Dear all,
The Endangered Language Fund is pleased to announce the availability of the handbook entitled “Grant Writing for Indigenous Languages,” by Ofelia Zepeda and Susan Penfield. It is aimed primarily at U.S. tribes seeking U.S. funds, so we hope this will be of use to subscribers of this list. Please feel free to make use of this document, within limits of the copyright retained by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona. The manual can be found at:

http://www.endangeredlanguagefund.org/pdf/grant_writing.pdf

If you are not a tribal member but work with a tribe, please pass this information along to those who might be interested.
Doug Whalen DhW, President, ELF

Douglas H. Whalen, President
Endangered Language Fund
300 George St., Suite 900
New Haven, CT 06511
USA
+1-203-865-6163, ext. 265 (or 234 for whalen)
elf@endangeredlanguagefund.org

http://www.lotsofessays.com/essay_search/Reorganization_Act.html

http://www.razoo.com/story/Cheyenne-River-Sioux-Tribe-Storm-Relief-Emergency-Assistance

Learn to speak and write everyday words and phrases in Dakota – one of the original languages of Minnesota. Joe Bendickson, Dakota language instructor at the U of M, will lead this workshop, which is open to all ages. Children can take home a Dakota language activity book. Website resources and information on Dakota classes in the Twin Cities will be available. The first Dakota alphabet was devised by Gideon and Samuel Pond in 1834, and copies of 19th century documents will be on display. House tours at 1:30 and 3:30 p.m. Suggested donation $2. Pond Dakota Heritage Society members and youth through high school are free.

Maple Sugaring
Sunday March 7, Drop-In program, 2 – 4 pm
Native Americans produced maple sugar for centuries and passed on their knowledge to frontier settlers. Now you can experience maple sugaring for yourself! Outdoors, learn about choosing the right trees to tap, collecting the sap, and boiling it down to make syrup. Inside the house, watch syrup transform into sugar and sample maple candy. House tours 1:30 to 4:00 pm. Suggested donation $2. Pond Dakota Heritage Society members and youth through high school are free.

Pond Dakota Mission Park
401 East 104th Street (Between Nicollet and Portland Avenues)
Bloomington, MN

http://www.ci.bloomington.mn.us/main_top/2_facilities/rec_facility/pond/pondhous.htm

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Pub.L. 101-601, 104 Stat. 3048, is a United States federal law passed on 16 November 1990 requiring federal agencies and institutions that receive federal funding[1] to return Native American cultural items and human remains to their respective peoples. Cultural items include funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. In addition, it authorizes a program of federal grants to assist in the repatriation process. It is now the strongest federal legislation pertaining to aboriginal remains and artifacts.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Background reasons
o 1.1 Tribal reasoning
* 2 Description
* 3 Origins
* 4 Historical context
* 5 Return to the Earth project
* 6 Kennewick Man controversy
* 7 International policy
o 7.1 Protecting cultural property
* 8 See also
* 9 Notes
* 10 Further reading
* 11 External links

[edit] Background reasons

There were many reasons from both Native American tribes and the United States Congress that served as the impetus for passing this legislation. NAGPRA addresses long-standing tribal claims and it applies exclusively to human remains and cultural objects. This human rights legislation is open to liberal interpretation: What is sacred? NAGPRA was enacted primarily at the insistence and by the direction of members of Native American nations.[2]
[edit] Tribal reasoning

Tribes had many reasons based in law that made legislation concerning tribal grave protection and repatriation necessary.

* State Statutory Law: Historically, states only regulated and protected marked graves. Native American graves were oftentimes unmarked and therefore did not receive the protection provided by these statutes.
* Common Law: The legal system that developed over the course of settling the United States was primarily formed by the colonizing population. This law did not often take into account the unique Native American practices concerning graves and other burial practices. This extended to not accounting for government actions against Native Americans such as removal, the relationship that Native Americans as a people maintain with their dead, and many myths surrounding the possession of graves.
* Equal Protection: Native Americans, as well as others, often found that Native American graves were treated differently than the dead of other races.
* First Amendment: As in many other racial and social groups, Native American burial practices relate heavily to their religious beliefs and practices. When tribal dead are desecrated, disturbed, or withheld from burial it can then be understood that religious beliefs and practices are being infringed upon. Religious beliefs and practices are protected by the first amendment.
* Sovereignty Rights: Native Americans hold unique rights as a sovereign body, leading to their relations to be controlled by their own laws and customs. The relationship between the people and their dead is an internal relationship, therefore one that is understood to be under the sovereign jurisdiction of the tribe.
* Treaty: From the beginning of the US government and tribe relations, a right was maintained by the tribe unless divested to the US government in a treaty. The US government therefore does not have the right to disturb Native American graves or their dead because it has not been allowed through a treaty.

[edit] Description

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is a law that establishes the ownership of cultural items excavated or discovered on federal or tribal land after November 16, 1990. The act also applies to land transferred by the federal government to the states under the Water Resources Department Act.[3] However, the provisions of the legislation do not apply to private lands. The act states that Native American remains and associated funerary objects belong to lineal descendants. If the descendants cannot be identified, then those remains and objects, along with unassociated funerary or sacred object and objects of cultural patrimony belong to the tribe on whose lands the remains were found or the tribe having the closest relationship to them.[3]

Congress attempted to “strike a balance between the interest in scientific examination of skeletal remains and the recognition that Native Americans, like people from every culture around the world, have a religious and spiritual reverence for the remains of their ancestors.”[4]

The act also requires each federal agency, museum, or institution that receives federal funds to prepare an inventory of remains and funerary objects and a summary of sacred objects, cultural patrimony objects, and unassociated funerary objects. The act provides for repatriation of these items when requested by the appropriate descendant of the tribe. This applies to remains or objects discovered at any time, even before November 16, 1990.[5]

Since the legislation has been passed, the human remains of approximately 32 thousand individuals have been returned to their respective tribes. Nearly 670 thousand funerary objects, 120 thousand unassociated funerary objects, and 3500 sacred objects have been returned [5]. However, NAGPRA also serves as somewhat of a limitation, sometimes restricting excavation of Indian remains or cultural objects, therefore limiting the possible study of these objects.[6]
Map of Native American Reservations

The statute attempts to mediate a significant tension that exists between the tribes communal interests in the respectful treatment of deceased ancestors and related cultural items and the scientists’ individual interests in the study of those same interests. The act divides the treatment of American Indian human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony into two basic categories. Under the inadvertent discovery and planned excavation component of the act and regulations, if federal officials anticipate that activities on federal and tribal lands after November 16, 1990 might have an effect on American Indian burials—or if burials are discovered during such activities—they must consult with potential lineal descendants or American Indian tribal officials as part of their compliance responsibilities. For planned excavations, consultation must occur during the planning phase of the project. For inadvertent discoveries, the regulations delineate a set of short deadlines for initiating and completing consultation. The repatriation provision, unlike the ownership provision, applies to remains or objects discovered at any time, even before the effective date of the act, whether or not discovered on tribal or federal land. The act allows archaeological teams a short time for analysis before the remains must be returned. Once it is determined that human remains are American Indian, analysis can occur only through documented consultation (on federal lands) or consent (on tribal lands).

A criminal provision of the Act prohibits trafficking in Native American human remains, or in Native American “cultural items.” Under the inventory and notification provision of the act, Federal agencies and institutions that receive federal funds are required to summarize their collections that may contain items subject to NAGPRA. Additionally, Federal agencies and institutions must prepare inventories of human remains and funerary objects. Under the act, funerary objects are considered “associated” if they were buried as part of a burial ceremony with a set of human remains still in possession of the Federal agency or other institution. “Unassociated” funerary objects are artifacts where human remains were not initially collected by—or were subsequently destroyed, lost, or no longer in possession of—the agency or institution. Consequently, this legislation also applies to many Native American artifacts, especially burial items and religious artifacts. It has necessitated massive cataloguing of the Native American collections in order to identify the living heirs, culturally affiliated Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations of remains and artifacts. NAGPRA has had a dramatic effect on the day-to-day practice of archaeology and physical anthropology in the US. In many cases, NAGPRA helped stimulate interactions of archaeologists and museum professionals with Native Americans that were felt to be constructive by all parties.
Native American art objects on display at UBC’s Museum of Anthropology in Vancouver, Canada.
[edit] Origins

Maria Pearson is often credited with being the earliest catalyst for the passage of NAGPRA legislation, she has been called “the Founding Mother of modern Indian repatriation movement” and “the Rosa Parks of NAGPRA”.[7] In the early 1970s Pearson was appalled that the skeletal remains of Native Americans were treated differently than white remains. Her husband, an engineer with the Iowa Department of Transportation, told her that both Native American and white remains were uncovered during road construction in Glenwood, Iowa. While the remains of 26 white burials were quickly reburied, the remains of a Native American mother and child were sent to a lab for study instead. Pearson protested to Gov. Robert D. Ray, finally gaining an audience with him after sitting outside his office in traditional attire. “You can give me back my people’s bones and you can quit digging them up” she responded when the governor asked what he could do for her. The ensuing controversy led to the passage of the Iowa Burials Protection Act of 1976, the first legislative act in the U.S. that specifically protected Native American remains. Emboldened by her success, Pearson went on to lobby national leaders, and her efforts, combined with the work of many other activists, led to the creation of NAGPRA.[7][8] Pearson and other activists were featured in the 1995 BBC documentary Bones of Contention.[9]
[edit] Historical context

The late 19th century was one of the roughest periods in Native American history in regards to the loss of cultural artifacts and land. The collection of Native American cultural and ancestral assets was prompted by the founding of museums and the competition between them for artifacts as demand increased. This competition existed not only between museums such as the Smithsonian Institution (founded in 1846) and museums associated with Universities, but also between museums in the Untied States and museums in Europe. Collecting became hasty in the 1880s and 1890s and was often done by untrained adventurers. As of the year 1990 federal agencies reported having 14,500 deceased Natives in their possession which had accumulated since the late 19th century. Many institutions have claimed to have used the remains of Native Americans for anthropological research, such as comparative racial studies. Institutions such as the Army Medical Museum sought to demonstrate racial characteristics to prove the inferiority of Native Americans.[10]
[edit] Return to the Earth project

Return to the Earth is an inter-religious project whose goal is to inter unidentified remains in regional burial sites.[11] Over 110,000 remains that cannot be associated with a particular tribe are held in institutions across the United States, as of 2006.[12] The project seeks to enable a process of reconciliation between Native and non-Native peoples, construct cedar burial boxes, produce burial cloths and fund the repatriation of remains. The first of the burial sites is near the Cheyenne Cultural Center in Clinton, Oklahoma.[12][13]
[edit] Kennewick Man controversy

Compliance with the legislation can be complicated. One example of controversy is that of Kennewick Man, a skeleton found on July 28, 1996 near Kennewick, Washington. The Umatilla, Colville, Yakima, and Nez Perce tribes have each claimed Kennewick Man as their ancestor, and sought permission to rebury him. Kennewick, Washington is part of the ancestral land of the Umatilla.

Archaeologists claim that because of Kennewick Man’s great age, there is insufficient evidence to connect him to modern tribes. The great age[14] of his remains makes this discovery valuable scientifically, but archaeologists have determined that the man is of Native American origin.[15]
[edit] International policy

The issues that NAGPRA addresses have importance on the international stage as well. For example, in 1995 the United States signed an agreement with El Salvador in order to protect all pre-Columbian artifacts from leaving the region. Soon after, it signed similar agreements with Canada, Peru, Guatemala, and Mali and showed itself to be a leader in implementing the 1970 UNESCO Convention. The UNESCO convention saw its membership grow to 86 countries by 1997, and 193 by 2007. UNESCO seems to be having an impact on the illicit antiquities trade. While this is not an easy business to track, some stir among antiquities traders in the form of articles denouncing the agreements points to the positive effect these agreements seem to be having.[16]
Distinctive Marking of Cultural Property, Hague Convention

An international predecessor of the UNESCO Convention and NAGPRA is the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.[17] The Hague Convention was the first international convention to specifically focus on preserving cultural heritage from the devastation of war.
Minik Wallace (Kalaallit) in New York, 1897

An example of the sort of acts done in the name of academia before any of these conventions and agreements occurred in 1897. On September 30, Lieutenant Robert Peary brought six Inuit people from Greenland to the American Museum of Natural History in New York to be placed on display as exhibits. About two weeks after arrival at the museum, all six of the Inuit people became sick with colds and fever. They began to perform their tribal healing process and were mocked for their bizarre behavior. These people became a form of entertainment for the Americans. By November 1, 1897, they were admitted to the Bellevue Hospital Center with tuberculosis. In February, the first Inuit died and shortly after that two more followed. By the time the sickness had run its course, there were only two survivors, one of whom, Minik, was adopted by a superintendent of the museum, while the other, Uissakassak, returned to his homeland in Greenland. Later, after being lied to and being told that his father Qisuk had received a proper Inuit burial, Minik shockingly found his father’s skeleton on display in the museum. In 1993, the museum finally agreed to return the four Inuit skeletons to Greenland for proper burial.
[edit] Protecting cultural property

In the US, the ARPA (Archaeological Resources Protection Act) protects archeological sites on federally owned lands, although sites owned privately are at the disposal of the owners. This organization buys archeological sites to conserve the cultural property located thereon. Other countries do not have an organization like this and their governments use three basic types of laws to protect their cultural remains.

Selective export control laws involve controlling the trade of the most important artifacts while still allowing some free trade. Countries that use these laws include Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

Total export restriction laws are used by some countries to enact an embargo and completely shut off export of cultural property. Many Latin American and Mediterranean countries use these laws.

Many countries, such as Mexico, use national ownership laws to declare national ownership for all cultural artifacts. These laws cover control of artifacts that have not even been discovered yet.
[edit] See also

* American Indian Religious Freedom Act
* National Museum of the American Indian

[edit] Notes

1. ^ The Smithsonian Institution is exempt from this act, but rather must comply with similar requirements under the National Museum of the American Indian Act of 1989.
2. ^ Carrillo, Jo (1998). Readings in American Indian Law: Recalling the Rhythm of Survival Temple University Press, Philadelphia. ISBN 1-56639-582-8
3. ^ a b Canby Jr., William C. American Indian Law. St. Paul: West, 2004. Print. Page 276.
4. ^ [1]
5. ^ a b http://www.nps.gov/history/Nagpra/FAQ/INDEX.HTM
6. ^ Tom, Georgina. “NAGPRA – Overview and Controversy.” 12 Dec 2007. Web. 10 Nov 2009. .
7. ^ a b Gradwohl, D. M.; J.B. Thomson and M.J. Perry (2005). Still Running: A Tribute to Maria Pearson, Yankton Sioux. Special issue of the Journal of the Iowa Archeological Society. 52. Iowa City: Iowa Archeological Society.
8. ^ Peason, Maria D. (2000). “Give Me Back My People’s Bones: Repatriation and Reburial of American Indian Skeletal Remains in Iowa”. in G. Bataille, D.M. Gradwohl, C.L.P. Silet. Perspectives on American Indians in Iowa- An Expanded Edition. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. pp. 131-141.
9. ^ “Bones of Contention”. British Broadcasting Corp.. 1995. http://www.bbcactive.com/BroadCastLearning/asp/catalogue/productdetail.asp?productcode=21733. Retrieved 01 December 2009.
10. ^ Carrillo, Jo, ed. Readings In American Indian Law. Temple University Press, 1998. Pg 169.
11. ^ “Return to the Earth”. Religions for Peace. http://www.return2theearth.org. Retrieved 2008-04-24. “Mission: The Return to the Earth project supports Native Americans in burying unidentifiable ancestral remains now scattered across the United States and enables a process of education and reconciliation between Native and Non-Native peoples.”
12. ^ a b “Return to the Earth”. Mennonite Central Committee. http://mcc.org/news/news/2006/2006-04-19_returntotheearth.html. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
13. ^ “Cheyenne Cultural Center”. City of Clinton, Oklahoma. http://www.clintonokla.org/entertainment/cheyennecenter.htm. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
14. ^ Custred, Glynn (2000). “The Forbidden Discovery of Kennewick Man”. Academic Questions 13 (3): 12–30. doi:10.1007/s12129-000-1034-8.
15. ^ McManamon, F.P. Kennewick Man. National Park Service Archeology Program. May 2004 (retrieved 6 May 2009)
16. ^ Messenger, Phyllis Mauch. The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property Whose Culture? Whose Property? New York: University of New Mexico, 1999.
17. ^ http://www.icomos.org/hague/

[edit] Further reading

* Fine-Dare, Kathleen S., Grave Injustice: The American Indian Repatriation Movement and NAGPRA, University of Nebraska Press, 2002, ISBN 0-8032690-8-0.
* Jones, P., Respect for the Ancestors: American Indian Cultural Affiliation in the American West, Bauu Press, Boulder, CO. ISBN 0-9721349-2-1.

[edit] External links

* NAGPRA information from the National Park Service
o Summary of NAGPRA laws from the National Park Service

[hide]
v • d • e
Rights of Native Americans in the United States
Trials
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia · Worcester v. Georgia · Standing Bear v. Crook · Hodel v. Irving · Cobell v. Salazar · Talton v. Mayes · Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock
Acts
Indian Intercourse Act · Civilization Act · Indian Removal Act · Dawes Act · Curtis Act · Burke Act · Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 · Pueblo Lands Act · Indian Reorganization Act · Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act · Indian Civil Rights Act · Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act · Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act · American Indian Religious Freedom Act · Indian Child Welfare Act · Indian Gaming Regulatory Act · Indian Arts and Crafts Act · Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act · Native American Technical Corrections Act
Related
Public Law 280 · National Indian Gaming Commission · Native American gambling enterprises · Dawes Rolls · Bureau of Indian Affairs · Eagle feather law · Declaration of Indian Purpose
Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Graves_Protection_and_Repatriation_Act”
Categories: 1990 in law | United States federal Native American legislation | Archaeology of the Americas | Art and cultural repatriation | Native American religion | Native American art

http://www.nps.gov/history/nagpra/

Brad is a amazing man, without him we would have no website. I can call him and he’s there to help. He never hears thank you, because he does everything behind the scenes. So I want to say a BIG Thank You to Brad from the Mendota members, and from all of the people who have come to our site. Sharon

Respected elder and teacher Ona Kingbird passed away on January 19th, 2010. She was surrounded with family and friends at the time of her passing.

Ona was a respected teacher of Ojibwe language & culture for many years in various Minnesota schools, primarily working with Native youth through her many years at Heart of the Earth Survival School. She always loved working with young people and referred to all of her students as “my kids”.

Visitation will be held at the Mpls. American Indian Center located on 1530 E. Franklin Ave. The wake will begin on Thursday, January 21st at 3pm and will continue until Friday, January 22nd at 8am. She will then be transported back to the Red Lake Reservation village of Ponemah. Wake and burial services will continue at the Ponemah Community Center with funeral services being held on Sunday, January 24th, 2010.

From the Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota Community.
Please come and join us again this year to honor our ancestors.
Saturday January 30, 2010.
(Fort Snelling, below the Mendota Bridge).
11:00 AM Jim Anderson, Mendota Cultural Chairman, will light the sacred fire.
12:00 PM Ceremony.
Potluck at the Mendota Center following the ceremony.
Pidamaya from the Mendota Community.
If you need more information, please call the Mendota Center 651-452-4141. Ask for one of the tribal members.

The park entrance is off State
Highway 5 at Post Road near the Minneapolis/
St. Paul International Airport. Highway
map index: J-17.

Wakiya Waste Win, Good Thunder Woman. Sharon

We need lots bottled water.

Thank you for taking time to discuss the Bureau of Mines project in Hennepin County. Minnesota. The property covers 27 acres along a bluff above the Mississippi River and includes 11 buildings and the Coldwater Spring and Reservoir. . . . Although well-known as a site associated with Fort Selling’s history, the spring had not been recognized for any separate American Indian historic significance or associations until the late 1990s, when protests began over a nearby highway project. . . . The question I called you about concerned the difference between the evidence needed to determine a site eligible for the National Register as a TCP or as a site of “religious and cultural significance” to an American Indian tribe.–letter of a MNRRA official to an official of the National Register of Historic Places, Feb. 27, 2009, discussing the possible status of Coldwater Spring as a Traditional Cultural Property or TCP.

For several years now the National Park Service has expressed its categorical rejection of the finding of its own expert that Coldwater Spring, which flows out of the ground on the Bureau of Mines Twin Cities Campus property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, is a place of traditional cultural importance for the Dakota and other Native people. The Park Service in the 2006 draft EIS relating to the disposition of the property rejected TCP status for the property and the final EIS released in December 2009 does not change that. In the interim the Park Service had received a great deal of comment and new information which could have led to a change in the determination. But as stated in the final EIS involume 1, on page 23, there was little change (annotations added for greater clarity). . . .

Having categorically rejected the analysis that Coldwater Spring was a TCP, and asking the Dakota to provide documentary proof that it is, a Park Service official twists himself in knots over the idea that the site could be accepted as a “historic property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe,” or, one might say a HPRCSIT, simply based on the assertion of that fact by an Indian tribe. But in the course of the analysis the author manages to convince himself out of that idea, springing back to the Park Service’s original position, that every claim of the importance of a place to Native people requires verification.

The letter is a sad demonstration of bureaucratic hair-splitting and untenable requests that Indian people prove the veracity of their cultural heritage.

More at www.MinnesotaHistory.net

The Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota Community would like to invite you to become a member.
Whether or not you are Dakota, you can be a vital part of our community. Individual, educational, and corporate memberships are available.

Read the rest of this entry »

What is in the final environmental impact statement for the Coldwater / Bureau of Mines property near Fort Snelling in Hennepin County, Minnesota? How does it provide a basis for the Department of Interior to select Preferred Alternative D [3], including the cleanup the property by the federal government and its retention in federal hands? And how does it deal with the issues about Coldwater Spring as a place of traditional cultural importance for Dakota people?

To know the answers to those questions—and the meaning of those answers—requires context and information. One of the problems of dealing with any bureaucracy which operates in an environment of controversy has to do with the flow of information. To understand how such agencies make their decisions requires access to hidden information, buried reports, and phantom memos. Every decision has a hidden history that has to be understood before you can begin to figure out the decision. Should you choose to try to learn this context, may the force be with you.

More at www.MinnesotaHistory.net

Marie Winona Nordin

Member of the Santee Sioux Nation of Nebraska Age 97 Passed away peacefully on December 31, 2009 with family around her. Preceded in death by her husband, Theodore Nordin; daughter, Clarice Gombold (Jerry); son, Theodore Nordin Jr. (Kathy); and grand-children, Jerry Brunkhorst & Jerry Stanley. Survived by 5 children, Donna Schweitzberger Freeman (Del), Yvonne Taylor (Duane), Roxanne Hop (Bob), Connie Blaisdell (Alvin), & Wayne Nordin (Mary); numerous grandchildren; great-grandchildren; and great-great grandchildren. Marie was a proud and wonderful woman. She was very much loved and respected by friends and family and will be greatly missed. MEMORIAL MASS 11 AM., Tuesday, January 5, 2010 at THE CHURCH OF ST. PETER, 1405 Sibley Mem’l Hwy.; Mendota. GATHERING OF FAMILY & FRIENDS one-hour prior to the Mass at church. Inurnment Resurrection Cemetery. Memorials preferred to the Wilder Foundation. 651-457-6200

By John D. McKinnon

Buried in the billions of dollars of spending on new weapons and other items in the 2010 defense appropriations bill is a little-noticed expression of regret over how the U.S. had in the past used its power.

The bill contains an “apology to Native Peoples of the United States.”

The multi-year effort to pass the language was bipartisan: Sens. Sam Brownback (R., Kan.) and Byron Dorgan (D., N.D.) led the campaign, which began in 2004. President Barack Obama signed the language, apparently the first official apology to Native Americans, into law on Monday.

Congress has previously approved apologies to Japanese-Americans interned during World War II, and to native Hawaiians for the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The House and Senate recently have passed different resolutions apologizing for slavery in the U.S.

The just-approved language says, in part, that “the United States, acting through Congress…recognizes that there have been years of official depredations, ill-conceived policies, and the breaking of covenants by the Federal Government regarding Indian tribes.”

The U.S. “apologizes on behalf of the people of the United States to all Native Peoples for the many instances of violence, maltreatment, and neglect inflicted on Native Peoples by citizens of the United States,” the statement says, adding that it is committed “to move toward a brighter future where all the people of this land live reconciled as brothers and sisters, and harmoniously steward and protect this land together.”

The statement adds, however, that it isn’t intended to support any lawsuit claims against the government (and there are still plenty).

“Never allow someone to be your priority while allowing yourself to be their option”

The volunteer treasurer job is still open. The hours are about 2 hours a week. Or you could come in every two weeks. It is really up to you, we will work around your schedule. The last Tuesday of the month is the voting membership meeting at 7:00pm that you need to attend. Maybe 10 or 12 hours a month. You will have a key so you can come when you want. If interested please call the office. 651-452-4141.

Your Tribal Council.

CROW CREEK RESERVATION, Friday, December 11, 2009—Brandon Sazue’s camper sitting in the middle of the prairie presented a lonely but inspiring image as we drove up Wednesday afternoon.  Despite the bitter cold and wind, the young Crow Creek tribal chairman was taking a stand against the United States theft of any more Dakota lands, telling us “Crow Creek land is not for sale, and it never will be.”

Symbolically placing his camper under a wind data tower, Sazue has committed to remain on this parcel of land as long as it takes to achieve justice.  The land is part of the 7,112 acres recently stolen by the United States government in what amounts to a 21^st century land grab.  Because the land is not currently held in trust, on December 4, 2009, the Internal Revenue Service used that as an opportunity to claim it and auction it off as a means to settle what they assert is a delinquent $3,123,790 tax bill.  Though most of the Crow Creek reservation is situated within the poorest county in the United States, the land under dispute happens to contain world-class sites for the harnessing of wind power.  As the world’s fossil fuels dwindle and alternative energy sources are increasingly sought after, Crow Creek lands also become increasingly more attractive to outside interests.  Whoever develops the site for wind-energy stands to make a fortune.  This connection is not lost on Chairman Sazue.

Anyone who understands the history of the Dakota people since invasion and conquest cannot help but be stunned by this attack on the tribal lands of people who have already suffered so much.  After the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862, the U.S. federal government and the State of Minnesota initiated polices of genocide and ethnic cleansing against Dakota people in our beloved homeland.  White Minnesotans hanged thirty-eight Dakota warriors, rounded-up and force-marched our populations to concentration camps in Mankato and Fort Snelling, then forcibly removed us from Minnesota to fulfill Governor Alexander Ramsey’s genocidal call for extermination or forced removal.  Dakota people were loaded onto boats that went down the Mississippi River and then up the Missouri River on a journey that was so horrendous, a missionary at the time compared it to the Middle Passage of the slaves.  Under gun and bayonet, our ancestors were brought to Crow Creek in 1863.  Thus, Crow Creek began as a concentration camp.

The trauma to Dakota people only continued there.  Within the first few months of arrival at Crow Creek, hundreds of Dakota people died from the dreadful conditions.  In fact, the missionary John P. Williamson wrote “Nearly all the small children died in 1863.”  The heartbreak from those events are still felt today.  The people of Crow Creek live with that legacy, as do the rest of us with ancestors who were subjugated on these lands.  After 1862, the United States government left our people with so little.  Now, even what little we have is under attack again.

Sazue’s stand in defense of the land is a rallying cry to the rest of the Oceti Sakowin (Seven Council Fires) of the Dakota Oyate (Nation).  Though fierce winter weather has so far kept supporters from camping out next to Sazue, a steady stream of allies offering prayers, songs, food, supplies and encouragement continues throughout each day and even more people show their solidarity through phone calls and emails.  We know more of our people will be coming.  Like Chairman Brandon Sazue, we will not allow these lands to be taken.  We will stand with him.

Waziyatawin, Ph.D.

waziyatawin@gmail.com

Crow Creek Supporters:

In addition to your presence and prayers, we need supplies at the encampment site.  The first objective at the site is staying warm.  We need people to help cut, haul or donate wood to keep a fire going, lumber for building windbreaks and shelters, sandbags, blankets, sleeping bags (especially those made for below 0 temperatures), hats, scarves, mittens, boots, tarps and tipis.

Oceti Sakowin and other Indigenous relatives, please bring flags from your communities to show solidarity with the Crow Creek Oyate.  Everyone bring banners—7,100 acres is a lot of ground on which to maintain our presence.

In addition, we need food, flashlights, cookware, tools (shovels, axes, saws), concrete blocks, matches, and water containers.

We also need people who have other gifts to encourage these resistors to U.S. land theft.  Drummers and singers, your presence and support would be most welcome.

Supporters may stay in the tribal hall.  Please bring your own bedding and linens.  Showers will be available at the motel.

Please go to the website below on highlighted area and sign the petition to support Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, the IRS auctioned off 7100 acres of land to a local rancher, this land belongs to the Hunkpati Crow Creek.  Thank you for your support

“Crow Creek Sioux Land is NOT For Sale” hosted on the web by our free online petition service, at:

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/CrowCrek/

I personally agree with what this petition says, and I think you might agree, too. If you can spare a moment, please take a look, and consider signing yourself.

By MATTHEW DALY , Associated Press

Last update: December 8, 2009 – 6:55 PM
Featured comment

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration on Tuesday proposed spending more than $3 billion to settle claims dating back more than a century that American Indian tribes were swindled out of royalties for oil, gas, grazing and other leases.

Under an agreement announced Tuesday, the Interior Department would distribute $1.4 billion to more than 300,000 Indian tribe members to compensate them for historical accounting claims, and to resolve future claims. The government also would spend $2 billion to buy back and consolidate tribal land broken up in previous generations. The program would allow individual tribe members to obtain cash payments for land interests divided among numerous family members and return the land to tribal control.

The settlement also would create a scholarship account of up to $60 million for tribal members to attend college or vocational school.

If cleared by Congress and a federal judge, the settlement would be the largest Indian claim ever approved against the U.S. government — exceeding the combined total of all previous settlements of Indian claims.

Last year, a federal judge ruled that the Indian plaintiffs are entitled to $455 million, a fraction of the $47 billion or more the tribes have said they are owed for leases that have been overseen by the Interior Department since 1887.

President Barack Obama said settlement of the case, known as Cobell v. Salazar, was an important step to reconcile decades of acrimony between Indian tribes and the federal government.

“As a candidate, I heard from many in Indian Country that the Cobell suit remained a stain on the nation-to-nation relationship I value so much,” Obama said Tuesday in a written statement. “I pledged my commitment to resolving this issue, and I am proud that my administration has taken this step today.”

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar called settlement of the 13-year-old case a top priority for him and Obama and said the administration worked for many months to reach a settlement that is both honorable and responsible.

“This historic step will allow Interior to move forward and address the educational, law enforcement, and economic development challenges we face in Indian Country,” Salazar said.

Elouise Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Tribe from Montana who was the lead plaintiff in the case, called the proposed settlement crucial for hundreds of thousand of Native Americans who have suffered for more than a century through mismanagement of the Indian trust.

“Today is a monumental day for all of the people in Indian Country that have waited so long for justice,” said Cobell, who appeared at a news conference Tuesday with Salazar, Attorney General Eric Holder and other U.S. officials.

“Did we get all the money that was due us? Probably not,” Cobell said, but added: “There’s too many individual Indian beneficiaries that are dying every single day without their money.”

The proposed settlement affects tribes across the country, including virtually every recognized tribe west of the Mississippi River. Tribes in North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma and Montana are especially affected by the breakup of Indian land into small parcels, said Keith Harper, a lawyer who represents the plaintiffs.

The settlement would give every Indian tribe member with an Interior Department account an immediate check for $1,000, with additional payments to be determined later under a complicated formula that takes into account a variety of factors. Many tribe members also would receive payments for parcels of land that are held in some cases by up to 100 family members, in an effort to consolidate tribal land and make it more useful and easier to manage.

The settlement does not include a formal apology for any wrongdoing by the U.S. government, but does contain language in which U.S. officials acknowledge a “breach of trust” on Indian land issues.

An apology “would have been nice,” Cobell said, but was less important than settling the dispute. “Actions are more important to me than apologies,” she said.

___

On the Net:

Cobell settlement Web site: http://www.cobellsettlement.com/

We need to find these 4 man who are responsible for these 15 rapes in Mpls. If you would like more information please call the MMDC office 651-452-4141.