August 2020

Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Black Hills Treaty Council voices opposition to Senate hearing on UN Declaration

Chief Red Cloud
The US twisted logic, based solely on superior economic and military power, with lies and deceit, is being used to deny Native nations international status

By Brenda Norrell
Censored News

The Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council voiced opposition to hearings held last week in Washington by Congress on the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and its application to federal Indian law.

The Treaty Council said the US continues as a colonial power to use twisted logic, “lies and deceit,” based on military power, while denying Indian Nations international status.

"We believe it is important to raise a voice of opposition to the entire approach of the United States to the Declaration,” said the Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council in its statement submitted by Owe Aku International Justice Project.

"Since the Declaration's conception the United States has done nothing but block its progress as an international standard and now continue the same monotonous tactic of using twisted logic to domesticate international human rights where Indigenous peoples are concerned.

"These hearings are simply designed, like all of the laws, policies, regulations and court decisions which the United States has unilaterally utilized, based solely on superior economic and military power, to deny Native nations international status. The hearings themselves, on a government-to-government, not a nation-to-nation basis, are also violations of Indigenous treaties."

In its statement to the US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for the record, the Treaty Council said, "We reject and refuse to acknowledge any limits on our rights which utilize Federal Indian Law, including these Congressional Hearing by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs."

Further, the Treaty Council stated that while the United States "engages in fraudulent Congressional hearings, corporations are on our territory preparing to further contaminate our water and destroy our land with the poisons of uranium mining."

The Senate hearing and approach to the UN Declaration continues the pattern of human rights violations, the Treaty Council said.

“Indian Reorganization Act governments ('the IRA') were illegally installed on our territories utilizing force and deception and maintain their 'authority' only at the will of the United States government, its money, weapons and citizenry that continue to permit human rights violations.”

"Is the United States of America and its people capable of ever ending the lies and deceit?"

Prior to this statement to Congress, the Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council stated its opposition and rejection to the United States limited "support" for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in January.

The United States was the last country in the world to voice support for the Declaration. The four countries that voted against adoption of the Declaration at the United Nations were the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Wikileaks revealed in US diplomatic cables, from its embassies in Canada, Ecuador and Iceland, that the United States waged a global campaign to undermine, and prevent adoption, of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The rights stated in the Declaration include Indigenous Peoples right to aboriginal territories and the right to free, prior and informed consent.

The Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council members are Cheyenne River, Crow Creek Fort Peck, Lower Brule, Pine Ridge, Rosebud, Standing Rock and Santee.

June 12, 2011
Comments on Behalf of the Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council to the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs

Washington, D.C. 20520

Via Email:;

RE: Written Testimony to the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs;

Oversight Hearings on Setting the Standard: Domestic Policy Implications of the UN

Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples

Greetings from the traditional legal government of the Lakota Oyate that has governed the

Lakota people since before the time of Europeans in our territory and the period of

colonization. We govern with the support of our people. Our authority comes from the Creator

who provided us with Original Instructions for living on the lands set aside for the Lakota


Through our work on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (“the Declaration”),

this same authority is acknowledged under 21st century international law based our right to

self-determination and with free, prior and informed consent as set forth in Articles 1, 2 ,3 and

19 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples.

Further, as set forth in our submittal “Resolution of the Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council

Rejection of the United Statesʼ Statement of U.S. Support for the United Nations Declaration

on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” (“Rejection of US Statement”), of January 19, 2011, we

reject and refuse to acknowledge any limits on our rights which utilize Federal Indian Law,

including these Congressional Hearing by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Federal

Indian Law, its exercise, and its institutionalization are wholly discriminatory, racist and

exercised with the intention to do harm to the Lakota people and our territory in violation of the

Declaration and other international standards, laws, and treaties, including the Fort Laramie

treaties of 1851 and 1868.

Indian Reorganization Act governments (“the IRA”) were illegally installed on our territories

utilizing force and deception and maintain their “authority” only at the will of the United States

government, its money, weapons and citizenry that continue to permit human rights violations.

On the Pine Ridge Territory of the Lakota Oyate no less than three “elections” were held and

all of them defeated the IRA. Nonetheless, the IRA was forcibly installed. This is a violation of

Articles 18 and 19 and makes any collaboration with or presentation by IRA government to the

United States government a violation of our “right to participate in decision-making in matters

which would affect [our] rights, through representatives chosen by [us] in accordance with [our]

own procedures,as well as to maintain and develop [our] own indigenous decision making

institutions.” (Declaration Article 18)

IRA governments are, in fact, no different than any of the colonial governments imposed upon

peoples around the world during Euro-American conquests of the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and

20th centuries. This governments do not comply with the right of self-determination or the right

to free, prior and informed consent. Therefore, consultations, hearings, discussions or any

other form of meaningless input, on a government-to-government basis, between the IRA

governments of the United States and the Congress of the United States, are by definition

violations of the contents of the Declaration. Further, the Lakota Nation has internationally

recognized treaties with the Untied States. Congressional, government-to-government

hearings, violate the nation-to-nation status of our relationship with the United States under the

Fort Laramie Treaties of 1851 and 1868.

The Declaration is the minimum standard acceptable to the Lakota people who have worked at

the United Nations on this issue since 1975. The current attempts of the United States to

appear to “support” the Declaration are nothing more than the same pattern of “ripe and rank

… dishonorable dealings” (US Court of Claims) employed by the invented nation of the United

States since its incorporation in the 18th century. The United States, frequently defeated in

battle (at least by the Lakota, Cheyenne and Arapahoe alliance of nations), had to invent such

fictions as “plenary power”, “dependent domestic nations”, the Dawes Act, the Citizenship Act,

the Removal Act, the Indian Reorganization Act, and the Relocation Act, all to deny Indian

people our rights under any standard of fair play, justice and international law. This latest

deception, involving the Declaration, is nothing more than an attempt to domesticate the

provisions of the Declaration within the meaning of U.S. domination, racism, colonialism and

environmental degradation in order to steal resources.

Additional evidence is seen in the fact that at the same time that the United States engages in

fraudulent Congressional Hearings, corporations are on our territory preparing to further

contaminate our water and destroy our land with the poisons of uranium mining. If the United

States were truly interested in any provisions of the Declaration this would not be occurring.

Yet, it is not only happening on this very day, it is the policy of the same Administration that has

stated its “support” for the Declaration. This is a violation of Articles 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30

of the Declaration. Is the United States of American and its people capable of ever ending the

lies and deceit? What possible motive can we, as Lakota people, see but human,

environmental and cultural genocide?

Finally, we address our brothers and sisters who participate in this process with the United

States. We urge us all to remember our history, to hear the voices of our ancestors who died

during the American Holocaust, and to take a stand on behalf of the generations to come.

Reject the lies and stand with your people.

Hecetu. Submitted with all due respect.

Alexander White Plume, Eyapaha (Spokesman), Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council

Kent Lebsock, Coordinator, Owe Aku International Justice Project


Cheyenne River
Crow Creek
Fort Peck
Lower Brule
Pine Ridge
Standing Rock
Resolution of the
Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council Rejection of the United States Statement of U.S. Support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesBlack Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council

Pine Ridge Agency, SD

Chief Oliver Red Cloud - Itancan

Alexander White Plume - Eyapaha

P.O. Box 535, Manderson, SD 57756 - 605-455-2155

“The United States supports the Declaration, which—while not legally

binding or a statement of current international law—has both moral and

political force.”1

Despite the Presidentʼs optimistic public speech introducing U.S. support, in nearly every sentence of the statement where “support” is indicated, there is a significant qualification or denial placed upon the tenets set forth in the Declaration.

[The Declaration] expresses aspirations of the United States, aspirations

that this country seeks to achieve within the structure of the U.S.

Constitution, laws, and international obligations, while also seeking, where

appropriate, to improve our laws and policies.2

Which begs the question: under what circumstances would it be inappropriate to improve law and policy? Given the lessons of history, it is clear that not improving laws and policies in the U.S. is often considered inappropriate if it extends equal rights and justice to American Indian peoples and nations. In their statement that purports to “support” the Declaration, they reiterate the U.S. has done nothing but justify continuance of discriminatory policy.

The world has long recognized that the United States has lost any moral authority it may have ever claimed with regards to human rights or even the international laws of aggression and peace. This statement is further indication that, rather than leading in the work in human rights, the United States prefers to arrogantly stand outside the circle of nations while demanding that others conform to policies the U.S. is happy to violate.

They even manage to get in a comment that reduces Native Americans American Indians (and probably, more significantly, our lands and territories) to an exclusive right of dominion. Apparently the State Department and the President are comfortable referring to American Indians in a subservient, unequal and even proprietary manner. “... few have been more marginalized and ignored by Washington for as long as Native Americans—our First Americans.”

Not “the First Americans” or simply “First Americans”, but “our First Americans.” This is hardly an accident given the obvious swarm of lawyers that combed through the document adding the numerous limitations.

“The decision by the United States to support the Declaration was the

result of a thorough review of the Declaration by the relevant federal

1 Announcement of U.S. Support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Initiatives to Promote the Government-to-Government Relationship & Improve the Lives of Indigenous

Peoples, p. 1

2 Id. p. 1


In his remarks in November during Native American Heritage month, he acknowledged that:

“While we cannot erase the scourges or broken promises of our past, we

will move ahead together in writing a new, brighter chapter in our joint


We would respectfully suggest that a good start at moving ahead would be to honestly endorse the Declaration, recognize the human rights of Indigenous peoples, and honor the hundreds of treaties that have been broken. As it stands, the U.S. support of the Declaration is a meaningless shell that permits the American people and their government to continue the colonial policies it has practiced with respect to American Indian peoples since the newcomers, the United States, established its own right to self determination.

To expect that we, as Indigenous peoples, would accept anything less is

a barely veiled attempt to deny our humanity and to try to somehow convince people that our rights are somehow separate and, in face, unequal to, those of all the worldʼs other peoples.

Further evidence of this attitude continues In the most alarming part of the statement of support when the U.S. states:

“The United States is therefore pleased to support the Declarationʼs call to

promote the development of a new and distinct international concept of self-determination specific to indigenous peoples. The Declarationʼs call is to promote the development of a concept of self determination for indigenous peoples that is different from the existing right of self-determination in international law. 5

This is nothing more than saying that, as Indigenous peoples, we are NOT entitled to

the same rights as other peoples. By adding their own unilateral spin on the

Declaration , as though it were a Fox News story, they are stating that the Declaration

indeed supports US Federal Indian policy, colonization, disenfranchisement from

resources, and isolation from ecological and economic self-determination.

Nonetheless, even dismissing their redefinition of self-determination and the removal of

Indigenous peoples from the rights granted to all other peoples in the world, the U.S.

limits even their own narrow definition of self-determination to federally recognized

tribes. This, then, makes the Declaration simply another manipulation in their policy of

3 Id. p. 1

4 Id. p. 1

5 Id. p. 3

domestication, assimilation and colonization of American Indian peoples. There is no

change here.

“The Declarationʼs concept of self-determination is consistent with the

United Statesʼ existing recognition of, and relationship with, federally

recognized tribes as political entities that have inherent sovereign powers

of self-governance.” 6

Self-governance refers only to BIA tribal councils that were installed unilaterally by the

United States government, 7 and owe allegiance and are dependent on Washingtonʼs

programs regarding Indian lands and resources. Their statement on the Declaration

actually uses many pages to list the programs they use in this process.

In the section entitled “Protection of Naive American Lands and the Environment” 8 they

actually state that although “

“some of the most grievous acts committed by the United States and

many other States against indigenous peoples were with regard to their

lands, territories, and natural resources” … “the United States

understands these provisions to call for the existence of national laws and

mechanisms for the full legal recognition of the lands, territories, and

natural resources indigenous peoples currently possess. … [The U.S.]

“intends to continue to work so that the laws and mechanisms it has put in

place to recognize existing, and accommodate the acquisition of

additional, land, territory, and natural resource rights under U.S. law

function properly and to facilitate, as appropriate, access by indigenous

peoples to the traditional lands, territories and natural resources in which

they have an interest.” [Emphasis added.]

It would be difficult to insert more qualifications and references to U.S. authority over

American Indian people. Fortunately this is a written statement, otherwise the wagging

of the “forked tongues” would be visible from a satellite in outer space. Part of the

rights under US law for “tribes” is to have land acquired and held in trust.

6 Id. p. 3

7 Even though the U.S. held elections on the institution of tribal councils, at Pine Ridge it never passed,

but was forced upon the people. This does not demonstrate a right to self-determination under

international law.

8 Id. p. 6

The Obama Administration claims they have acquired over 34,000 acres of land in trust9

on behalf of Indian tribes. They indicate that this is a good thing without acknowledging

that these lands were illegally taken in the first place through treaty violations and/or the

impacts of genocidal policies. What is not added to the back-patting is that “land in

trust” merely continues the same policy of trust land that is given to mining, ranching,

and other corporate interests, instead of stewardship by Indian peoples as clearly

outlined in the Declaration. They even cite the case, City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian

Nation10 in which they deny treaty rights based on the Doctrine of Discovery.11 This is

hidden under the guise of protecting tribal lands, a clear distortion of the truth.

“The United States has also sought to protect tribal lands, and tribal

jurisdiction over those lands, in several other court cases, including the

City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation…” 12

Paternalism and colonization are clearly evident again in their discussion of their

“training program” for Indians to prepare us “to manage their own natural resources.”

An ironic concept since, for thousands of years, Indian nations were capable of

managing our resources without U.S. interference. Indeed, it is that very interference

which made it necessary for the Declaration to include numerous articles on the rights

of Indigenous peoples to manage, access, conserve and use our resources according

to our traditions and customs.

9 Id. p. 6

10 City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 125 S. Ct. 1478, 148384 (2005).

11 United Nations, E/C.19/2010/13, Preliminary study of the impact on indigenous peoples of the

international legal construct known as the Doctrine of Discovery Submitted by the Special Rapporteur, ¶


“That the Doctrine of Discovery is still being used as an active legal principle by the

United States Supreme Court in the twentieth-first century is revealed in the case City of

Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York58 decided in March 2005, exactly 50 years

after the Tee-Hit-Ton ruling. The case involved a dispute over taxation of ancestral lands

of the Oneida Indian Nation. During oral arguments, it became clear that the case would

hinge on whether, in the opinion of the Court, the Oneida Indian Nation “has sovereignty

status” with regard to the ancestral lands the Oneida Nation had reacquired. To

contextualize the Courtʼs decision and to decide the sovereign status of the Oneida

Indian Nation, the Supreme Court relied upon the Doctrine of Discovery. This is revealed

in footnote number one of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsbergʼs decision for the Court majority:

“Under the ʻDoctrine of Discoveryʼ”, wrote Justice Ginsberg, “... fee title to the lands

occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign — first

the discovering European nation and later the original states and the United States”. As

documented by this preliminary study, the Supreme Courtʼs reference to the Doctrine of

Discovery places the context for the Courtʼs decision in Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of

New York within the Framework of Dominance, dating back to the era of the Vatican

papal bulls.”

12 Supra p. 6, Announcement of the U.S. on the Declaration

“Sixteen different tribes, from Maine to Alaska, participated this summer in

the Department of the Interiorʼs Bureau of Indian Affairs Water Training

Program. The Training Program is taught by instructors from several

Department of the Interior bureaus. The program strengthens tribal

governments and prepares them to manage their own natural resources

with qualified tribal government employees who have the necessary

expertise to help alleviate the shortage of technical expertise on Indian


This statement demonstrates how the U.S. utilizes its own self-proclaimed “laws” to

deprive us from the protection of international human rights. This particular example of

an agency program designed to “enhance tribal self-determination” is particularly ill

conceived given the fact that mining projects that are contaminating water and adding

deadly heavy metals and chemicals to the ground water throughout treaty territory, are

being supported and encouraged by the United States government. “Tribal self determination”

has resulted in water contamination over the objections of Indian nations

that are wholly inconsistent with the Declaration.

As to redress, their qualifications are even more imperial and reflect the same attitude

used since 1776. The various cases and acts that they cite as enhancing tribal authority

actually only enhance federally recognized tribes continued dependence on the federal

government and an inability to act under the provisions of self-determination set forth as

it is defined in the Declaration.

“The United States will also continue to implement the many U.S. laws

that require the agreement of federally recognized tribes or indigenous

groups before certain actions can be taken or that require redress for

takings of property.”14

Although they state that they are pursuing efforts to implement laws that “require

redress for takings of property,” they go on to list a series of “new offices to ensure

proper implementation of their consultation policies.” Consultations do not address the

taking of property, the violation of treaties or the blatant disregard for basic human rights

when it comes to Indian people in the U.S.

“Tribal” self-determination is a tool designed by the United states that allows them to

control the tribes and then allows them to legitimize their actions of treaty violations. On

the contrary, self-determination is not a concept to be defined by the United States, its

President, its Congress or its people. It is an international legal concept that all member

nations of the UN adhere to and understand.

“[The policies being adopted by the U.S.] demonstrate not only that the

United States has a well-developed court system that provides a means of

13 Id. p. 4

14 Id. p. 5

redress for many wrongs suffered by U.S. citizens, residents and others –

including federally recognized tribes and indigenous individuals and

groups -- but also that redress is available from the U.S. Congress under

appropriate circumstances. The United States will interpret the redress

provisions of the Declaration to be consistent with the existing system for

legal redress in the United States, while working to ensure that

appropriate redress is in fact provided under U.S. law.”15

Again this is a distortion of the reality of the lives of Indian peoples who find themselves

living within U.S. established borders. As pointed out in many studies and the

interventions and testimonies before the United Nations by Indigenous peoples in many

different international forums, neither recourse nor redress can be found within the

domestic legal systems of the United States. On the contrary, the United Statesʼ history

with respect to American Indian nations and peoples, as well as its contemporary

dominion of land and resources, also provide ample evidence of the inadequacies of

U.S. domestic policies towards Indian peoples.16

United States support of the Declaration is, in fact, harmful when looked at carefully and

analyzed under the guiding principles underpinning purpose of the Declaration.

Because of its paternalistic and unsupported separation of Indigenous peoples from the

same rights afforded to all other peoples, the “support” by the United States, should be

seen as a warning to Indigenous peoples of true American intentions. Despite their

ongoing belief in some kind of moral authority when it comes to rights, especially,

human rights, the United States on behalf of its people, continues to stand outside the

family of nations and insists that other nations adhere to international law and

standards, while they arrogantly interpret everything from torture to colonization in terms

of their interests alone. The Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council rejects the

“support” provided by the United States in its entirety and stand by the principles of

international law to which all peoples are entitled and to which all peoples owe a duty to

responsibly act according to those laws and principles.

Therefore, be it resolved that:

The Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council calls upon the United States of America to

adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples without inserting unilateral

qualifications, limitations, and abrogations that clearly stand in violation to internationally

binding treaties, international treaty law, and international human rights laws and


15 Id. p. 8

16 See: Towards the International Court of Justice, An Analysis of the Case of the Black Hills Sioux Nation

Treaty Council on the violations of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868: The Legal and Historical Basis for

International Adjudication, Owe Aku International Justice Project, 2011.

The Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council further calls upon the United States of

America to adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in solidarity with

the United Nationsʼ member nations that have endorsed it uncompromisingly. By

inserting unilateral qualifications, limitations and abrogations, the United States of

America steps away from the other nations of the world, including the Lakota nation,

who seek peace, security and the rule of international human rights standards to bring

equality applicable to all peoples. Anything less only demonstrates a U.S. belief that it

is not bound by international law nor that it should be held to the same standards of

human rights adopted by all other nations.

The Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council calls upon the world family of Indigenous

and non-Indigenous nations to stand with it in urging the United States to reconsider its

position and apply equitable, just and legitimate standards in the same way the rest of

the United Nationsʻ members have accepted and adopted the Declaration.


I, the undersigned Secretary of the Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council, do hereby certify

that the above resolution has been approved by consensus of the Oglala Delegation of the

Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council, effective January 19, 2011


! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Chief Oliver Red Cloud, Itacan! ! ! Frederick Cedar Face, Secretary

TUCSON UNIDOS fighting to save ethnic studies finds superintendent unfit

UNIDOS audit finds John Huppenthal, Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction, unfit

Contact: Elisa Meza 520-991-2320 /
Press statement
Photo: Three Sonorans

Students respond to Arizona's superintendent of schools statement on Wednesday that the ethnic studies program in Tucson public schools violates new state law. He threatened to cut off $15 million in funds for the district.

TUCSON -- To claim that our cultural heritage is not valid or relevant to be taught within a public education system is appalling. By deeming our Ethnic Studies Program out of compliance, and Mexican American Studies to be a threat to Huppenthal’s white washed view of equitable education, he has unearthed a brand new generation of resistance. Huppenthal’s decision to characterize Ethnic Studies as hostile towards the dominant American culture has sprouted an awakening to what he fears the most: an empowered young, Latino and non-Latino population.

Students of all colors are organizing not only to save their classes, but to achieve equitable education for all communities in our schools. We condemn Huppenthal’s violation of our right to access our culture and history.

We denounce the validity of his position as state superintendent and will continuing organizing and building power for the betterment of our future.

As UNIDOS, we released yesterday our own findings where we embraced Ethnic Studies for the profound impact it has made in students’ lives. Why isn’t Huppenthal listening to the students he is supposed to represent? Why would he cut a program that tremendously supports students in bridging the “drop-out” gap? Extreme hatred, racism and discrimination are John Huppenthal’s sole motivations.

With the growing demographics making students of color (particularly Latino students) the majority of Arizona’s student population, we find Huppenthal incapable of meeting our needs and consider him severely unfit to be State Superintendent.

The words of Martin Luther King, Jr. are as applicable as ever to Huppenthal and TUSD board: “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

We demand that TUSD Governing Board and Superintendent John Pedicone create a resolution announcing they will appeal Huppenthal’s decision and sue the state.

Ultimately, the fate of the program rests in the hands of the TUSD Governing Board.

We will continue organizing for social justice. Their political positions are temporary, but this movement for our human and civil rights will continue to flourish until our community bears witness to a society based on the values of social justice, equality and respect for all of humanity.

They may try to destroy our classes through HB 2281, but they can never lock us out of our education, history and culture.
In the news:
Tucson Citizen Three Sonorans: UNIDOS finds ethnic studies a success
Reuters: Arizona school superintendent said Wednesday ethnic studies violates the law
Arizona's superintendent of schools said on Wednesday the ethnic studies program in Tucson public schools violates new state law and he threatened to cut off $15 million in funds for the district.

IEN Protecting Mother Earth Conference North Dakota 2011

“Energy, Climate, Water and the

Importance of Health and Culture.”
July 28 - 31, 2011
Hosted by the people of the Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara Nations
Little Shell Antelope Society Arbor - 4 miles w. of New Town, ND
Register on-line, or download the registration form: Word Doc or PDF and email or fax your registration form as soon as possible. This is a great help to our planning committee because it helps us to make arrangements for the appropriate number of participants.
Please Note: Hotel rooms are at a premium in the area – we suggest using Traveler's Fare ( who is our official travel agency for booking flights and hotel accommodations, especially for this gathering. There will be shuttles for those arriving at the Minot, ND and Bismarck, ND airports – to arrange pickup email: Kandi Mossett at or Twyla Baker at
This is a traditional gathering that respects the Sacred Fire.
No drugs or alcohol. Day care provided. Meals provided. Not responsible for accidents. Donations appreciated, not required. Please bring your own dishes and utensils. Register now! "Respecting the Sacredness of Mother Earth and Circle of Life"
Loren White Jr. - 701.390.7133 -
Jihan Gearon - 928.214.8301 -
Topics include:
North American Indigenous Preparatory for RIO+20
Updates on National and International Climate Policy
Round Table on Green Economy and Native Peoples
Energy & Climate Justice
Native Nation Well-Being and Health
Traditional Knowledge, Original Instructions and Cultural Survival
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC)
Events include: Elder and Youth Circles; A Camp Out Gathering; Environmental Fair; Talent Show/Open Mic

Censored News copyright

All content at Censored News is copyrighted by the creator of the work, and may not be used for any reason without written permission. This includes news, books, films, dissertations, grants, reports, pamphlets, and any other purpose.