Obama has changed the way D.C. relates to tribes government
The president has set a new standard in listening and talking. But delivery on jobs, health, and education is what will matter next.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — What’s my take away from the White House Tribal Nations Conference? Easy. This is an administration that actually believes the United States government must represent all of the people, including American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Make no mistake: Everything is not perfect between Indian Country and the United States as we close the year 2010. There are lots of legitimate complaints about how the federal government executes its responsibilities toward indigenous people. The list ranges from the failure to fully fund treaty and trust obligations to the problems associated with fixing the government’s own mistakes. (One of my favorite examples of that last point was reported out of a break-out group by Assistant Secretary Larry EchoHawk. The policy of termination — the U.S. withdrawal of recognition and support for tribal governments — was repudiated some 40y years ago by President Nixon. Yet laws, such as public law 83-280, an act favoring state jurisdictional authority over tribes, remain in force and on the books.)
Let’s pull back and look at the view from where the eagle’s fly. Then we can see how the Obama administration is busy planting new standards.
President Barrack Obama put it this way: “I said that so long as I held this office, never again would Native Americans be forgotten or ignored. And over the past two years, my administration, working hand in hand with many of you, has strived to keep that promise.”
One promise kept is the reversal of the United States position on the U.N. Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. “The aspirations it affirms — including the respect for the institutions and rich cultures of Native peoples — are one we must always seek to fulfill,” the president said.
“But I want to be clear: What matters far more than words — what matters far more than any resolution or declaration - are actions to match those words. And that’s what this conference is about ... That’s the standard I expect my administration to be held to.”
The most important part of the Declaration is that simple point. That the United States — indeed, any government — must meet the test of actions over words. It’s a moral standard, the proposition that governments agree to do what they said they’d do. And when they don’t? One more avenue to pressure governments to fulfill the promises already made.
There is another, practical application to this international ideal. It affirms the idea that tribal nations have a place in global governance and commerce. Tribes are, in the words of diplomats, part of the “international community.”
On the world stage, in the nation’s discourse, and even in regional and local affairs, the standard is clear: Tribes have a right (if not an obligation) to have their voice heard. Seven cabinet members attended the Tribal Nations Conference and many of those federal agencies are at least going through a process of consultation with tribes.
But beyond the specifics, a year from now the default is now set for the standard of a White House exchange with tribal leaders; the next president — indeed, all future presidents — will be pressured to engage in at least a similar, and serious dialogue. (This is exactly how it worked with presidential statements on tribal self-determination. Once it was a big deal, after Presidents Johnson and Nixon. Now it is expected.)
But if the standard for consultation and engagement is high, then what of the standard for execution?
When President Obama reached the podium at the Interior Department last week nearly every person in a seat lifted a cell phone to take a picture. Row after row of glowing screens, capturing that moment.
But that moment is no longer enough. A year ago it was a big deal to meet. And even more so a second year. But a year from now it will only be a big deal if there are success stories that add jobs, improve the health or educational opportunities for young Native Americans.
So what happens next? We need to chart the ideas that were either proposed or promised at the Tribal Nations Conference, then a year from now, tick off what was actually done.
As President Obama said what matters next are the actions needed to match all those words.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Dec 22, 7:51 a.m. Inappropriate
If the tribes are to be considered global governments and their representatives, international diplomats can we at least remove the exception that allows them to donate money to political campaigns like every other foreign nation. I realize this could cost Obama, Murray and Gregiore Millions in donations, but we do not foreign governments to bribe U.S. elected officials with cash donations in return for higher amounts of foreign aid and special trade status and rights.
Posted Wed, Dec 22, 8:51 a.m. Inappropriate
Too late, Cameron. In her last election, Patty Murray took campaign contributions from almost thirty tribes: from as far away as Mississippi and Connecticut. She recently boasted that she wrote part of the Affordable Health Care Act. That Act requires everyone to either purchase insurance or pay a fine to the government. Everyone, that is, but - drum roll, please - members of indian tribes. Connection?
It almost looks like we are witnessing a bloodless coup by parties hostile to the United States.
I've offered to donate money to some of our "new media" sites for them to investigate and report on the connection between the Democratic Party and indian tribes. So far, though, I have no takers. One even (Seattle Post Globe)- in a "see-no-evil, speak-no-evil, hear-no-evil and report-no-evil" rush to stifle any potential start-up of that conversation, even removed my comment from their webpage (kinda makes you question the objectivity and moral compass of this new fourth estate, doesn't it?).
Posted Wed, Dec 22, 10:24 a.m. Inappropriate
How much money you willing to donate Cameron?
Actually, the tribes do not give money to the candidates.
The Congressman or Senator earmark funds to the tribes and the tribe agree to cut the politician in on the theft of taxpayers money. This is really big dollars to the congressman or senator.
In criminal law it is called mingling of funds. The tribes take an earmark grant for lets say 2 million for a new tribal center. They put the two million in the tribal budget and shuffle money around and give the congressman $10,000 for the next election.
Norm Dicks (D WA 6th) averages earmarking 395 dollars for every dollar of substantial contribution. Donate 10,000 to Dicks and you get an earmark of around $3,950,000. In the business world he would be in jail.
Bottom line, the taxpayers gave the money to the not so honorable Norm Dicks.
Posted Wed, Dec 22, 10:33 a.m. Inappropriate
"Actually, the tribes don't give money to the candidates."
Huh?
The Federal Election Commission (www.fec.gov) reports Patty Murray received contributions from the following tribes during her last campaign:
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS (CA)
CHEHALIS INDIAN TRIBE (WA)
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE (WA)
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE SILETZ (OR)
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA (OR)
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS (OR)
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY (AZ)
HOH INDIAN TRIBE (WA)
HOH TRIBAL BUSINESS COMMITTEE (WA)
KALISPEL TRIBE OF INDIANS (WA)
LUMMI NATION- SILVER REEF CASINO (WA)
MAKAH TRIBAL COUNCIL (WA)
MICCOSUKEE TRIBE (FL)
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS (MS)
NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE (WA)
NOOKSACK INDIAN TRIBAL COUNCIL (WA)
NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMM (WA)
ONEIDA TRIBE OF WISCONSIN (WI)
SAUK-SUIATTLE TRIBE (WA)
PECHANGA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS (CA)
PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE (WA)
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS (WA)
SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE (WA)
SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI (IA)
TULE RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL (CA)
SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS (WA)
THE MOHEGAN TRIBE (CT)
UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE (WA)
SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE (WA)
SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY (AZ)
THE JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE (NM)
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY (AZ)
SAN PABLO TRIBE (CA)
Posted Wed, Dec 22, 11:09 a.m. Inappropriate
A quick follow-up on my attempt to get some of Seattle's "new" media to report on the Democrat/indian alliance... The Seattle Post Globe has decided that - not only will they not report on it - they will ban me from their site for bringing it up. (I assume this is what they did, they do not seem to possess the courtesy or courage to explain their action). Anyhow, as an addendum to this discussion, citizens should ALWAYS be skeptical of media reports in this area. (Those "fourth-estate" ideals we learned in civics ain't necessarily so in the world of new media non-profits.) New media non-profits.... hmmm... what's that old saying about "he who pays the piper..."?
What about it Crosscut? You want to write the expose? You can add media culpability to the story. (It's practically writing itself!)
Posted Wed, Dec 22, 2:31 p.m. Inappropriate
We stopped being "One America" when multi-culturalism became law. Now many are XXXX-Americans. The Progressives promote the division of our society so as to maintain the feuds. It's a distraction as they rob America of its wealth.
Posted Wed, Dec 22, 2:31 p.m. Inappropriate
How many tribes contributed to Cant'Do'Well?
Posted Wed, Dec 22, 2:51 p.m. Inappropriate
I don't know what she took during her last campaign, Randy. We'll be watching her next one.
Posted Wed, Dec 22, 3:56 p.m. Inappropriate
Thanks to all you posters for calling out those native americans for sticking it to the white man. If only we could end their dominance of our political system....
Posted Wed, Dec 22, 9:19 p.m. Inappropriate
I'm not sure why so many white low-lifes hate the local Indians. After all, they signed away their lands without a fight and moved peacefully onto their assigned reservations, just as requested. What's there to complain about?
These righteous critics seemed to think it was some kind of cheating when the tribes attempted to utilize their treaty fishing rights. After the Puget Sound salmon had been nearly wiped out by rapacious clear-cutting and rampant development, the rednecks shouted, "Unfair!", when the tribes went to court to obtain their rightful share of what little was left. And after 100 years of being screwed and tattooed by unscrupulous and opportunistic politicians, the tribes have finally figured out how to play the white man's money-driven political game as well. And so now the rednecks are whining about this.
The real crime here is not that tribes are using whatever tools are at hand to fight for the survival of their communities, but that the mean-spirited sniping from the peanut gallery never seems to end.
Posted Wed, Dec 22, 9:26 p.m. Inappropriate
Who said anything about dominance? The best thing that could happen here in Washington State would be for the State to auction off non-tribal gaming licenses with allowance for electronic gaming, OTB and Sports Gaming and exemption from the smoking ban. The State could auction off the same number of licenses as there are tribal casinos, they could be located in properly zoned areas with the impacts mitigated and they would be taxable. Let the better business model prevail.
Posted Thu, Dec 23, 8:36 a.m. Inappropriate
"...the mean-spirited sniping from the peanut gallery never seems to end."
Nor will it - or should it - so long as our government treats people differently according to their race.
Posted Thu, Dec 30, 10:31 p.m. Inappropriate
Cantwell doesn't take PAC money.
"our government treats people differently according to their race." So that is any different than treating them differently than treatment based on class, education, or income? Giving tax breaks to the highest income brackets?
That, in essence, allows mainly white, male, highly elite college educated males working in Wall Street banks (that received TARP bailout funds) to retain the bonus money they received from the US taxpayer without having to pay any extra taxes on it. But conservatives and tea partiers demanded it in order for the working and middle classes experiencing long-term unemployment due to the destruction these same Wall Street brokers hath wrought upon the US economic system.
Now you are upset that American Indians and Alaska Natives have enough money to exercise some influence for the first time in over 200 years to participate in the US political system, as well greased as it has become as a result of the Citizens United decision? The same Citizens United decision that resulted in secret PAC donations by corporations and individuals yet these Native American organizations actually openly and transparently declared their donations -- I thought that was something that the tea party wanted? I forgot, the tea party speaks out of both sides of their mouth; only corporations can demand their employees donate to these PACs but not unions so they are applying the same logic to Native Americans.
Hate is what the conservatives and the tea party is all about, we hate illegals, we hate Native Americans (who were here before anyone else - has it occurred to you that everyone is an illegal but this group), we hate those on welfare, we hate the unemployed, we hate the non-christian, we hate liberals, and we hate anybody who doesn't look like us, think like us, or believe what we do.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.