jack@mcvax.uucp (Jack Jansen) (06/30/86)
Sorry for such a long article, but the previous two on the same subject didn't contain much information (and some misinformation, besides). In article <15400004@hpccc> dlow@hpccc.UUCP writes: >[Replying to an article asking about a rumour on forced relocation > of indians] >This sounds like the relocation of the Navajo and Hopi Indians. The >Hopi reservation is enclosed within the Navajo reservation. There >has been a certain amount of encroachment of Navajos into the Hopi >area and some encroachment of the Hopis into the Navajo area. True, but neither the Hopi nor the Navajos seem to mind much. There are some minor irritations, but nothing serious. > After >many years of dispute, the US government basically drew a new (and >somewhat arbitrary) definitive border and ordered all Navajos in the >Hopi area to move out and all Hopis in the Navajo area to move out. >Federal aid was provided to help the Indians relocate. These are >the basic facts. The following are the emotional issues that make the >whole affair very controversial: > >1. The Hopi and Navajos are traditional enemies. There is still >a lot of bad feelings between the two tribes that tend to magnified >any dispute between the two. As I stated above, there are some problems between the two people, but they are not that serious. Currently, the Navajos and Hopis (is that the correct plural?) are *together* trying to stop the forced relocation. Also, the two people aren't real threats to each other, since they have different ways of living, which don't seem to bother each other too much. The Hopis are hunters, and the Navajos are farmers (or the other way around, sorry, not sure). > >2. The solution to the problem was to a certain degree imposed by the >US govt. which brings out old anger about "white man's domination" >of the Indians. Not "to a certain degree". In fact, the indians refuse to cooperate whatsoever. Last thing I heard was that the US government plans to bring the army in. > >3. The settlement occurred after many years of being ignored but just after >minerals were discovered in the disputed area. For many people, this >coincidence is sufficent "proof" of a conspiracy to exploit the >Indians again. Some facts: a long time after the area was designated as an indian reservation, uranium was found there. So, suddenly all regulations were forgotten, and they started strip-mining the area. This had a couple of effects: - Hunting grounds were lost, - the rivers on which the indians depended for their water were seriously polluted, and - the mining all took place in a mountain that is sacred to the indians. They beleive that their forefathers, who are buried in that mountain, are with them all the time. Not only does this make moving very difficult for them (no way to bring your forefathers with you), but, worst, the mountain is currently *disappearing*. I find it very depressing to see that, here in Holland, we seem to know more about the situation than people in the US do. We had quite a lot on it in newspapers and on TV, and there were quite a few evenings with speakers, films, etc. It seems that the coverage in the US was far less. -- Jack Jansen, jack@mcvax.UUCP The shell is my oyster.
vector@inuxe.UUCP (Randal Blackwood) (07/02/86)
> >In <688@argon.idec.stc.co.uk> howellg@idec.stc.co.uk (Gareth Howell) writes: > >I heard on a news bulletin this morning (23/6/86) that a delegation of > >American Indians were in London to tell the UK government and the > >world about the > >planned forced mass transportation of 10,000 American Indians from > >their reservation in Arizona because someone has found mineral wealth > >beneath it. I don't know whether this is the case your talking about or not, but I heard a long piece on Nat'l. Public Radio, today about an Indian problem. My understanding of the news piece was: There is a piece of land in Arizona that has been occupied by both the Hopi and the Apache Indians. There apparently has been some kind of a dispute of the land for some 50 years. In the early 1960s a declaration was made that the land was to be used in dual occupancy. Apparently in 1973 this decision was reversed and I believe the Hopi (or maybe it was the Apache) were told to vacate the land by I think July 7, 1986. Unfortunately I didn't hear the whole discussion, but I think there were some Indians who weren't opposed to it and some that were. There was some speculation that part of the reason for the decision was that now mining companies would only have to deal with one Indian tribe instead of two. Also there seems to have been a lot of mining done on a nearby Apache reservation, and a strip mine exists right out side of this piece of land. My overall impression from what I heard is that this is a very complicated situation, which does not necessarily involve only a mining dispute. I had a hard time gathering enough information to make a good evaluation, but I would not be surprised if the deal is shady. As far as our treatment to American Indians, there is no question that our past has not been a totally equitable situation, not a thing to be proud of. However, unlike S. Africa, the Indians are not forced to live on reservations. I believe if desired they can live where ever they want to. We do have other programs design to help minorities, one being Affirmative Action, even with as much damage as this program has taken by the Reagan administration, the program is still alive, at least it is here at my workplace. I know the Am. Indians have been rather quite over the last ten years. In the early 70s the Indians tried hard to get better treatment. Unfortunately, I am not in close enough contact to know if they are quite now because they got what they wanted or if it is just they are tired of fighting. Randy Blackwood inuxe!vector
soren@reed.UUCP (Soren Petersen) (07/05/86)
In article <56@uwmacc.UUCP> rick@uwmacc.UUCP (Rick Keir) writes: >In article <2000@osu-eddie.UUCP> mdf@osu-eddie.UUCP (Mark D. Freeman) writes: >>Speaking as an American with some moral values, I think that what this >>country has done to the Indians is a disgrace. It is another in a list of >>things that make the rest of the world roll their eyes in disgust when >>Ronnie starts wailing about everyone else's human rights abuses. > >I am sure that the English have stopped doing it to the Irish, >the Irish Protestants to the Irish Catholics, the Moslems to the Hindus, >the Russians to the Jews, the Jews to the Arabs, the Arabs >to the ... > The rest of the world is up to its neck in its own atrocities, and is in >no position to complain about America. > Good point. The next time anyone wants to talk about the way the American Indians were treated, I will be MORE than happy to start discussing the Sepoy Mutiny or the Opium Wars or anything else I can think of. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Have A Nice Day, Soren Petersen "Her deodorant had let her down, She should have used Odorono" tektronix!reed!soren
tp@ndm20 (07/05/86)
>We do have other programs design to help minorities, one >being Affirmative Action, even with as much damage as this program has >taken by the Reagan administration, the program is still alive, at least >it is here at my workplace. Yes, the Supreme Court just decided last week that it is still OK to discriminate against white males to make up for past discrimination by white males. Of course the white males that are being discrim- inated against now are not the same ones that did the discrimination then. How does that go, "with liberty and justice for all"? Hogwash. It is legal (and in many cases required) to discriminate against white males between 18 and 40. Everyone else is a minority. This wonderfully enlightened decision follows close on the heels of the Supreme Court decision to uphold a law that can sentence gays to 20 years in jail for making love. Makes you wish supreme court justices were elected officials. Terry Poot Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers (214)739-4741 UUCP: {seismo!c1east | cbosgd!sun | ihnp4}!convex!infoswx!ndm20!tp CSNET: ndm20!tp@smu ARPA: ndm20!tp%smu@csnet-relay.ARPA
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (07/05/86)
>>The rest of the world is up to its neck in its own atrocities, and is in >>no position to complain about America. >This explains why the rest of the world should keep its nose out of the >affairs of the United States. What I would like to know is how come this >doesn't get applied to the U.S.? What with the atrocities there, aren't >they in no position to complain about the rest of the world? I dunno, I think this is an awful attitude. If anyone out there notices any atrocities I sure hope they feel free to scream about it, even if their own house is not perfect (scream about your own also.) I mean, what should people do? To bring up the world's favorite example (is it going to be Hitler or The Bible? tick tick tick BUZZ Hitler!) should the US have stood idly by in WWII because of their horrendous Civil Rights situation towards Blacks? (or, hell, Indians) I never understood the logic of that argument ("How can you say X is bad when there is also Y in the world?") Could this attitude possibly be from (bonk-bong bonk-bong DING: The Bible!) the parable "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? Maybe I just don't believe in the wisdom of that statement (although the original (biblical) example of the "fallen woman" seemed to justify it, the notion extrapolates badly I think into this sort of reasoning, how can any of us act on anything we see morally reprehensible if we accept that? I am sure there is some resolution of this paradox, I'm no biblical scholar, I just suspect people take it at face value in their moral calculus.) Of course, this is more from the perspective of a citizen, yes, it sure would be nice if our government tried to instill a little consistency in both their foreign and domestic policies, it certainly does seem hypocritical to see the government turn its collective little head to abuses of Indians when mineral rights ($$) are involved but condemn another country for similar avariciousness, but it still doesn't invalidate the criticism in and of itself, just sets another goal. -Barry Shein, Boston University
mnl@cernvax.UUCP (mnl) (07/07/86)
In article <672@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP writes: > > [...] > > I don't know what to do! My congressman is against >contra aid, resettlement of Indians, and offshore drilling. >He is an envrionmentalist and though he is a Catholic, he >believes that abortion should be left to individual choice. >He has overwhelming support in the area where I live. I >voted for him, and I voted against Regean. What can I do? > How about cloning your congressman, and getting the clones to run for congress all over the U.S. ? :-) :-) -- Mark Nelson mnl@cernvax.bitnet or ...!seismo!mcvax!cernvax!mnl If the ACM had a sub-group for natural language computing, would it be ACM SIGnature?
sorsen@wucfua.UUCP (07/07/86)
[line eater food]
The persecution referred to in the subject line involves
a large group of Navajo indians who
have violated federal law by remaining on land belonging to the Hopi
Indians. The land involved is part of the original Hopi reservation
granted to them circa 1880 by the U.S. The land is
is located in north-eastern Arizona.
Numerous liberal and ecologically minded oraganizations
are rallying behind the Navajo squatters because they beleive
that if clear ownership of the land in question is determined,
the Hopi and/or Navajo tribal councils will lease large tracts
of the land for strip mining and other ecologically harmfull exploitation.
Being liberal and ecologically minded myself, I took
the opportunity to look into the situation first-hand while on vacation
to the area. My findings are below. For those who cannot go to the
southwest to see things for themselves, I recommend a book on the dispute:
"The Second Long Walk", published by the University of New Mexico Press.
"The Second Lond Walk" is a biased towards the Navajo squatters' side
of the issue, but it gives you enough background to let you form
your own opinion. The title refers to a forced march from north-eastern
Arizona to central New Mexico that took place in the late 19th century.
Many Navajo died during the Long Walk and the current dispute
has its' roots in the events that led up to and followed the Long Walk.
After the Navajo were released (the U.S. having realized how close
it was to committing genocide), some Navajo settled in lands
reserved for the Hopi. Eventually this produced the current situation.
But because of the complexity of the
dispute, the news media have failed to give an accurate description
of what is going on, and numberous well meaning people and organizations
have lept half-cocked into the fray after hearing the position of only one
of the parties to the dispute.
It is good to see some concern for the American Indians, since
we in the U.S. have benefitted so much at their expense, but the
Navajo-Hopi land dispute is not a simple case of Anglos (whites) stepping
on Indians in order to get at something of value.
It is true the U.S. government has made a mess of this situation.
But there is plenty of blame to spread around, and the Hopi elders that
are going around publicising this as a land grab by the energy
companies (e.g. strip mining interests) deserve their share of the blame.
And while we are dividing up blame, don't forget those energy companies
and the greedy tribal councils that lease large tracts of land
for such ecologically un-sound projects as strip mines and coal
slurry pipelines.
Unfortunately, the various indian cultures are being absorbed into
the Anglo (white) culture. The Navajo have seen this coming for a long
time (a side effect of the Long Walk, I suspect), but some of the Hopi elders
refuse to see the obvious, and are still fighting both councils' efforts
to make a smoother transition from being a seperate society to a minority
within a larger society. It is my feeling that they are using the dispute
to gain publicity for their own dispute with the Hopi council about
how to deal with the infulence of Anglo culture on Hopi culture.
Last I heard, the Navajo and Hopi councils
were convinced that no mass relocation would take place. This does not
mean that the land will not be leased for strip mining, however.
Even if the Navajo squatters get to stay, it is likely some agreement will
be made to allow leasing the land for exploitation.
The irony of all of the concern over the strip mining is that
the geologists could be wrong about what is under the Joint Use Area
(the land in question.) When the Hopi sold oil leases in
the 70's for an area just to the south of the JUA that was thought to be a
giant oil field, all the oil wells were dry. The Hopi made several
million dollars off of the energy companies in the process.
It is entirely possible that the dispute ends up being a fight over
who gets the money to look for coal that isn't there. I can always hope.
As for the comparison between this situation and the South African
re-settlement of the African tribal homelands, I suggest that anyone
interested in drawing such parallels should at least read "The Second
Long Walk", if only to get more convincing evidence for the
claim that the U.S. is not interested in human rights within it's own
borders. I think that after you study the situation, you will
see how that parallel doesn't make any sense.
Mike Sorsen (Sorsen@wucec2.uucp or SORSEN@WUVMD.BITNET)mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) (07/07/86)
In article <56@uwmacc.UUCP> rick@uwmacc.UUCP (Rick Keir) writes: > The rest of the world is up to its neck in its own atrocities, and is in >no position to complain about America. > And vice versa??????
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (07/07/86)
In article <898@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: >If anyone out there notices any atrocities I sure hope they feel free >to scream about it, even if their own house is not perfect (scream >about your own also.) Well said. (See below.) >... >the parable "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? >Maybe I just don't believe in the wisdom of that statement (although >the original (biblical) example of the "fallen woman" seemed to >justify it, the notion extrapolates badly I think into this sort >of reasoning, how can any of us act on anything we see morally >reprehensible if we accept that? I am sure there is some resolution >of this paradox, I'm no biblical scholar, I just suspect people >take it at face value in their moral calculus.) *Sigh* I'm not sure that most people think of a "moral calculus" at all these days, much less remember the parable. For those who don't: an adulteress is about to be stoned. Some folk, either figuring to trap the Rabbi into condoning the killing, or just wanting Him to approve, asked Him for a judgement. He bent down and started writing in the sand; and when asked again, replied as above. When He straightened up, everyone else was gone. He asked, "Does no one condemn you?" "No one, Lord." "Then neither do I. Go, and avoid this sin from now on." The moral that bzs doesn't quite see is to "love the sinner but hate the sin." It is not, was never, and never should be to ignore the world's problems until you're perfect! I'm not perfect [don't go into shock]; and if any of you out there is, I'd be glad to hear about it -- so waiting that long would ensure doing nothing. Equally, though we should condemn and fight/resist Hitlerian actions, we should try not to hate the Hitlers of the world. Basic Christian tenet -- and very hard to fill. ["Christianity has not been tried and found wanting -- it has been found difficult, and not tried at all." -- [I forget] ] Back to the Hopi: Now that Crisis Day has arrived, and demonstrators actually appeared on the Capitol grounds, the [non-state-controlled, now, y'hear!] media have put it in print and on the air. Not having as wide a band- width as this newsgroup, they did of course omit many of the [possible] facts and almost all of the speculation we've been seeing here. -- Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP} jsdy@hadron.COM (not yet domainised)
stafford@ti-csl (07/07/86)
> It remains to be seen if the Navajo culture can survive >the relocation. I seriously doubt that it will. > >-- >scc!steiny >Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software >109 Torrey Pine Terrace >Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 >(408) 425-0382 I cannot believe that all the Navajo culture will disappear with the relocation of the Navajo from the Big Mountain area. The Navajo culture will endure, it is the individual Navajo and Hopi whose families must move that suffer. The Hopi have vacated the area which is now in the hands of the much larger Navajo tribe. Sove Navajo families have not vacated the area which should, by act of congress, be in the hands of the Hopi. The number of families to be relocated is somewhere between 250 and 850. The federal government estimates 250, the Navajo leaders estimate 850, the real number is probably somewhere between. BTW, the Hopi are farmers and as such are not generally in favor of strip mining. The Navajo have strong religious ties to the land and as such are not generally in favor of strip mining. Who said that the area will be strip mined? Hardcopy and Electronic Addresses: Ron Stafford Usenet: {convex!smu,texsun,ut-sally,rice}!ti-csl!stafford P.O. Box 655474 MS 439 Dallas, Tx 75265 (214) 995-0811
stafford@ti-csl (07/09/86)
Mr. Goddard,
I will not respond to the majority of misinformation in your
recent article. You have definite ideas which are not
to be confused with fact.
You should attend a good school for the continuation of
history however. The "march of tears" was the "trail of
tears" and was inflected upon the Cherokee. The trail
was from the North Carolina area to the Oklahoma area.
The Navajo, Hopi, and Apache were not involved. The
Areas moved to, from and through are far removed from the
area being discussed.
As for the method of selection for the Tribal council,
selection of members by the Bureau of Indian Affairs has
long been replaced with selection by the Indians.
Hardcopy and Electronic Addresses:
Ron Stafford Usenet: {convex!smu,texsun,ut-sally,rice}!ti-csl!stafford
P.O. Box 655474
MS 439
Dallas, Tx 75265
(214) 995-0811 bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (07/10/86)
>...Yes, the Supreme Court just decided last week that it is still OK to >discriminate against white males to make up for past discrimination >by white males. Of course the white males that are being discrim- >inated against now are not the same ones that did the discrimination >then. >Terry Poot You're looking at it too personally, what would you prefer? That people keep their precious jobs but we raise taxes to 50% for the average white male because blacks et al can't find jobs? (conservatives: the extra taxes go to more police, liberals: the extra taxes go to welfare, the rest of you: choose one or a little of both but the bill is the same.) If you think you'll just "let em starve", think again, hungry, frustrated people can be real dangerous, *that* can cost. The idea is that the economy will expand over time to accomodate all people (ya know, more paychecks, more consumers, more business, more jobs), but someone has to break the deadlock. Even today unemployment among minorities is staggering. Not because the programs haven't worked, but because it hasn't done enough, and because some of the problems aren't being tackled at a fundamental enough level (like in our schools, and that costs too.) Sometimes you have to take the hard road to economic health, affirmative action is such a road. If you think the "rich" aren't also being coerced, you're wrong, if you fail to accomodate affirmative action programs you stand to lose federal contracts. You've simply decided the rules were fair when they were weighted in your favor, counting heavily things like past experience for job hiring when people were actively preventing non-"white-males" from obtaining such experience. Hey, I'm ON the lifeboat, pull up the ladders, no more room...Look, there's a hell of a lot of jobs out there that don't require much experience at all, a lot of the hiring criteria amounted to a subtle form of "you can't vote unless your grandfather voted"-type rules, often bent for "white-males" (hey, he seems like an allright guy, let's give him a chance...) I've seen these things, I've worked construction for example, you can't tell me that a day-laborer needs lots of experience, but they bitched about affirmative action just like you do, and always hired their "friends" (many of which were drunks and goldbricks, but hey, they got 20 years in the business, they *must* be more deserving!) The fire department in Boston was full of these attitudes and it wasn't even clear anything had happened except that they were forced to obey their own criteria and stop swinging weight for their brothers, cousins, nephews, neighbors, school-buddies... This sort of thinking stems from a zero-based philosophy, that the pie is just so big and can be only cut thinner and thinner, wrong, the "pie" grows and grows, there's room for us all, that's the nature of economics as long as you don't run out of or destroy all your raw resources (like people.) -Barry Shein, Boston University Sorry for the length of this, but this sort of myopia gets me annoyed.
tp@ndm20 (07/15/86)
[[Statement by me that afirmative action is discriminatory to white males.]] [Statement by Barry that in the past there has been hiring discrimination against those who were not white males.] [Discussion of discriminatory hiring practices Barry has observed] Your solution to past discrimination is to now discriminate against the same minority group that was previously doing the discrimination? (If you add it all up, I believe you will find that white males between 18 and 40 that are protestants (christians?) are a minority also.) When do we call the score even? When can fairness and competency be adopted as criteria instead of quotas of religion, sex, skin color, and heritage. I neither defend or agree with the practices you describe. They are now illegal. Affirmative action is the same thing with the roles reversed. It should also be illegal. My employer employes several people in minority groups. Not because they are minorities, but because they are competent. That is the way it should be. >This sort of thinking stems from a zero-based philosophy, that the >pie is just so big and can be only cut thinner and thinner, wrong, Wrong. This sort of thinking stems from a hatred of discrimination and an attitude that everybody should be given an equal chance to succeed. Think the United Negro College Fund would have given me a scholarship? Not a chance. Think that if I created the United White Boys College Fund, the ACLU would drag my butt into court. You Bet! (And rightly so, I might add.) I believe in EQUAL opportunity. I could have chosen to legally change my surname to my mother's maiden name (Rodriguez). There are any number of government and private agencies who would have been very pleased to pay my way through college (like my friend, whose surname is Nogueras). But Poot is Dutch, and the Dutch aren't a big enough minority to need help, right? This is fair? Any given person with a hispanic surname might be more or less intelligent or more or less in need than me. What should his last name have to do with it? If you are trying to help the poor, then a need basis should be sufficient. Poor white people have a very difficult time obtaining help in many situations (such as this one). Unless of course their parents are veterans... > > -Barry Shein, Boston University > >Sorry for the length of this, but this sort of myopia gets me >annoyed. I don't understand how believing in equal opportunity but not affirmative action is myopic. Send me e-mail explaining this please (not really appropriate here). Do other contries have similar problems? What policies have been adopted in your countries? (I'm really curious.)
blake@sx7000.UUCP (Chris Blake) (07/16/86)
> > I heard on a news bulletin this morning (23/6/86) that a delegation of > > American Indians were in London to tell the UK government and the > > world about the > > planned forced mass transportation of 10,000 American Indians from > > their reservation in Arizona because someone has found mineral wealth > > beneath it. > > > > Is this true!!?? > > No. If this is what I think it is, this forced relocation > is resulting from a dispute between two Indian tribes (I believe > Hopi and Navaho). I think there was an old controversy concerning > the proper boundaries between two reservations, and the resolution > is resulting in the relocation of members of both tribes. Some of > the people do not want to move. If mineral rights were involved, > they were probably what got the two tribes interested in resolving > the dispute now. > > I waited several days before posting this response. Is > there anyone out there (e.g. in Arizona) who could correct any > factual mistakes I made in the above? You're basically correct. Since the two tribes were put on reservations in the 19th century, the Navajo population has grown greatly while the Hopi population has stayed small. While the Hopi lands diminished in area, the Navajo lands grew so that today they surround the Hopi land. In the 60s the government tried to settle the disputes over boundaries ( Navajos want more space ) and made a part of the Hopi lands a joint area for both. But still a Navajo town is located in the Hopi territory and the Hopis want them out. And the town is located on some possible uranium deposits. For the last few years Uncle Sam has been trying to solve the problem by offering Navajo families $40000 to relocate elsewhere. Often the Indians, not used to our society and all, would go to the cities, waste the money, then want to go back home. So the Fed is taking a more direct course of action to resolve the dispute. -C. Blake source: TIME magazine and various newspapers. -- -------------------------- Christopher L Blake -- @ Sperry's SX1100 group -- Roseville, MN -- --------------------------