“The first Thanksgiving Day did occur in the year 1637, but it was nothing like our Thanksgiving today. On that day the Massachusetts Colony Governor, John Winthrop, proclaimed such a “Thanksgiving” to celebrate the safe return of a band of heavily armed hunters, all colonial volunteers. They had just returned from their journey to what is now Mystic, Connecticut where they massacred 700 Pequot Indians. Seven hundred Indians – men, women and children – all murdered.” Richard Greener
THE SUPPRESSED SPEECH OFWAMSUTTA (FRANK B.) JAMES, WAMPANOAGTo have been delivered at Plymouth, Massachusetts, 1970ABOUT THE DOCUMENT:Three hundred fifty years after the Pilgrims began their invasion of the land of the Wampanoag, their “American” descendants planned an anniversary celebration.
You can read the rest at the link below:
Reblogged with love and respect from http://eaglemanz.blogspot.com/2013/11/primer-on-realities-of-thanksgiving.html
While I agree that tribal sovereignty must be primary in these cases, I feel that there needs to be some kind of redress for those affected. The act of disenrolling families is becoming rampant and seems to be much more prevalent in those tribes with gaming facilities.
Here are the materials in Allen v. Smith (S.D. Cal.):
Judge William Q. Hayes of the Southern District of California ruled that sovereign immunity barred claims against the Pala Band of Mission Indians seeking enrollment in the Tribe and money damages. Importantly, the court distinguished the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Maxwell v. San Diego County.
Here are some key excerpts:
The Maxwell court distinguished the facts of its case from Hardin v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 779 F.2d 476 (9th Cir. 1985), a…
View original post 431 more words
I never thought of myself as an activist. The first time someone called me an activist, was an internationally well known activist in a message to me on Facebook. She told me to keep up the good work and always stand up for what I believe in. That the life of an activist wasn’t easy. But to keep doing what I do.
“Wow” was what came to mind. “Really? Me? An activist?” I was shocked and honored. I’m a writer who feels very passionately about what I write for. I’m not on the front lines, yet. Legally, I can’t afford to be out there-yet. I have always cared about the wrongs of the world, talking in extent to both my parents about it all the time. I sit home and write about what all the wonderfully courageous people who have crossed paths with me by caring about the same things…
View original post 815 more words
Here is the opinion:
Here, the only evidence that the child had any tribal membership was the testimony of a DHS worker who stated that respondent once mentioned that she had recently discovered that she had Native American heritage. Respondent herself did not provide any testimony as to any Native American heritage on her part or on the part of the child. Indeed, the statement made to the DHS worker was entirely unsubstantiated. As such, it was not sufficiently reliable information of the child’s Indian heritage to trigger the requirements of the ICWA.
WE WHO CAN HAVE ALL WE WANT TO EAT WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND HUNGER,
WE WHO ARE OF WEALTH WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND POVERTY,
WE WHO CAN SEE WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND LIFE IN TOTAL DARKNESS,
WE WHO ARE FORTUNATE TO HAVE HOMES WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND HOMELESSNESS,
WE WHO ARE HEALTHY WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND THE PAINS FROM SICKNESS,
WE WHO ARE ALWAYS WARM IN THE WINTER WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND THE COLD, AND WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO LOSE A LOVED ONE WHO HAVE FROZEN TO DEATH ON A VERY COLD WINTER NIGHT!
SO PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO THINK ABOUT THOSE OF US WHO STRIVE IN HUNGER EVERYDAY,
THINK ABOUT US WHO LIVE IN POVERTY EVERYDAY,
THINK ABOUT US WHO ARE BLIND & LIVE IN THE DARK EVERYDAY,
View original post 153 more words
The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe filed a writ of mandamus to the South Dakota Supreme Court, trying to stop the practice of the lower courts using 25 USC 1922 to justify ignoring ICWA’s requirements for weeks after a removal of a child. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ.
In this case, the original removal was on July 6. At a hearing on July 23, the judge stated that the hearing was a “continuation of the emergency hearing, and that ICWA placement preferences were not yet applicable.” The Supreme Court upheld this decision, and the inapplicability of ICWA to emergency or temporary custody proceedings.
After the court justified ignoring the plain language of the section (applying it to all Indian children, and ignoring the “imminent physical damage or harm” requirement of a 1922 action), the court went on to state:
Tribe also asserts a violation of state law…
View original post 97 more words