that be fair to you and your neighbors? Would you be happy about it? Most, if not all states allow business like that, so a tribe could do that if they wanted and you would have no recourse whatsoever to fight it.


what you are not understanding it seems is the concept of sovereign land as applies to tribal nations.

why do you believe that foreign governments such as states, *should*, even *need* to have jurisdiction over tribal governments? yes, every american does have to abide by laws regarding land use, and seeing as how states get the freedom to create their own, why do you want such unequal treatment for tribal governments in not allowing them that freedom, who are supposed to enjoy a higher sovereignty than that anyway? why does each state enjoy that right, yet you do not want to see that for tribal polities?

where is your 'equality' spiel now?

when tribes have to acquiesce to the desires of another government, they have become lesser for it.... states should have no business in telling sovereign nations what to do, and that diminishes the agreements the united states has made with indian nations as equals.... even at times, as allies.



so to answer your question, do you think new hampshire ought to be telling you in vermont what to do based upon what's best for them?... if not, why treat tribal nations any worse?

[kispoko]

290. jebus christ guy....

can't believe you think you're qualified to say somethin' like this....

"Whether KaraoKekarlton is being honest or not abut things like that, no more than I can know whether you are real or not either.
But what I do recognize is that Karao understands the spiritual aspects of the Native American religion and culture and that you do not.
And I am not a Native American but I do know something of there religious and spiritual belief, and I would encourage you to study it some."


let me tell you something.... well first, to get it out of the way, native spirituality and culture, which is not an homologous thing to be spoken of in such general terms, has nothing to do with the objective points i was debating....

if you really understand either all that well, you would understand how the concept of sovereignty, of the individual and the people, and self-determination is central to ALL tribal beliefs, cultural *and spiritual..... but that is a side issue, or at best an underlying one. that (re: soveriegnty) is what i was arguing for, and what she was arguing against.... so who really 'understands' then?

shows further your "qualifications" in the matter.

part of the problem is that you apparently think you can pick up a book and "study" native religion/spirituality and culture and really understand it (or even that it's necessarily to be "studied" at all)..... you and everyone else who then try and tell people that do what's what.

do you know how arrogant that is? you'd better learn sometime. i don't need to 'study' what it's in my blood or what was passed down to me... and what i still do need to learn, which is a lot, i'll wait 'til i can do it the way such matters are handled, which ain't research on no fuckin' paper or some website!


maybe if you had come across to me differently and not been that way i'd have patience enough to explain what was wrong about what you said, 'cause i am sure you'll still not get it after even the above.... i'm even sure you didn't mean anything by it, but rest assured i took something by it.... all you need to know is to learn how to sit and listen more often than to try and think you can instruct others on what's what regarding things you know nothing about

[KaraokeKarlton]

297. Oh stop it

You're right you still have much to learn. You come on here speaking as if you are an authority on Native Americans and their issues and then essentially call me a liar about what happened to my friend and her family just because you aren't aware that there are more than one tribe in Maine. I had an online friend from out west a couple of years ago whose family had run a restaurant for several generations. It was her livelinood. Because of a land claim the last I talked to her she was about to lose the place. You are acting like this sort of thing never happens but the fact is, it's far more common than many care to admit.

Your tone with anyone who challenges your positions has been pompous, condascending and downright rude. This is part of the problem. How on earth do you expect anyone to even WANT to understand the causes you believe in when you present them in such a caustic manner? You need to realize that you cannot be granted everything you want because doing so would be harmful to others. The government can't give to one group at the cost of other groups. In many cases tribal leaders demand more than can be given, again, because of greed. When the modern day tribes go back to embracing the concept of taking ONLY WHAT THEY NEED, they will get much further.

[kispoko]

312. blah

-You're right you still have much to learn. You come on here speaking as if you are an authority on Native Americans and their issues and then essentially call me a liar about what happened to my friend and her family just because you aren't aware that there are more than one tribe in Maine.

you're distorting the issue, AGAIN. being aware of the other tribes in maine had nothing to do with the fact that the other tribes in maine i don't believe ever had any land claim settlements....

wasn't that supposed to be the issue with your friend in maine, land claims?

so the other tribes aren't relevant.... but here you are, trying to make them relevant, tossing out another straw man to mask the fact that you didn't have a point, and moreover, appear to be desperately covering for your lie.


-I had an online friend from out west a couple of years ago whose family had run a restaurant for several generations. It was her livelinood. Because of a land claim the last I talked to her she was about to lose the place. You are acting like this sort of thing never happens but the fact is, it's far more common than many care to admit.

land claims issues go on all the time.... but the fact is, none of these stories you claim to have happened, to a friend in maine who lost her property because of an apparently non-existant tribe since none of the land claims in that state have ever taken anyone's property, and now to a friend "out west" (how vague....) who's going to have the same thing happen to her, allegedly....

it's such shit and so offensive... you have no idea. even if a tribe actually wanted to do that to someone, a federal judge would never allow it. you're trying to paint indians with the same brush that can accurately be used to color those who took the land away from them.... it's not true, and it's disgusting and vulgar.

-Your tone with anyone who challenges your positions has been pompous, condascending and downright rude.

it's how i get when people fabricate stories and are so flagrantly offensive in doing so, willing to insult a number of peoples on top of prevarications just so to 'prove' some kind of point.

what are you doing on this board anyway with that garbage mentality? i have to deal with this kind of shit from conservatives, 'cause, whadda ya know, those are conservative positions and subversion tactics.... heh

-This is part of the problem. How on earth do you expect anyone to even WANT to understand the causes you believe in when you present them in such a caustic manner?

how do you expect anyone to believe yours conversely when you frame them in fairy tales? caustic or not, at least i haven't lied about anything

-The government can't give to one group at the cost of other groups.

in this case, the government wouldn't be "giving" anything.....

it would be returning what it stole and what is morally, ethically, and legally others'.

-In many cases tribal leaders demand more than can be given, again, because of greed. When the modern day tribes go back to embracing the concept of taking ONLY WHAT THEY NEED, they will get much further.

why hold indians to those standards when you don't expect the same of others?


you must have no idea how you come across, but it's a blessing....

[KaraokeKarlton]

284. How interesting

So many here are ranting about how wrong it is for people to demand someone who claims to be of Native American blood to prove who they are, yet you make that very demand on me. You have spoken to me in a very condascending way, implying that there is no way I could ever understand the plight of those born of the red man unless I am one of them. I don't claim my ancestry because I disapprove of too much of what some tribal leaders stand for. As long as there is greed I want no part of it. I don't want my little girl to see the negative things that I have and end up feeling as I do, so SHE is the one that matters to me.

And this took place in Maine. I don't know exactly who was responsible because I was a child. I recall my mother and father talking about it and my mother felt very torn. She was angry with whoever was doing this and my mother was a good woman. If she was ever angry about something someone did, I always knew that person did something very wrong. I could probably find some facts from my older sister who does geneology research, but she's on vacation for a week or so and I can't reach her.

The truth of the matter is that there IS greed within tribal leadership and you can try to make me feel guilty for condemning that greed until you're blue in the face and it won't get you anywhere. I will always value what is good about my people and will always feel ashamed by what is bad. Looking at the reality honestly allows that. Perhaps you are unable to do that. Maybe you just don't want to hear what you know deep down is true.

[kispoko]

289. interesting, sure

-So many here are ranting about how wrong it is for people to demand someone who claims to be of Native American blood to prove who they are, yet you make that very demand on me.

you chose to interpret what i said that way so you could pretend to have a point.... and as it is, you don't, because i couldn't give a shit if you really were descended from abenaki stock or not. you're clearly not very understanding of that part of your supposed heritage by some of the things you say.

so that's of no consequence, and i didn't try and make it so.... it's the internet


-You have spoken to me in a very condascending way

i just returned the favor hon'.... you've been doing that in every post to native peoples in general, trying to rationalize the paternalistic attitude toward natives in trying to make legislation contingent upon what you think natives should or shouldn't be doing when it's none of your damn business. and that's what the u.s. and state governments have been doing to native people for centuries now!!

it's basically saying, here, we'll steal your cake.... and if you play along with what we want, we'll give you a 1/5 of it back.

and you're trying to argue this insanity.... fucking incredible!

-implying that there is no way I could ever understand the plight of those born of the red man unless I am one of them.

nope.... try again

-I don't claim my ancestry because I disapprove of too much of what some tribal leaders stand for. As long as there is greed I want no part of it. I don't want my little girl to see the negative things that I have and end up feeling as I do, so SHE is the one that matters to me.

then what part of your heritage do you claim?... i would also be interested in hearing why what you do choose to claim is then so inherently better in those ways than your alleged abenaki ancestry.

seriously.... i would like to hear even that rationalized somehow. just humor me... maybe in thinking it over you'll see why i'm already humored


-And this took place in Maine. I don't know exactly who was responsible because I was a child. I recall my mother and father talking about it and my mother felt very torn. She was angry with whoever was doing this and my mother was a good woman. If she was ever angry about something someone did, I always knew that person did something very wrong. I could probably find some facts from my older sister who does geneology research, but she's on vacation for a week or so and I can't reach her.


you're talking about the passamaquoddy... a branch of the wabanaki family.

they received land and settlement money (80 million i think offhand). but guess what? no one lost their property! they received part of the settlement in money and the rest in maine federal forest lands.... so no one got kicked off their land! that's never happened!

but you probably think the passamaquoddy were 'greedy' for doing that right? nevermind that the state(s) (massachusetts ties in somehow, but i'm not exactly sure.... not important though, we'll discuss maine) were the ones who were greedy enough to steal the land in violation of FEDERAL LAWS to begin with.... it's the passamaquoddy who were greedy in trying to receive justice for being wronged..... right? sure.... george washington himself promised the tribe that land, that they would always have it....


-The truth of the matter is that there IS greed within tribal leadership and you can try to make me feel guilty for condemning that greed until you're blue in the face and it won't get you anywhere.

you are getting things confused, i think maybe on purpose....

i was condemning you for pretending that potential greed is reason enough to deny justice.... that is so bullshit and antithetical to american jurisprudence and even the sense of common decency i would think those frequenting this board would possess.

talking about greed where it exists is fair enough, even though it may be none of your business.... again though, one, the u.s. and its state governments have no moral authority whatsoever to be lecturing about greed to native americans.... that would be comical if it weren't based in tragedy. and for another, and again, that alone is not reason enough to deny justice! it also punishes those who comprise most of the people who are not greedy whatsoever, or any of the other character flaws you seem to like to attribute to indians

-I will always value what is good about my people and will always feel ashamed by what is bad.

then you work for the betterment instead of shunning.... which is what you're doing. there will always be bad amongst every people.... and there will always be the slight possibility of the worst thing i could ever imagine.... a casino in vermont! (if they can find enough land wedged between the ski lodges that is, which wreak far more environmental damage).... neither are good reasons to ever deny what is rightfully due.... you keep that in mind

-Looking at the reality honestly allows that. Perhaps you are unable to do that. Maybe you just don't want to hear what you know deep down is true.

the reality? the reality is that the abenaki deserve recognition. and the sadder reality is that people like yourself seek to deny that to them for specious, even dubious reasons....

that's the reality.

the reality is that you also lied to me above about your "best friend" losing their property in an indian land claim... i could give you the benefit of the doubt and say maybe you were just informed wrong.... but i will go with my gut and think instead maybe you just took creative license in making up a sob story to inject a little juice into your assertions

maybe it would be different were this the first time i've had to deal to deal with stuff like this though.... maybe i wouldn't be so cynical. being a seasoned veteran in this arena, what to expect is as predictable as the sun coming up tomorrow...

that is the reality.

[KaraokeKarlton]

296. There are more tribes in Maine than the Passamaquoddy

So try again. Ironically, yes, they were very greedy too. In fact, their greed has come back to bite them in the rearend. I'll let you look it up and figure out what I'm talking about for yourself.

The fact that I live in Vermont allows me access to information that people outside of this state don't have easy access to. The Swanton tribe wants to open a casino and it's been widely reported and even openly admitted to by tribal representatives. The tribe also wants free reign on hunting, fishing and trapping which is bad for Vermont wildlife. Although our wildlife is fairly plentiful, there IS a delicate balance and these species thrive here only because there is a limit on when you can hunt and how many animals you can take. If the tribe had of been willing to recognize that and were willing to come to an agreement/compromise with the state on limiting the hunting, fishing and trapping for the well being of Vermont's wildlife they never would have lost state recognition in the first place. Nearly every Vermonter can trace their family tree back far enough to find Abenaki in their blood. A lot of hunters would do just that and suddenly claim their heritage just so they could hunt and fish anytime they wanted and avoid having to buy the licenses that pay for the management and preservation of wildlife and wild lands.

As for the Vermont Abenaki burial grounds...there were old villages in that area as well. So yes, there would be land claims and that is where they would build a casino. It's not just a possible goal of the tribe, it is a definite goal. That makes the stakes very high.

There is a distinct difference between "recognition" and "sovereignty". There would be no unrecognized tribe in the country if it weren't for the greed. Recognition should involve the protection of burial grounds, a federally funded museum for each tribe, mandatory education of the true history of Native Americans in all public schools including the local history for each school, a piece of land for a tribal community for residences, the museum and a school for teaching the cultural ways of the tribe...crafts and whatnot. There shouldn't be all the legal haggling involved in recognition. That should be a separate issue because THAT is what holds up recognition and acknowledgement of tribes. The greed needs to be removed from the process.

[kispoko]

317. eh

-"There are more tribes in Maine than the Passamaquoddy"

So try again.


as i said above, the passamaquoddy were the only tribe i believe who had and won land claims in maine.... so tell me why the others would be relevant when you talking about your "friend" who lost everything because of "some tribe in maine" who had land claims....

if they're the only ones, and, they didn't take anyone's property.... that makes you a bullshitter. no wonder you're trying to through irrelevancies in.... you've got nothing to lose at this point! you already look foolish enough grabbing for this and that.

if you didn't think anyone would know enough to counter the trash you're throwing out, consider this a learning experience.


-Ironically, yes, they were very greedy too. In fact, their greed has come back to bite them in the rearend. I'll let you look it up and figure out what I'm talking about for yourself.

ooooooo..... the passamaquoddy want a casino in maine, ooooooo...... they wanted the paper mills to quit fucking up the land, oooooo..... oooooo, they wanted back what was stolen from them, ooooooooo..... ooooooooooo.....

damn those people are just bad news, ennit?


-The fact that I live in Vermont allows me access to information that people outside of this state don't have easy access to.

i'll bet..... hasn't helped ya so far.

-The Swanton tribe wants to open a casino and it's been widely reported and even openly admitted to by tribal representatives.

so what?

-The tribe also wants free reign on hunting, fishing and trapping which is bad for Vermont wildlife.

they wouldn't necessarily get all that even if they wanted it..... again, you do not have any idea how the process works. such has to be outlined in a treaty, which i don't believe the abenaki have. if it's not, it only be conveyed on their land.

i'm tired of educating you and you ceasing to listen and continuing just to talk and say what you think will come across well.


-Although our wildlife is fairly plentiful, there IS a delicate balance and these species thrive here only because there is a limit on when you can hunt and how many animals you can take. If the tribe had of been willing to recognize that and were willing to come to an agreement/compromise with the state on limiting the hunting, fishing and trapping for the well being of Vermont's wildlife they never would have lost state recognition in the first place.

so what you're saying is that you don't trust the abenaki to respect the wildlife.... and yet the u.s. gov. and its states have done such a fabulous job of that through the years :eyes:


-Nearly every Vermonter can trace their family tree back far enough to find Abenaki in their blood. A lot of hunters would do just that and suddenly claim their heritage just so they could hunt and fish anytime they wanted and avoid having to buy the licenses that pay for the management and preservation of wildlife and wild lands.


doesn't work like that.... again, you say things just to hear what you think will sound good.

if those rights were even allowed to the abenaki, only those recognized by the abenaki as abenaki can claim them.... not just anyone proving descent.

*sigh*..... you're getting on my nerves with these stories of yours.

-As for the Vermont Abenaki burial grounds...there were old villages in that area as well. So yes, there would be land claims and that is where they would build a casino. It's not just a possible goal of the tribe, it is a definite goal. That makes the stakes very high.

again, old villages, old burial grounds, old ceremonial grounds, old religious sites, etcetera etcetera etcetera CAN NOT just be claimed for those reasons, because they were or may have been as such in the past.... again, things do not work as you appear to think they do.

for their to be land claims, there has to be evidence that title was conveyed to, for instance, the abenaki, and then illegally ignored and/or stripped from them. in no other instances would land claims be viewed as "legitimate" in the eyes of u.s. federal courts.

stop with the stories....


-There is a distinct difference between "recognition" and "sovereignty". There would be no unrecognized tribe in the country if it weren't for the greed.

you don't realize how true that statement is.... i won't expound. it will do no good

[KaraokeKarlton]

332. Looks like you aren't the expert you make yourself out to be

No, the Passamaquoddy tribe is not the only one in Maine who have made land claims.

The Vermont Abenaki have already said they will be making land claims for those sites. Try another excuse.

Stop with the excuses....

The greed comes into play on both sides of the fence on these issues. However, a wise individual understands that you cannot beat greed by being greedy. No ground is ever gained that way, only long bitter fights that lead nowhere. If you could step back and look at things more objectively you might be able to see that, but alas, I don't believe you can do that. You assume that only you "understand" the truth and that anyone who disagrees with you is insensitive, foolish, blind and just ignorant of the truth. What I see coming from you is the words of a person who is trying to mold the facts to fit his desired reality rather than a person who is looking at the facts and letting them tell the reality. You cannot be impartial or unbiased. It's unfortunate, too because you seem to be quite intelligent and capable of deep and compelling conversation. It's pointless to bother trying to converse with you, though, because you are not open to the opinions and ideas of others.

[kispoko]

342. again....

-No, the Passamaquoddy tribe is not the only one in Maine who have made land claims.

actually.... as far as general claims go, i'll have to concede this point to you..... i'd forgotten that the other bands were involved in that as well. not in the same manner necessarily, or to the same extent, but involved nonetheless.

my apologies for the oversight....

i don't however believe the others had land claims involved.... guess i should look back into that.... it's been awhile.

my point does still stand though that no one has ever had their property taken from them as you described in tribal land claims.... just never happened.... and i hope my previous oversight doesn't take much away from what i'm saying, 'cause i have years of background now in monitoring land claims issues.... from the catawba, to the oneida, to the paugusett.... i've made a great effort at doing so, even researching the complex and convoluted "indians laws" and battling propaganda of anti-sovereignty groups like uce, researched cases and followed them as i continue to.....

and there has just never been such a case where tribal land claims have taken another's property. never.... there has been the threat, such as that made by the catawbas.... but that was a political ploy to get the state of south carolina on its ass and to quit ignoring them as it had taken to doing merely because it could.... and it worked!

now you are welcomed to make an ass of me and prove me wrong.... i would even grudgingly welcome that. knowledge is always a blessing... but i should think you would've taken it more upon yourself to at least demonstrate your own assertion(s) in less ambiguous terms (e.g. "some tribe in maine," "some tribe out west") and give me, the rest of us really, a little more to work with.

you just haven't done it, and seem not to understand why it looks suspicious to the rest of us, along with your metamorphoses from family of abenaki, to abenaki yourself.


-The Vermont Abenaki have already said they will be making land claims for those sites. Try another excuse.

Stop with the excuses....


saying you will be making land claims for certain propert(ies) and having the legal grounds by which to do so (i.e. having a legitimate claim based in united states statutes (e.g. the 1790 non-intercourse law (no, it's not shaker legislation) as opposed to mere aboriginal claims which have been addressed in other ways) are two totally different things. the non-intercourse act required persons, states even, dealing with indians for land and such to first have the consent of the united states to make such deals. so, essentially, indians can only file land claims against the united states, or states that've broken federal laws.... so basically, unless those lands were taken illegally after 1790, the abenaki have no case in the eyes of the united states.... and if they were taken illegally, why would such a "progressive" as yourself, or, even just a person who believes in things like equal treatment in the eyes of the law, be against justice in that case?

again, understanding the laws regarding such situations would help dramatically, and cut down on a lot of the bullshit we have to go through because of what someone speculates might happen based on nothing other than their perception of how these things work.

-You assume that only you "understand" the truth and that anyone who disagrees with you is insensitive, foolish, blind and just ignorant of the truth.

if you're trying to be ironic, stop.... assuming that, and even what, i'm assuming would put you in the same boat

-What I see coming from you is the words of a person who is trying to mold the facts to fit his desired reality rather than a person who is looking at the facts and letting them tell the reality.

what i see from you is a "me first" mentality... it's pure selfishness.

objectivity here would come mostly in the form of looking at such things as laws, and precedent, which either you don't understand, or, simply wish to see ignored (example above) because it may inconvenience *you* (and again, right back to the self-centeredness)

-You cannot be impartial or unbiased.

i actually can... for instance, as explained earlier, i'd rather see tribes such as the abenaki find other means of economic freedom than casinos, but will fight for their right to do as they see fit on their own land, because i believe in indian autonomy.

you on the other hand, completely ignore established laws, such as those dealing with tribal gambling that make it impossible as is in vermont for the abenaki to even have a casino unless vermont would allow it (which is wrong to make a sovereign tribal nation bow to the will of a state gov., but such is the way they have crafted it) and instead use that ignorance, that perception, to mold fiction into some kind of strange fact.

that's not being imprtial or unbiased.... try again.

aside from all of that, if you really are abenaki and have any amount of concern over the tribe whatsoever, how is it even possible that you yourself could be the slightest bit impartial or unbiased?.... that's not logically sound.

-It's unfortunate, too because you seem to be quite intelligent and capable of deep and compelling conversation. It's pointless to bother trying to converse with you, though, because you are not open to the opinions and ideas of others.

try to make emotional appeals to me by stroking my ego.... thanks? eh....

things that can be proven or disproven are not "opinions," and you've mixed quite a bit of each in between opinions as though they were.

[incapsulated]

291. Oh, come on...

I don't buy this story either, I've read this whole thread.

First, you are against the Abenaki getting recognition and their land, and say they look Irish anyways, besides.

Then, your daughter is Abenaki, and, what a suprise, her grandmother agrees with you!

Now, you are Abenaki too, and are sooo ashamed of your tribal leader's greedy, horrible behaviour!

Please.

I'm not claiming to have any original insight into this whole argument, but I don't buy your "insider" view, which seems to be contstantly changing to reinforce your rather unique position as a "native" who doesn't want recognition for their tribe.

[KaraokeKarlton]

298. Suit yourself

Assume whatever you choose to. Not everyone feels compelled to quantify themselves before discussing an issue. The only reason I decided to mention it was because someone kept telling me that since I wasn't Native American I wouldn't understand.

Now see, I could do the same thing to you and ask you what country you're a citizen of because Americans (Native or otherwise) don't spell "behavior" with the u. That is typically done by Canadians, Australians and Europeans. So yeah, I could take a move out of your playbook and imply that you must be fibbing because you're passing yourself off as a New Yorker when you are probably really a Canadian. :eyes:

[Tinoire]

300. I have the same doubts

I read the thread Bertrand indicated and Karaoke Karlton didn't have a drop of Karaoke blood there and no mention of any daughters, grampies, or anything else.

The evolution to full blown Abenaki is... startling.

There's another one claiming the same thing in Campaigns and Politics- spelled it Akanabi... Alternative spelling aside, I'm not buying it.

[Hep]

301. Because buying it

would also force you to challenge what you believe to be true.

[Tinoire]

302. No. Because I am highly suspicious of sudden metamorphoses

and propitious revelations that appear conveniently manufactured and desperately revealed at the end of a losing argument.

There is no real way of knowing 100% but the progression, when reading the posts in chronological order, in the various threads is bizarre.

You believe whatever you want Hep. God gave me my own brain and good analytical skills- so far the results of relying on them have been very rewarding not to mention lucrative.

There is no desire to be rude to anyone here but after years of seeing people show up at DU pretend to be something they aren't just to make their points and watching them get busted, you do get tired.

You're free to believe everything people tell you but don't expect everyone else to.

[KaraokeKarlton]

305. Well, to take one look at me is to see my ancestry

It's even more obvious to look at a photo of my mother with her jet black hair, dark skin and dark eyes.

Again, simply because I disagree with those on here who say they are Native Americans, some of them expect me to "prove" what I am. Isn't this exactly what these very individuals claim is so terribly wrong of the government to do in order for a tribe to gain recognition? There is a word for this, and that word is hypocrisy.

[tlagiloi]

264. BINGO! Diamondsoul.

Dean frellin' knew is right.
Therefore, none of us can trust him either.

Genocide of sovereign nations is still in vogue for some. ;)

This society's myths concerning the indigenous
are still very much alive and well among the "educated" ignorant.

the real question is: can we trust any of them?
or
how FAR can we trust any one of them?

Justice for Annie Mae!
tlagiloi

[snrfmaster]

263. lets remember

no matter what, it doesnt matter. i would rather elect a democratic serial killer than george bush im sure many of u agree

[ThirdWheelLegend]

277. I think the point is

that this is still months away from the first primary.

We should take a real look at our choices.

TWL

[Bertha Venation]

321. Not much chance my post will be read, but, for what it's worth . . .

Everything in that article re: the recognition process is quite familiar to me. I have seen recognition petitions rejected for less than what the Vermont AG claims was the basis of the Abenaki rejection.

For a tribe to get federal recognition entails a difficult and incredibly intricate, detailed, time-consuming process. It requires hundreds of thousands of man hours and tedious, nitpicky research into dusty, crumbling archives. A tribe can give it all they've got, and document, document, document, and bust their asses and jump through all the hoops and press all the right flesh and bend over backward just to get a little piece of land that was rightfully theirs for centuries back from the Great White Father -- and all that effort can be wasted if they fail to assemble everything Interior says they have to have.

I understand (as much as an immigrant can) the Abenakis' bitterness. But I doubt Gov. Dean deserves all the shit he is getting on this issue.

[BJ]

325. Amen

[LeahMira]

337. I read your post, Bertha...

... and you are right on about the recognition process. Too bad the BIA site is down because of Cobell v. Norton or people could check it out for themselves.

I guess Gov. Dean is a lot like a lot of people. He simply hasn't taken the time to learn about American Indian issues or to listen to American Indians when they speak. They are just a small part of his constituency after all. There's only 2,602 American Indians in Vermont, out of 608,827 people, 588,836 of whom are white BTW. (2000 census)

But maybe some people expected better of the Governor?

At least a few folks have learned something here about the Abenaki tribe, about the federal recognition process, about Indian gaming, about the treaties, and so on.

Now, if it's important to them, they will continue to think about it and maybe even do something one of these days. If not, they won't. I hope they will.

[curse10]

330. And from the looks of this thread

the deanies don't want ya back. You're better off without them :-)

[SEAburb]

339. This could be cleared up quickly, if Dean unsealed his Gov records.

I don't understand why he sealed them in the first place. I guess he doesn't believe in having a tranparent government. Deal and conceal!