October 2, 2009
To Arizona Republic
From: Vernon Masayesva
Editorial Board:
The Hopi Tribal Council action to ban environmentalists on allegations that they are engaged in shutting down Peabody mining operations on Black Mesa is a manufactured lie. (“Hopi say Conservationists unwelcome on tribal land,” Arizona Republic, September 29, 2009)
To be a Hopi is to be a conservationist, a caretaker and a steward of planet earth. So, by implication, the Council has banned all Hopi people from their land.
Grand Canyon Trust is the only organization coming to Hopi, not to advocate for the shutdown of Peabody, but to install photovoltaic panels on homes that have no electricity. It is likely the project will now be suspended, thanks to our Hopi Tribal Council.
The real story on Hopiland, that is yet to be revealed, is the take-over of the government by pro-Peabody legislators with the support of their legal counsel, Scott Canty, and the ensuing corruption and abuse of power by an illegally constituted Council.
Forty individual Hopis have filed a challenge to the U.S. Office of Surface Mining’s decision to issue a Life-of-Mine permit to Peabody so they can continue the destructive surface mining for an additional 15 years after 2011. They, the Hopi petitioners, are represented by a private lawyer working pro-bono, and not by any of the organizations banned by the Hopi Council.
Of special concern to the Hopi is the continuing drawdown of N-aquifer groundwater and the accidental and deliberate destruction of archaeological sites, burial sites, petroglyphs and other cultural resources.
The Black Mesa area is considered to be archaeologically “site rich." Over 2,500 sites within the 67,000-acre Peabody leasehold have been catalogued by an archaeological field school.’
The Hopi people have no record of how many sites and burial grounds have been deliberately destroyed since the mining started in 1970. This is a tragedy that no media has yet covered.
This is why the vast majority of Hopi people are supporting the petitioners' request that the entire Black Mesa project EIS be redone, this time in full compliance with NEPA and a Presidential Order requiring full citizen participation. Neither OSM nor the Hopi Water and Energy Team have come to villages to explain the mine plan or OSM’s analysis of the impacts of the mine plan since the EIS process started in 1985, contrary to allegations by Scott Canty, General Counsel to the Hopi Council.
The Hopi people are not out to “stop the mining.” This false allegation has been used time and time again to discredit Black Mesa Trust, which has since 1998 been at the forefront of a battle to end the Peabody coal slurry operation, with the support of the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club.
Black Mesa Trust is supporting the Hopi petitioners. The opposition includes the Hopi Tribal Council, Peabody, OSM, Salt River Project and the Navajo Nation--all with deep pockets and access to dozens of lawyers.
I hope you will give representatives of Hopi petitioners the opportunity to sit down with you and explain what is really happening concerning the mining and the pro-Peabody Council role in supporting OSM, an agency that is captured by Peabody, and owners of Navajo Generation Station. There are always two sides to a story and so far no one has tried to hear the other side.
Arizona Republic has been carrying news releases by Tina May, public relations officer for the Hopi Tribal Council. She is reporting only one side of the story. We understand she is a former employee of the Arizona Republic.
Thank you,
Vernon Masayesva
P.O. Box 33
Kykotsmovi, AZ 86039
928/255-2356
October 4, 2009
October 3, 2009
Galvanized by attack, Hopi and Navajo respond
Photo: Roberta Blackgoat protesting Peabody's water slurry during
one of her last public protests. Photo Brenda Norrell
When the Hopi Tribal Council banned "environmentalists," and Navajo President Joe Shirley, Jr., agreed, Navajos and Hopis defending the land were first shocked and appalled. Galvanized by the attack, Navajo and Hopi defenders of the land and cultural ways responded.
Klee Benally, Navajo, points out that the US puppet governments are continuing to appease the United States and corporations.
"I would expect this type of declaration from totalitarian government dictators, not those who are democratically elected leaders of Tribal Nations. Considering the history of colonization and BIA established puppet governments on Native American lands, Shirley's statement is not surprising.
"Attempting to silence the voice and limit the rights of Dine' people to protect their life, land and liberty is not sovereignty, it is in the direction of totalitarianism."
Benally points out that Shirley uses the catch word "sovereignty" to defend his stance against anything Shirley disagrees with. Benally said, "Does sovereignty really mean being dependent on non-renewable energy that destroys Mother Earth, pollutes drinking water and air and compromises our holy covenant with nature? Does it mean being dependent on casinos and outside corporate interests?'
Benally also reminds Shirley of Benally's grandmother, the late Roberta Blackgoat resisting relocation, who defended the land until her end on this earth.
"My grandmother Roberta Blackgoat once said, ‘I know each tree, each plant that grows right there. And they know me. The children, grandchildren, great grandchildren need to be right there. We need them to get back to the land and live on our ancestors' land.' She said that the ‘relocatees' die of ‘worriness,' ‘missing their traditional food and not knowing where to go to pray.' Blackgoat said, ‘As long as I live, I'm not going to sign' and continued to demand ‘(Peabody) stop destroying the Mother Earth's liver and blood; the coal and the water.'"
"Until her passing she resisted relocation, still abandoned by the Navajo Nation government, ‘unwelcome' by the Hopi Tribal government, and as a testimony to the injustices of US law.
"Would she still be unwelcome in her homeland Mr. Shirley --- as an environmentalist, that is a woman who loved her Earth?"
In response to the Hopi Tribal Council ban, Alph Secakuku, Hopi council representative of Sipaulovi (Second Mesa), spoke of the sacred foundation and destiny of the Hopi people.
"We made a sacred covenant with Maasaw, our Supreme Being, to be good stewards of the Fourth World we live in today. We, as people, all have the responsibility of being Caretakers of Mother Earth. You care for it and take from it only what you need, and it will provide for you.
"I never thought I would see the day when being ‘Hopi' meant being anti-environment, pro-big corporate energy, and actually promoting pollution and global warming in favor of dollars/money."
Secakuku said the ban was the result of the current political coup in the council.
"It is a sad day for Hopi/Tewa people, and I am disappointed. We, the Hopi/Tewa people, have worked closely for many years with our allies from the environmental community to protect sacred lands from development and to stop uranium mining from poisoning our water. Water is life, therefore, it is sacred. We will continue to work together - tribal communities and other clean energy jobs advocates - to bring green economic development to our lands that respects our air and water."
Former Hopi Chairman Ben Nuvamsa also points out the illegality, absurdity and indignity of the Hopi Tribal Council's ban.
"For the record, Indian tribes have no jurisdiction over non-Indians on reservation lands (see Oliphant v. Suquamish). On the Hopi Reservation, only the Tribal Chairman has the authority to sign an exclusion order under Tribal Ordinance 46. So without a Tribal Chairman, no one can sign such an order. Without meeting these requirements, the resolution passed by this group is nothing more than a mean-spirited statement.
"Our teachings as Hopi and Tewa people dictate that we should welcome everyone. It is not Hopi to exclude anyone. As Hopi and Tewa people, we are raised to be good stewards of our lands so we are all ‘environmentalists' by our cultural teachings and practices.
"The ‘environmentalists' have stood by the Hopi Tribe when we opposed the making of artificial snow on our sacred Nuvatukyaovi (San Francisco Peaks). They assisted in our opposition to the proposed uranium mining near the Grand Canyon. They assisted in securing protections for the American Bald Eagle. So why the opposition to ‘environmentalists' now? Could it be financial and corporate greed? Absolutely," he said in a statement.
Nuvamsa points out that it the elected tribal leaders compromising sovereignty.
"Some say the ‘environmentalists' are compromising our tribal sovereignty. I disagree. It is our own ‘tribal leaders' that are the worst violators of compromising our sovereignty."
When the Hopi Tribal Council banned "environmentalists," and Navajo President Joe Shirley, Jr., agreed, Navajos and Hopis defending the land were first shocked and appalled. Galvanized by the attack, Navajo and Hopi defenders of the land and cultural ways responded.
Klee Benally, Navajo, points out that the US puppet governments are continuing to appease the United States and corporations.
"I would expect this type of declaration from totalitarian government dictators, not those who are democratically elected leaders of Tribal Nations. Considering the history of colonization and BIA established puppet governments on Native American lands, Shirley's statement is not surprising.
"Attempting to silence the voice and limit the rights of Dine' people to protect their life, land and liberty is not sovereignty, it is in the direction of totalitarianism."
Benally points out that Shirley uses the catch word "sovereignty" to defend his stance against anything Shirley disagrees with. Benally said, "Does sovereignty really mean being dependent on non-renewable energy that destroys Mother Earth, pollutes drinking water and air and compromises our holy covenant with nature? Does it mean being dependent on casinos and outside corporate interests?'
Benally also reminds Shirley of Benally's grandmother, the late Roberta Blackgoat resisting relocation, who defended the land until her end on this earth.
"My grandmother Roberta Blackgoat once said, ‘I know each tree, each plant that grows right there. And they know me. The children, grandchildren, great grandchildren need to be right there. We need them to get back to the land and live on our ancestors' land.' She said that the ‘relocatees' die of ‘worriness,' ‘missing their traditional food and not knowing where to go to pray.' Blackgoat said, ‘As long as I live, I'm not going to sign' and continued to demand ‘(Peabody) stop destroying the Mother Earth's liver and blood; the coal and the water.'"
"Until her passing she resisted relocation, still abandoned by the Navajo Nation government, ‘unwelcome' by the Hopi Tribal government, and as a testimony to the injustices of US law.
"Would she still be unwelcome in her homeland Mr. Shirley --- as an environmentalist, that is a woman who loved her Earth?"
In response to the Hopi Tribal Council ban, Alph Secakuku, Hopi council representative of Sipaulovi (Second Mesa), spoke of the sacred foundation and destiny of the Hopi people.
"We made a sacred covenant with Maasaw, our Supreme Being, to be good stewards of the Fourth World we live in today. We, as people, all have the responsibility of being Caretakers of Mother Earth. You care for it and take from it only what you need, and it will provide for you.
"I never thought I would see the day when being ‘Hopi' meant being anti-environment, pro-big corporate energy, and actually promoting pollution and global warming in favor of dollars/money."
Secakuku said the ban was the result of the current political coup in the council.
"It is a sad day for Hopi/Tewa people, and I am disappointed. We, the Hopi/Tewa people, have worked closely for many years with our allies from the environmental community to protect sacred lands from development and to stop uranium mining from poisoning our water. Water is life, therefore, it is sacred. We will continue to work together - tribal communities and other clean energy jobs advocates - to bring green economic development to our lands that respects our air and water."
Former Hopi Chairman Ben Nuvamsa also points out the illegality, absurdity and indignity of the Hopi Tribal Council's ban.
"For the record, Indian tribes have no jurisdiction over non-Indians on reservation lands (see Oliphant v. Suquamish). On the Hopi Reservation, only the Tribal Chairman has the authority to sign an exclusion order under Tribal Ordinance 46. So without a Tribal Chairman, no one can sign such an order. Without meeting these requirements, the resolution passed by this group is nothing more than a mean-spirited statement.
"Our teachings as Hopi and Tewa people dictate that we should welcome everyone. It is not Hopi to exclude anyone. As Hopi and Tewa people, we are raised to be good stewards of our lands so we are all ‘environmentalists' by our cultural teachings and practices.
"The ‘environmentalists' have stood by the Hopi Tribe when we opposed the making of artificial snow on our sacred Nuvatukyaovi (San Francisco Peaks). They assisted in our opposition to the proposed uranium mining near the Grand Canyon. They assisted in securing protections for the American Bald Eagle. So why the opposition to ‘environmentalists' now? Could it be financial and corporate greed? Absolutely," he said in a statement.
Nuvamsa points out that it the elected tribal leaders compromising sovereignty.
"Some say the ‘environmentalists' are compromising our tribal sovereignty. I disagree. It is our own ‘tribal leaders' that are the worst violators of compromising our sovereignty."
Vernon Masayesva, executive director of Black Mesa Trust and former Hopi Chairman, points out that Hopi are true stewards. Masayesva, in a letter to Arizona Republic, also points out that the newspaper is printing only one-side of the story at Hopi, press releases written by a former employee of the newspaper.
Referring to the ban, he said, "To be a Hopi is to be a conservationist, a caretaker and a steward of planet earth. So, by implication, the Council has banned all Hopi people from their land."
Masayesva said the Grand Canyon Trust came to Hopiland to install photovoltaic panels on homes that have no electricity. "It is likely the project will now be suspended, thanks to our Hopi Tribal Council."
"The real story on Hopiland, that is yet to be revealed, is the take-over of the government by pro-Peabody legislators with the support of their legal counsel, Scott Canty, and the ensuing corruption and abuse of power by an illegally constituted Council."
Masayesva said forty individual Hopis have filed a challenge to the U.S. Office of Surface Mining’s decision to issue a Life-of-Mine permit to Peabody so they can continue the destructive surface mining for an additional 15 years after 2011.
"Of special concern to the Hopi is the continuing drawdown of N-aquifer groundwater and the accidental and deliberate destruction of archaeological sites, burial sites, petroglyphs and other cultural resources."
Masayesva said the Arizona Republic's coverage is biased."Arizona Republic has been carrying news releases by Tina May, public relations officer for the Hopi Tribal Council. She is reporting only one side of the story. We understand she is a former employee of the Arizona Republic," he said.
Navajos at Black Mesa Water Coalition, creating green jobs on Navajoland, also responded.
"We believe that President Shirley is misinformed as to the benefits of coal mining and coal-fired power plants and out of touch with the kind of economy the Navajo people want," said Wahleah Johns, also a Navajo citizen and Co-Director of Black Mesa Water Coalition.
"Our organization has been working to support the traditional lifeways of weavers, ranchers, artisans and a new clean energy economy. After over 30 years of coal development on the Navajo reservation, most of our people still live below the national poverty line, and now there are increasing health problems due to fossil fuel development pollution and global warming."
Black Mesa Water Coalition said that in July of 2009, the Navajo Nation 21st Council officially adopted the Navajo Green Economy Commission and Fund to begin a process of diversifying the Navajo economy and building thousands of well-paying Navajo jobs that do not pollute.
"The Black Mesa Water Coalition formed the Navajo Green Economy Coalition, consisting of both Native and non-native organizations and individuals. This Coalition's partnership with the Navajo Nation's Speaker of the Council, Lawrence T. Morgan, was a large contributor to the successful establishment of a Navajo Green Economy plan and is a model for how tribal governments and tribal citizen's groups can work together."
Calvin Johnson, Navajo in Leupp, Arizona, on the Navajo Nation, fighting the poisoning of the water, air and land by coal mines and power plants, said he was appalled by Shirley's statement. Johnson told Shirley that blaming and disrespecting traditional grassroots people is not the answer.
Johnson said, "We are suppose to protect our people and mother earth from harmful contaminants that cause numerous health diseases, destroy sacred sites and deplete and contaminate precious water resources."
Johnson said the Navajo Nation has been providing misinformation about the proposed Desert Rock power plant. There is no such thing as a clean coal fired power plant. He said no machine can remove 100 percent of the sulfur, mercury and other pollutants from coal and burn it free of emissions.
The Sierra Club said it is an honor to work with Hopis and Navajos.
"The Sierra Club is honored to work with our tribal partners in transitioning to a clean energy future, including the Black Mesa Water Coalition, Dooda Desert Rock, Hopis Organized for Political Initiatives (H.O.P.I.), the Navajo Green Economy Coalition, To' Nizhoni Ani, C-Aquifer for the Diné, and other community organizations."
While the mainstream media, including Associated Press, continues to distort and censor the voices of the Navajo and Hopi people, the full statements are online at Censored News:
http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com/
Klee Benally: Democracy unwelcome on Navajo and Hopi Nations?
Grandmother Roberta Blackgoat said, “As long as I live, I’m not going to sign" and continued to demand "(Peabody) stop destroying the Mother Earth's liver and blood; the coal and the water." Until her passing she resisted relocation, still abandoned by the Navajo Nation government, 'unwelcome' by the Hopi Tribal government, and as a testimony to the injustices of US law.
Democracy Unwelcome on Navajo and Hopi Nations?
By Klee Benally, Navajo
Censored News
http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com/
(Friday, October 2nd, 2009) Window Rock, AZ -- In a recent proclamation the President of the Navajo Nation, Joe Shirley Jr., sided with the Hopi Tribal Council in an attack on democratic rights of the Dine' people to protect their environment and health of their communities.
Shirley stated that "Local and national environmental groups [are] unwelcome" on reservation lands.
I would expect this type of declaration from totalitarian government dictators, not those who are democratically elected leaders of Tribal Nations. Considering the history of colonization and BIA established puppet governments on Native American lands, Shirley's statement is not surprising.
Joe Shirley proclaimed, “Unlike ever before, environmental activists and organizations are among the greatest threat to tribal sovereignty, tribal self-determination, and our quest for independence.” He barely falls short of using the word "terrorists".
Dissenters, critics, and issue oriented advocates should be a welcome and integral part of an informed and functioning democratic society. Indeed, both Hopi and Dine communities are made up of many Native American environmentalists. Shirley would have us believe that anyone who stands in the way of his office's interests would be an opponent of his own concept of tribal sovereignty.
Attempting to silence the voice and limit the rights of Dine' people to protect their life, land and liberty is not sovereignty, its in the direction of totalitarianism.
Why haven't we heard such fierce and direct statements from these government leaders about the threat that drug dealers and domestic and sexual violence perpetrators pose or the overcrowded jails on the Rez which continually push violent criminals back out into the community?
Joe Shirley is stating that only certain types of environmental advocacy are welcome. Are those just types that he agrees with? What standard will be applied to know what groups and what actions are welcome?
When any population does not agree with the actions of their governments, those citizens have the right to protest. The civil rights struggles against the U.S. government are testimony to this.
Does sovereignty really mean being dependent on non-renewable energy that destroys Mother Earth, pollutes drinking water and air and compromises our holy covenant with nature? Does it mean being dependent on casinos and outside corporate interests?
Why not quantify other threats to sovereignty? Are gaming compacts also concessions of sovereignty? Or is the double standard acceptable as long as the money is green? Would increased advocacy against gaming and gambling addictions be the next "threat to sovereignty"?
Joe Shirley defines sovereignty as "economic independence" that is solved with projects like Desert Rock but his example of leadership is to bully those who don't agree with his energy politics.
It is no surprise that Joe Shirley defends coal mining and turns his cheek to the suffering of tens of thousands of Dine' families who have been severely impacted by forced relocation and Peabody Energy's mining activities.
How is what Peabody has done to our environment and communities in and around Black Mesa defensible against the "threat" of outside environmentalists? Relocation, water table depletion, contamination of livestock water sources, and much more?
In fact, many of our people have lived and continue to live in economic poverty before and during Peabody Coal's contribution to the "independence" of our Nation. Right now on Black Mesa, many of my relatives still live with no running water or electricity, where is Joe Shirley's sovereignty for them?
Would Joe Shirley and the HTC rather have Snowbowl, Desert Rock, Peabody, Monsanto, and other corporations or private businesses act with absolutely no mechanisms for community accountability as well?
Snowbowl and the City of Flagstaff say that wastewater snowmaking on the holy San Francisco Peaks is necessary for their economy and jobs. Are they then justified in their actions?
The direct relationship between people and their environment is a cultural value. When you break down that relationship you break down the culture and the traditions that have been passed on from generation to generation. Will our cultural sovereignty be compromised for the benefit of outside corporations? Is the Navajo Nation's relationship to outside corporations more of a defining factor of sovereignty than environment, culture and traditions?
It must be understood that if not for environmental advocacy groups and concerned citizens, that more of the Navajo Nation's water ways would be contaminated with uranium, more sacred places would be destroyed, more of our people would be forced from their homelands.
It would be absurd to think that Mr. Shirley and the HTC are acting on the will of the people or in the best interest of those who must have clean water to drink, clean air to breathe, unpolluted land to plant seeds, and holy places that are not desecrated.
If it were not for environmentalists, corporations would have ravaged our lands and people for their own benefit long ago. What better way to promote safeguards which uphold traditional values that guide us as stewards of our Mother Earth than to promote the democratic participation of the people who work to advocate on behalf of a healthy environment? Joe Shirley & the HTC have sent a message that only certain types of democracy are allowed within reservation boundaries. This action emboldens those who seek to destroy our Mother Earth for their own profit and pleases those who prefer totalitarianism.
Regardless of which organizations are being targeted and attacked, the message that Shirley and the HTC are sending are one that should be alarming to anyone who cares about their basic rights. What happens when we don't agree with their decisions or policies? Do we end up on a list of those "unwelcome" as well?
My grandmother Roberta Blackgoat once said, “I know each tree, each plant that grows right there. And they know me. The children, grandchildren, great grandchildren need to be right there. We need them to get back to the land and live on our ancestors’ land.” She said that the “relocatees” die of “worriness,” "missing their traditional food and not knowing where to go to pray". Blackgoat said, “As long as I live, I’m not going to sign" and continued to demand "(Peabody) stop destroying the Mother Earth's liver and blood; the coal and the water".
Until her passing she resisted relocation, still abandoned by the Navajo Nation government, "unwelcome" by the Hopi Tribal government, and as a testimony to the injustices of US law.
Would she still be unwelcome in her homeland Mr. Shirley---as an environmentalist, that is a woman who loved her Earth?
Klee Benally
indigenousaction@gmail.com
http://www.indigenousaction.org/ - Independent Indigenous Media
http://www.oybm.org/ - Indigenous Youth Empowerment!
http://www.savethepeaks.org/ - Protect Sacred Places
www.myspace.com/taalahooghan - Flagstaff Infoshop
http://www.blackfire.net/
www.myspace.com/eelk
www.twitter.com/eelk
Skype: indigenousaction
--
Democracy Unwelcome on Navajo and Hopi Nations?
By Klee Benally, Navajo
Censored News
http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com/
(Friday, October 2nd, 2009) Window Rock, AZ -- In a recent proclamation the President of the Navajo Nation, Joe Shirley Jr., sided with the Hopi Tribal Council in an attack on democratic rights of the Dine' people to protect their environment and health of their communities.
Shirley stated that "Local and national environmental groups [are] unwelcome" on reservation lands.
I would expect this type of declaration from totalitarian government dictators, not those who are democratically elected leaders of Tribal Nations. Considering the history of colonization and BIA established puppet governments on Native American lands, Shirley's statement is not surprising.
Joe Shirley proclaimed, “Unlike ever before, environmental activists and organizations are among the greatest threat to tribal sovereignty, tribal self-determination, and our quest for independence.” He barely falls short of using the word "terrorists".
Dissenters, critics, and issue oriented advocates should be a welcome and integral part of an informed and functioning democratic society. Indeed, both Hopi and Dine communities are made up of many Native American environmentalists. Shirley would have us believe that anyone who stands in the way of his office's interests would be an opponent of his own concept of tribal sovereignty.
Attempting to silence the voice and limit the rights of Dine' people to protect their life, land and liberty is not sovereignty, its in the direction of totalitarianism.
Why haven't we heard such fierce and direct statements from these government leaders about the threat that drug dealers and domestic and sexual violence perpetrators pose or the overcrowded jails on the Rez which continually push violent criminals back out into the community?
Joe Shirley is stating that only certain types of environmental advocacy are welcome. Are those just types that he agrees with? What standard will be applied to know what groups and what actions are welcome?
When any population does not agree with the actions of their governments, those citizens have the right to protest. The civil rights struggles against the U.S. government are testimony to this.
Does sovereignty really mean being dependent on non-renewable energy that destroys Mother Earth, pollutes drinking water and air and compromises our holy covenant with nature? Does it mean being dependent on casinos and outside corporate interests?
Why not quantify other threats to sovereignty? Are gaming compacts also concessions of sovereignty? Or is the double standard acceptable as long as the money is green? Would increased advocacy against gaming and gambling addictions be the next "threat to sovereignty"?
Joe Shirley defines sovereignty as "economic independence" that is solved with projects like Desert Rock but his example of leadership is to bully those who don't agree with his energy politics.
It is no surprise that Joe Shirley defends coal mining and turns his cheek to the suffering of tens of thousands of Dine' families who have been severely impacted by forced relocation and Peabody Energy's mining activities.
How is what Peabody has done to our environment and communities in and around Black Mesa defensible against the "threat" of outside environmentalists? Relocation, water table depletion, contamination of livestock water sources, and much more?
In fact, many of our people have lived and continue to live in economic poverty before and during Peabody Coal's contribution to the "independence" of our Nation. Right now on Black Mesa, many of my relatives still live with no running water or electricity, where is Joe Shirley's sovereignty for them?
Would Joe Shirley and the HTC rather have Snowbowl, Desert Rock, Peabody, Monsanto, and other corporations or private businesses act with absolutely no mechanisms for community accountability as well?
Snowbowl and the City of Flagstaff say that wastewater snowmaking on the holy San Francisco Peaks is necessary for their economy and jobs. Are they then justified in their actions?
The direct relationship between people and their environment is a cultural value. When you break down that relationship you break down the culture and the traditions that have been passed on from generation to generation. Will our cultural sovereignty be compromised for the benefit of outside corporations? Is the Navajo Nation's relationship to outside corporations more of a defining factor of sovereignty than environment, culture and traditions?
It must be understood that if not for environmental advocacy groups and concerned citizens, that more of the Navajo Nation's water ways would be contaminated with uranium, more sacred places would be destroyed, more of our people would be forced from their homelands.
It would be absurd to think that Mr. Shirley and the HTC are acting on the will of the people or in the best interest of those who must have clean water to drink, clean air to breathe, unpolluted land to plant seeds, and holy places that are not desecrated.
If it were not for environmentalists, corporations would have ravaged our lands and people for their own benefit long ago. What better way to promote safeguards which uphold traditional values that guide us as stewards of our Mother Earth than to promote the democratic participation of the people who work to advocate on behalf of a healthy environment? Joe Shirley & the HTC have sent a message that only certain types of democracy are allowed within reservation boundaries. This action emboldens those who seek to destroy our Mother Earth for their own profit and pleases those who prefer totalitarianism.
Regardless of which organizations are being targeted and attacked, the message that Shirley and the HTC are sending are one that should be alarming to anyone who cares about their basic rights. What happens when we don't agree with their decisions or policies? Do we end up on a list of those "unwelcome" as well?
My grandmother Roberta Blackgoat once said, “I know each tree, each plant that grows right there. And they know me. The children, grandchildren, great grandchildren need to be right there. We need them to get back to the land and live on our ancestors’ land.” She said that the “relocatees” die of “worriness,” "missing their traditional food and not knowing where to go to pray". Blackgoat said, “As long as I live, I’m not going to sign" and continued to demand "(Peabody) stop destroying the Mother Earth's liver and blood; the coal and the water".
Until her passing she resisted relocation, still abandoned by the Navajo Nation government, "unwelcome" by the Hopi Tribal government, and as a testimony to the injustices of US law.
Would she still be unwelcome in her homeland Mr. Shirley---as an environmentalist, that is a woman who loved her Earth?
Klee Benally
indigenousaction@gmail.com
http://www.indigenousaction.org/ - Independent Indigenous Media
http://www.oybm.org/ - Indigenous Youth Empowerment!
http://www.savethepeaks.org/ - Protect Sacred Places
www.myspace.com/taalahooghan - Flagstaff Infoshop
http://www.blackfire.net/
www.myspace.com/eelk
www.twitter.com/eelk
Skype: indigenousaction
--
Former Hopi Chairman Nuvamsa responds to Hopi Council ban on 'environmentalists'
Ben H. Nuvamsa, President/CEO
KIVA Institute, LLC
"Building Capacity in Indian Country"
Toll Free: 1-866-202-KIVA
www.kivainstitute.com
October 2, 2009
Censored News
http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com
Editor:
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the latest, unfortunate and embarrassing action of the “illegal council” of the Hopi Tribe. I say the “illegal council” because that is exactly what this group is. The Hopi Tribe’s Constitution clearly requires that the “tribal council shall consist of the Tribal Chairman and Vice Chairman”. Since January 1, 2009, there is no Tribal Chairman and there is no Tribal Vice Chairman - so there is no tribal council. Simple as that! So the resolution this illegal group passed is not worth the paper it’s written on. And for that matter, all resolutions passed since January 1, 2009, by this group have no force and effect.
For the record, Indian tribes have no jurisdiction over non-Indians on reservation lands (see Oliphant v. Suquamish). On the Hopi Reservation, only the Tribal Chairman has the authority to sign an exclusion order under Tribal Ordinance 46. So without a Tribal Chairman, no one can sign such an order. Without meeting these requirements, the resolution passed by this group is nothing more than a mean-spirited statement.
Our teachings as Hopi and Tewa people dictate that we should welcome everyone. It is not Hopi to exclude anyone. As Hopi and Tewa people, we are raised to be good stewards of our lands so we are all “environmentalists” by our cultural teachings and practices.
The “environmentalists” have stood by the Hopi Tribe when we opposed the making of artificial snow on our sacred Nuvatukyaovi (San Francisco Peaks). They assisted in our opposition to the proposed uranium m ining near the Grand Canyon. They assisted in securing protections for the American Bald Eagle. So why the opposition to “environmentalists” now? Could it be financial and corporate greed? Absolutely.
The Black Mesa Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Office of Surface Mining’s (OSM) decision to grant the Peabody Coal Company a new Life of Mine (LOM) permit at the Black Mesa mine area is at the heart of this issue and is central to our current political turmoil. Our people fought hard over many years to stop the pumping of our pristine water from the N-aquifer to slurry coal from the Black Mesa Mine to the Mohave Generating Station. Today, our fears have been realized as our sacred springs have dried up affecting our aged-old ceremonies, corn crops, water quality and the very fabric of who we are as Hopi and Tewa people. This cannot continue.
Today, as in the early 1960’s when the exploitation of our coal began, we are without a legitimate tribal council, and the tribe’s general counsel, Scott Canty, has pushed to have OSM issue a Record of Decision on the Black Mesa EIS to grant Peabody Coal a LOM permit. Scott Canty’s efforts have also led to this illegal tribal council in passing a resolution to approve a new coal lease “Reopener”. This illegal group has failed to listen to the wishes of the Hopi and Tewa people. In the 1960’s the Hopi Tribe’s attorney, John Boyden, championed a way to have the Bureau of Indian Affairs approve the coal lease with the Peabody Coal Company on behalf of the Hopi Tribe. The Hopi Tribe later learned that Boyden was also representing the Peabody Coal Company at the same time, but it was too late. At that time, as it is today, a handpicked tribal council was formed to “ratify” the coal lease with Peabody. This is history repeating itself.
Some say the “environmentalists” are compromising our tribal sovereignty. I disagree. It is our own “tribal leaders” that are the worst violators of compromising our sovereignty. In fact, one of our own once testified in support of former Senator Slade Gorton’s initiative to take away the sovereign immunity protection of Indian tribes. Tribal sovereignty is one of our most sacred rights as Indian tribes, but we must be extremely careful in how we exercise it, or we will lose it.
I am glad this issue finally received local and national attention. We can now take this opportunity to reveal the truth about the Peabody Coal Company and how our own people and our attorneys are involved in the exploitation of our precious natural resources. Let the truth be known. Let the truth be exposed.
Kwak’wha (Thank you),
Benjamin H. Nuvamsa
Former Hopi Tribal Chairman
KIVA Institute, LLC
"Building Capacity in Indian Country"
Toll Free: 1-866-202-KIVA
www.kivainstitute.com
October 2, 2009
Censored News
http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com
Editor:
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the latest, unfortunate and embarrassing action of the “illegal council” of the Hopi Tribe. I say the “illegal council” because that is exactly what this group is. The Hopi Tribe’s Constitution clearly requires that the “tribal council shall consist of the Tribal Chairman and Vice Chairman”. Since January 1, 2009, there is no Tribal Chairman and there is no Tribal Vice Chairman - so there is no tribal council. Simple as that! So the resolution this illegal group passed is not worth the paper it’s written on. And for that matter, all resolutions passed since January 1, 2009, by this group have no force and effect.
For the record, Indian tribes have no jurisdiction over non-Indians on reservation lands (see Oliphant v. Suquamish). On the Hopi Reservation, only the Tribal Chairman has the authority to sign an exclusion order under Tribal Ordinance 46. So without a Tribal Chairman, no one can sign such an order. Without meeting these requirements, the resolution passed by this group is nothing more than a mean-spirited statement.
Our teachings as Hopi and Tewa people dictate that we should welcome everyone. It is not Hopi to exclude anyone. As Hopi and Tewa people, we are raised to be good stewards of our lands so we are all “environmentalists” by our cultural teachings and practices.
The “environmentalists” have stood by the Hopi Tribe when we opposed the making of artificial snow on our sacred Nuvatukyaovi (San Francisco Peaks). They assisted in our opposition to the proposed uranium m ining near the Grand Canyon. They assisted in securing protections for the American Bald Eagle. So why the opposition to “environmentalists” now? Could it be financial and corporate greed? Absolutely.
The Black Mesa Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Office of Surface Mining’s (OSM) decision to grant the Peabody Coal Company a new Life of Mine (LOM) permit at the Black Mesa mine area is at the heart of this issue and is central to our current political turmoil. Our people fought hard over many years to stop the pumping of our pristine water from the N-aquifer to slurry coal from the Black Mesa Mine to the Mohave Generating Station. Today, our fears have been realized as our sacred springs have dried up affecting our aged-old ceremonies, corn crops, water quality and the very fabric of who we are as Hopi and Tewa people. This cannot continue.
Today, as in the early 1960’s when the exploitation of our coal began, we are without a legitimate tribal council, and the tribe’s general counsel, Scott Canty, has pushed to have OSM issue a Record of Decision on the Black Mesa EIS to grant Peabody Coal a LOM permit. Scott Canty’s efforts have also led to this illegal tribal council in passing a resolution to approve a new coal lease “Reopener”. This illegal group has failed to listen to the wishes of the Hopi and Tewa people. In the 1960’s the Hopi Tribe’s attorney, John Boyden, championed a way to have the Bureau of Indian Affairs approve the coal lease with the Peabody Coal Company on behalf of the Hopi Tribe. The Hopi Tribe later learned that Boyden was also representing the Peabody Coal Company at the same time, but it was too late. At that time, as it is today, a handpicked tribal council was formed to “ratify” the coal lease with Peabody. This is history repeating itself.
Some say the “environmentalists” are compromising our tribal sovereignty. I disagree. It is our own “tribal leaders” that are the worst violators of compromising our sovereignty. In fact, one of our own once testified in support of former Senator Slade Gorton’s initiative to take away the sovereign immunity protection of Indian tribes. Tribal sovereignty is one of our most sacred rights as Indian tribes, but we must be extremely careful in how we exercise it, or we will lose it.
I am glad this issue finally received local and national attention. We can now take this opportunity to reveal the truth about the Peabody Coal Company and how our own people and our attorneys are involved in the exploitation of our precious natural resources. Let the truth be known. Let the truth be exposed.
Kwak’wha (Thank you),
Benjamin H. Nuvamsa
Former Hopi Tribal Chairman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)