...and why he still is!
From The Nation, an article about why Obama should fight for Alaska, some of his efforts here, and why, despite Palin's nomination, he still is fighting for Alaska.
Showing posts with label native americans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label native americans. Show all posts
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Last Images from Denver

I think the funnier one is the James Bond Guy (also known as Alex. This picture is actually from Celtic Diva.) He is with the non-profit The Israel Project, and despite there being a few million people in Denver, tens of thousands for the convention, and sort of disimilar reasons (and therefore schedules) for attending the convention, we Alaskan bloggers kept running into this English activist.
You may have seen him on earlier posts, because I got a lot of e-mails (mostly from the women readers) about him.
In any case, he was kind of the "Where's Waldo" fun while we were down there. Our events were not complete without first finding out where he was.
If I run into him in Anchorage, I'm going to start talking in code though. James Bond can really be anywhere...
Of note (not important note, just "note") is this was "Beau Jo's" pizza in Denver - and just two days earlier we listened as "Beau" Biden introduced "Joe" Biden in Denver.
Coincidence? Or pizza conspiracy?
We'll found out soon enough.
It also had a GREAT gift shop, with lots of Native made art that was agony to walk by and not run out the door with.
But boy, when I get a spare $9,000...
She was taking pictures to share with her classmates when she got back. I mean, this girl experienced a convention, got to see the first black president be nominated, and met all sorts of people.
As we headed to the airport, we were talking about the good pictures we got. Morrigan:
"Yeah, I have a lot of pictures of the cats."
I made sure it was not just Alaska heat wimpy-ism that I was dying in the heat. I asked a family from California if this was hot to them, and they confirmed that I could feel like I was roasting without sacrificing the tough Alaskan attitude.
I think this guy would have gotten more money had he not looked like he had burnt to a crisp right there on the sidewalk. It was surely a feat of the most supreme stamina to stand still for hours to look like a statue in million degree heat, but he kind of reminded everyone how hot it was.
The flip side of this is a hand-written "Stay Positive" message. These were handed out to the million-man line by a bunch of young kids. The reverse, which is what cracked me up, reminded us, "It's a sign."
In the trading button business (a favorite pastime of the delegates,) the "Alaskans for Obama" buttons were a hot commodity.
And yes, they even sang the song!
All but one of the Native delegates from Alaska.
Or at least, Alaska was here.
The homing signal for Alaska.
Yep, me too. The only street performer of the many I passed that paused to listen and throw some money at.
A smart, smart man.
The confused look and lack of pace was due to our lemming-like following of the people in front of us. The people in front of us were doing the same, and the people in front of them, and so on, and so on. Nobody actually knew where they were headed. In fact, just after we finally made it through this bottle neck, nearly a quarter of the crowd abruptly turned around and started heading the other way.
Morrigan and I somehow found ourself walking through grass, shrubs, trees, and then by a creek. In downtown Denver. In the dark. With wierd noises all around us that could have been crickets and frogs, but also could have been man-eating beasts of enormous stature.
We were literally walking for about an hour, and it slowly was dawning on a lot of people that nobody really knew where they were going. With rail stations shut down, streets and even interstates blocked off, even the Denver-ites didn't all know where to go.
At some point we regained our sanity and stopped. We considered camping out until daylight, but our wonderful hosts, with a bit more sense than I was feeling at the moment, rescued us.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Palin, Palin, Palin
As much as I've tried, the onslaught of Palin cannot be ignored today. With the lack of information about her from the rest of the U.S., to the "down the political rabbit hole" soap opera-ness that continues about her candidacy, I've been getting e-mail after e-mail about Palin, Palin and Palin. I was able to debrief with my family about Obama, and the amazing experience of being able to participate in the Democratic National Convention - of which more posts will be devoted to over the week - but for the most part, people want more info about Palin.
Celtic Diva had shared the news of Bristol's pregancy a few weeks ago - before we'd left for the Democratic Convention in any case. At the time, I was feeling bad for her because it would mean a few days of attention in the Alaskan news. One of my reaction's when Palin was chosen as the VP pick, just four very long days ago, was, "Holy crap, she's really going to put her daughter through that?"
The issues about the effectiveness of "abstinence only," the hypocrisy of the McCain campaign now shouting "families are none of your business," the lack of real vetting (or judgement) by the McCain in vetting Palin - I'm sure all of this will be done ad nauseum.
But the concern for me as an American and an Alaskan - and an Alaska Native woman - is Palin's extreme lack of credentials to be a VP or President, her lack of attention on anything to do with Alaska Native/American Indian issues, and the absence of any kind of plan or attention to Rural Alaska, not to mention the hostility she tends to show to Southeast Alaska - an entire region.
I was grateful to Grassroots Science for sending me a link to a site with Palin's take on issues. The Palin Web site is not available - it shoots directly to the McCain Web site (a little funny when you consider Biden's site is still up.) I have found that most Alaska politicians have a section on Alaska Native issues, or, like Mark Begich's site, instead mention the specific Alaska Native issues within others. Even Ted Stevens and Don Youn, whom I don't support, have sections on Alaska Native issues.
With nearly 20% of the population in Alaska being Alaska Native - and more than a few communities being almost entirely Alaska Native - this attention to the issues is more than just a small section of people you should look at - it's a large and neccessary section of people that are your constituents.
THERE IS NOT ONE MENTION OF THE PHRASE "ALASKA NATIVE" IN PALIN'S OFFICIAL ISSUE STATEMENTS. Not one.
Despite the fact that we are here in great numbers, despite the fact that these issues are important, despite the fact that Palin's own children and husband are Alaska Native people themselves, Palin has completely ignored these issues. In all the research I've been doing, the only things I can find are convenient photo-ops and superficial appearances.
It is not just her stated issues that show her lack of interest in Alaska Native and American Indian issues - her brief governorship has been a practice in ignoring Alaska Native issues. As mayor of Wasilla, the Alaska Native issues were a much smaller voice, and easier to ignore. But as governor of some 100,000 Alaska Native people - roughly 1/6 to 1/5 of her constituents - she cannot continue to ignore the population.
I have seen so many interviews now with McCain spokesman who are asked very simple but direct questions about Palin and cannot answer them. "Is Sarah Palin the most qualified person McCain could have chosen?" "What foreign policy experience does Sarah Palin have?"
I am convinced that a talking point they are given by the McCain campaign is that if they are asked these kind of questions by newspeople who won't accept their dodge (which they are) is to then cry "I'm offended!" by their "attack on women?" Seriously, I've watched this happen four times now. It's insulting to women that to question Palin's qualifications is to demean women. I was glad, at least, that on Larry King a woman was there to put a stop to the McCain woman's "are you saying women can't be qualified" defense when she couldn't answer the question, "Is Palin the most qualified candidate?"
If you want to see what I'm talking about, check out one of these YouTube CNN clips - the question about her foreign policy experience starts about 3:15 in, and the McCain man just cannot, no matter what, answer the question, and after a failed attempt to put forward her "head of the Alaska National Gaurd" as a qualification, resorts to saying Campbell Brown shouldn't "belittle" Palin's decisions - unfortunately he was asked point blank to name one decision she made, and couldn't.
"Auntie Raven" sent me this column, a good look into what some Alaskan reactions have been to the Palin pick.
Celtic Diva had shared the news of Bristol's pregancy a few weeks ago - before we'd left for the Democratic Convention in any case. At the time, I was feeling bad for her because it would mean a few days of attention in the Alaskan news. One of my reaction's when Palin was chosen as the VP pick, just four very long days ago, was, "Holy crap, she's really going to put her daughter through that?"
The issues about the effectiveness of "abstinence only," the hypocrisy of the McCain campaign now shouting "families are none of your business," the lack of real vetting (or judgement) by the McCain in vetting Palin - I'm sure all of this will be done ad nauseum.
But the concern for me as an American and an Alaskan - and an Alaska Native woman - is Palin's extreme lack of credentials to be a VP or President, her lack of attention on anything to do with Alaska Native/American Indian issues, and the absence of any kind of plan or attention to Rural Alaska, not to mention the hostility she tends to show to Southeast Alaska - an entire region.
I was grateful to Grassroots Science for sending me a link to a site with Palin's take on issues. The Palin Web site is not available - it shoots directly to the McCain Web site (a little funny when you consider Biden's site is still up.) I have found that most Alaska politicians have a section on Alaska Native issues, or, like Mark Begich's site, instead mention the specific Alaska Native issues within others. Even Ted Stevens and Don Youn, whom I don't support, have sections on Alaska Native issues.
With nearly 20% of the population in Alaska being Alaska Native - and more than a few communities being almost entirely Alaska Native - this attention to the issues is more than just a small section of people you should look at - it's a large and neccessary section of people that are your constituents.
THERE IS NOT ONE MENTION OF THE PHRASE "ALASKA NATIVE" IN PALIN'S OFFICIAL ISSUE STATEMENTS. Not one.
Despite the fact that we are here in great numbers, despite the fact that these issues are important, despite the fact that Palin's own children and husband are Alaska Native people themselves, Palin has completely ignored these issues. In all the research I've been doing, the only things I can find are convenient photo-ops and superficial appearances.
It is not just her stated issues that show her lack of interest in Alaska Native and American Indian issues - her brief governorship has been a practice in ignoring Alaska Native issues. As mayor of Wasilla, the Alaska Native issues were a much smaller voice, and easier to ignore. But as governor of some 100,000 Alaska Native people - roughly 1/6 to 1/5 of her constituents - she cannot continue to ignore the population.
I have seen so many interviews now with McCain spokesman who are asked very simple but direct questions about Palin and cannot answer them. "Is Sarah Palin the most qualified person McCain could have chosen?" "What foreign policy experience does Sarah Palin have?"
I am convinced that a talking point they are given by the McCain campaign is that if they are asked these kind of questions by newspeople who won't accept their dodge (which they are) is to then cry "I'm offended!" by their "attack on women?" Seriously, I've watched this happen four times now. It's insulting to women that to question Palin's qualifications is to demean women. I was glad, at least, that on Larry King a woman was there to put a stop to the McCain woman's "are you saying women can't be qualified" defense when she couldn't answer the question, "Is Palin the most qualified candidate?"
If you want to see what I'm talking about, check out one of these YouTube CNN clips - the question about her foreign policy experience starts about 3:15 in, and the McCain man just cannot, no matter what, answer the question, and after a failed attempt to put forward her "head of the Alaska National Gaurd" as a qualification, resorts to saying Campbell Brown shouldn't "belittle" Palin's decisions - unfortunately he was asked point blank to name one decision she made, and couldn't.
"Auntie Raven" sent me this column, a good look into what some Alaskan reactions have been to the Palin pick.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Real Native Myths and Legends #5 - Free money for Natives from Uncle Sam
I've heard this one again and again - tons of money from the U.S. government being thrown at Natives for "all their problems." But this kind of comment (from a comment thread) is what keeps cropping up:
Really? Nobody told me about this program (and where can I sign up?)
I think this is a combination of confusion about land held in trust by the government, Native corporations and... well, not knowing what they're talking about. Unfortunately, most of the argument on the other side is, "The government treated them so bad, so don't they deserve it?" It's not about giving one group money because they were treated poorly. At all. There is little understanding of the complex issues here.
Some tribes in the Lower 48 do receive trust money from land agreements between the U.S. government and their individual tribe. This is not the government giving money to the poor, victimized Indians because of past misconduct on behalf of the U.S. It is NOT reparations. It is NOT welfare. I believe some groups in Alaska do as well, though in a different sort of set up.
I must be honest in saying that I do not have first-hand knowledge of land trust/trust fund agreements between the U.S. and tribal governments, simply because it is not at all a part of my life. As far as I can tell, it is not a part of most Alaska Native people's lives either. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act made things very different in Alaska. If the confusion is about Alaska Native corporation money, I responded to that here. In any case, the government is not just handing out money to Native people for no reason.
When it comes to land trust issues, there is still quite a bit wrong with the system. Okay, so that's an understatement. There has been a bit in the news recently about land trusts - mismanagement on the part of the U.S. Nearly 30 years ago, the Saginaw Chippewaw wanted to see about changing their investments, and brought in the president of the First Nations Institute, Rebecca Adamson, to look at it. A memorable quote from when she started looking at their land trust situation:
Now, the ruling 26 years later was that the U.S. government mismanaged the land (Gee, didn't see that one coming...) After various numbers were thrown around in the decades long court battle, a federal judge decided that 121 years of mismangement amounted to an award of $455.6 million. This is where, I think, people hear the numbers, and go, "Wow, they're getting a lot of money from the government!" - discounting that it's not the governments money in the first place.
But there were 500,000 plaintiffs. So 121 years of mismanagement means $455.6 million goes to 500,000 plaintiffs. You do the math on that.
The other assumption of that is that the Indians don't "deserve" the money. It's past - it's history. But pushing aside the fact that this is one of the few cases that the U.S. government is holding to (with fingernails) the treaties agreed upon (read - lawful contracts,) the length of time that has passed isn't (or shouldn't be) a factor in deciding whether it's "really still their land/money" to have a say in. It's not about deserving it or not - it is rightfully theirs. I don't think Paris Hilton "deserves" all her money just because she's a Hilton - but I won't dispute the fact that she lawfully has a right to it.
Using the logic that it's ancient history, can we discount the government's claim to the White House? I mean, they claimed that land hundreds of years ago, and the clearly nomadic lifestyle that the family that lives there every four to eight years means they can't sustain that area, right? Unless the residents can prove they have a right to live there, I'm all for going in and claiming it. Or at least the West Wing.
Yes, it's absurd. It's just as absurd to think that just because something is an historic agreement means it is less valid today. The times I've heard something like, "Just because my ancestor killed your ancestor doesn't mean you should get something better than me."
Well, I've never gotten anything out of that deal, and I would like one person to point out the time that the U.S. government has EVER awarded a profit to a Native person because of the acts of the U.S. government hundreds of years ago. The government hasn't even conceded anything wrong was done in the first place - it isn't ready to start handing out money to make everyone feel better.
The U.S. government did not pay for my car. Or my college education. Or my groceries. In fact, in the awkward relationship between the U.S. government and myself, I've given it a pretty good portion of the money I earn, every paycheck. In return, the government paved the roads and built some schools.
It's an ok deal - I do enjoy being able to drive places, and though public schools are demonized, I thought my experience was pretty good. All I ask is that the government remember the agreements made for the land those roads and schools were built on - and the people the agreements were made with. Then we'll get along just fine.
"...if you fill out some forms, prove you are an indian to a certain degree,
each year you get a certain ammount of money from the government."
Really? Nobody told me about this program (and where can I sign up?)
I think this is a combination of confusion about land held in trust by the government, Native corporations and... well, not knowing what they're talking about. Unfortunately, most of the argument on the other side is, "The government treated them so bad, so don't they deserve it?" It's not about giving one group money because they were treated poorly. At all. There is little understanding of the complex issues here.
Some tribes in the Lower 48 do receive trust money from land agreements between the U.S. government and their individual tribe. This is not the government giving money to the poor, victimized Indians because of past misconduct on behalf of the U.S. It is NOT reparations. It is NOT welfare. I believe some groups in Alaska do as well, though in a different sort of set up.
I must be honest in saying that I do not have first-hand knowledge of land trust/trust fund agreements between the U.S. and tribal governments, simply because it is not at all a part of my life. As far as I can tell, it is not a part of most Alaska Native people's lives either. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act made things very different in Alaska. If the confusion is about Alaska Native corporation money, I responded to that here. In any case, the government is not just handing out money to Native people for no reason.
When it comes to land trust issues, there is still quite a bit wrong with the system. Okay, so that's an understatement. There has been a bit in the news recently about land trusts - mismanagement on the part of the U.S. Nearly 30 years ago, the Saginaw Chippewaw wanted to see about changing their investments, and brought in the president of the First Nations Institute, Rebecca Adamson, to look at it. A memorable quote from when she started looking at their land trust situation:
At a council meeting, she reported back to the tribe as follows: ''I have
good news and bad news. The good news is, you can do better than the BIA at
investing your trust funds. The bad news is, so could a chimpanzee.''
Now, the ruling 26 years later was that the U.S. government mismanaged the land (Gee, didn't see that one coming...) After various numbers were thrown around in the decades long court battle, a federal judge decided that 121 years of mismangement amounted to an award of $455.6 million. This is where, I think, people hear the numbers, and go, "Wow, they're getting a lot of money from the government!" - discounting that it's not the governments money in the first place.
But there were 500,000 plaintiffs. So 121 years of mismanagement means $455.6 million goes to 500,000 plaintiffs. You do the math on that.
The other assumption of that is that the Indians don't "deserve" the money. It's past - it's history. But pushing aside the fact that this is one of the few cases that the U.S. government is holding to (with fingernails) the treaties agreed upon (read - lawful contracts,) the length of time that has passed isn't (or shouldn't be) a factor in deciding whether it's "really still their land/money" to have a say in. It's not about deserving it or not - it is rightfully theirs. I don't think Paris Hilton "deserves" all her money just because she's a Hilton - but I won't dispute the fact that she lawfully has a right to it.
Using the logic that it's ancient history, can we discount the government's claim to the White House? I mean, they claimed that land hundreds of years ago, and the clearly nomadic lifestyle that the family that lives there every four to eight years means they can't sustain that area, right? Unless the residents can prove they have a right to live there, I'm all for going in and claiming it. Or at least the West Wing.
Yes, it's absurd. It's just as absurd to think that just because something is an historic agreement means it is less valid today. The times I've heard something like, "Just because my ancestor killed your ancestor doesn't mean you should get something better than me."
Well, I've never gotten anything out of that deal, and I would like one person to point out the time that the U.S. government has EVER awarded a profit to a Native person because of the acts of the U.S. government hundreds of years ago. The government hasn't even conceded anything wrong was done in the first place - it isn't ready to start handing out money to make everyone feel better.
The U.S. government did not pay for my car. Or my college education. Or my groceries. In fact, in the awkward relationship between the U.S. government and myself, I've given it a pretty good portion of the money I earn, every paycheck. In return, the government paved the roads and built some schools.
It's an ok deal - I do enjoy being able to drive places, and though public schools are demonized, I thought my experience was pretty good. All I ask is that the government remember the agreements made for the land those roads and schools were built on - and the people the agreements were made with. Then we'll get along just fine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)