DLN Issues : Native Child and Family RightsFor the children in exile For more information see also DLN Coalition Working Group on Native Child and Family Rights and Resources and DLN Issues, Juvenile Justice
Return to DLN Issues Native Child and Family Rights page
Many Indians ruled by Catch-22
Published on 09/29/2002
http://www.theday.com/news/ts-re.asp?NewsUID=B16F860D-26D7-4EE1-ACAB-6DA6300C28D7
I believe the phrase "catch 22" originated in Sioux country as "Wikcemna nunpa
yuza" long before the book by Joseph Heller.
It is the circumstance of rule that denies a solution.
For example; there is a saying commonplace in jurisprudence in America. It is
that a person charged with a crime has the right to be tried before a jury of
his or her peers. Who or what is a peer?
An Indian charged with committing a serious crime on an Indian reservation is
almost always tried in a city far from the reservation and usually before an
all-white jury. The jury never knows anything about this person's life, the
conditions in which he or she was raised, and nothing about the culture,
traditions or language, the knowledge of which could have a serious effect
upon why the crime was committed and upon the ultimate decision of the juror.
Catch 22?
A Lakota father has a duty to his wife and children as their provider and
cultural and spiritual leader. When his freedom was taken from him and he was
placed on an Indian reservation without a means to provide for his family, it
is only natural that his ability to provide cultural and spiritual guidance
also suffered.
When the welfare system first originated, even if the man could not find a
job, he could still stay with his family and he could hunt, fish and maintain
the ties to the culture and spirituality necessary for his well being and that
of his family.
As the system became more controlled the woman was forced to sign papers under
the AFDC programs that prevented the man from living under the same roof as
she and her children. This totally went against the provisions of the Fort
Laramie Treaty of 1868. It placed the man in the position of becoming an
outcast from his own family.
Unemployment on many Western reservations hovers at 50 percent to 80 percent.
There are few jobs and yet a man is forced to separate himself from his family
because he is not working. Catch 22?
When the Indian nations signed treaties with the United States of America,
they did so under duress. Most treaties were created to take land. A tribe
would give up a million acres of land for certain treaty rights. Most treaties
provided for health care, education and welfare. These were provisions written
into the treaties. In exchange for giving up large chunks of land, the Indian
people were to receive certain benefits in perpetuity.
As America became more secure in itself, the treaties soon became worthless
pieces of paper. The millions of acres given up by the Indians for "health
care, education and welfare" took on a different meaning. The monetary
compensation for natural and mineral resources on Indian lands went into a
trust fund where the accumulated profits often amounted to the millions of
dollars.
Treaties aside, if there had been proper accounting for the timber, water, oil
and precious metals taken from Indian lands, there would have never been a
need for any sort of welfare. Instead, the Interior Department, through its
Bureau of Indian Affairs, so mismanaged the assets of the Indian nations that
no one to this day, can account for the millions, nay billions, of dollars
lost or stolen from these trust funds. Trust is such an odd name for these
lost revenues. Who does one trust? Catch 22?
As the number of welfare recipients grew on Indian reservations those
receiving benefits were soon treated as the welfare recipients in the inner
cities. The treaty obligations by the United States to the Indian people for
giving up millions of lucrative acres of land no longer mattered. Every
welfare recipient became a negative number.
The United States supposedly recognizes the Indian nations as sovereign. And
yet, when they initiated the National Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1987,
they gave state governments the authority to regulate gaming compacts. In
other words, if a state decided they did not want an Indian owned casino in
their state, it could simply deny the Indian tribe applying a compact.
Worse yet, every aspect of gaming was regulated by the state. How many slot
machines, whether there could be Black Jack tables, roulette or other gaming
devices, all came under state jurisdiction. One sovereign took precedence over
another sovereign. Catch 22?
In Indian country the circumstance of rule that denies a solution is doing
well.
Tim Giago, an Oglala Lakota, is editor and publisher of weekly Lakota JOurnal.
He can be reached at editor@lakotajournal.com or at P.O. Box 3080, Rapid City,
S.D. 57709
home : mission statement : contact : site map : search : store : links
DLN coalition : DLN issues : DLN nation : Any reprints are under the Fair Use doctrine of international copyright law : See http://www.dlncoalition.org/fair_use.htm.
|
Photograph--Alfred Bone Shirt Sr. wearing a peace medal.