Journalists like me have played the role of Chicken Little for many years. We have written dozens of stories about the consequences of an election, predicting what will happen after Republicans win and fulfill their promises to drastically cut government.
What does the year 2011 hold for the Indian tribes? There are some signals—portents, if you will, that should be considered in assessing the immediate future in federal policy and programs.
We abhor violence and mass murder. Much as we dislike the decision of Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California to undermine tribal interests, she does not belong in anyone’s crosshairs.
Are we a nation doomed to be violent? How do we know when our political rhetoric has gone too far? How do we find or encourage a more civil discourse?
On Dec. 16, the leaders of hundreds of American Indian nations were in attendance when President Obama expressed United States “support” for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The U.S.
Today, the United States government at last officially endorsed the U.N.
My passion for public service burned deep long before I assumed elected office – placed there by my parents who raised me and my siblings to fight for those who have no voice.
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.
As Congress winds down its session, we should acknowledge the historic accomplishments it has helped us achieve over the past two years.
In Navajo culture, there is a teaching that “your words are like a prayer.” Words have the power to manifest our reality, to literally bring things into being.
On Nov. 30, 2010, the United States Congress passed the Claims Settlement Act of 2010, a package of bills settling claims against the United States related to the hard-fought Cobell Indian trust lawsuit, the Pigford lawsuit by African-American farmers against the U.S.
The final part of this series provides a model for how tribes can and should wield the federal Indian consultation right to defend tribal sovereignty, and discusses the very real negative effect of any federal failure to consult with tribal governments.
by Mark Trahant
As a Cherokee wannabe, I would like to comment in support of Ginger Brown’s recent letter [“Seek truth about Cherokee” (Vol. 30, No. 18)]. I fully agree with her. Having Cherokee ancestry is not the same as being a member of a federally recognized tribe.