Press Release from the Modoc Nation re: State Department Contradicts Obama's Announcement of Support for UNDRIP

For Immediate Release

December 30: Issaquah, Washington

Analysis and Commentary by Two Eagles (Perry Chesnut)

Secretary of State, Modoc Nation

State Department White Paper Contradicts Obama’s Statements at Tribal Nations Conference –

Shows U.S. Endorsement of UNDRIP Really Means Politics and Business as Usual

On December 16, 2010, President Obama met with more than 300 tribal leaders at Blair House for the second White House Tribal Nations Conference. In his opening remarks (transcript issued by the White House Office of the Press Secretary), the President surprised almost everyone by announcing that the United States is changing the position it has held since September of 2007 concerning the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) – from a position of outright rejection to a position of “lending its support to this declaration.” The President’s announcement was met with tremendous applause. Camera flashes filled the room, and hundreds of participants captured the moment by video on their cell phones.

It is worthwhile to read the actual words the President spoke just following this announcement, worthwhile because they raised the hopes and aspirations of not only the conference participants but also all Native Americans who have heard or seen the media reports that the U.S. has changed its position and will now support UNDRIP. But sadly, as I shall point out below, the President’s promises and platitudes may turn out to be nothing more than just empty talk. First, the President’s words from the point at which he announced support for UNDRIP:

“And as you know, in April, we announced that we were reviewing our position on the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. And today I can announce that the United States is lending its support to this declaration. (Applause.)

The aspirations it affirms -- including the respect for the institutions and rich cultures of Native peoples -- are one we must always seek to fulfill. And we’re releasing a more detailed statement about U.S. support for the declaration and our ongoing work in Indian Country. But I want to be clear: What matters far more than words -- what matters far more than any resolution or declaration -– are actions to match those words. And that’s what this conference is about. (Applause.) That’s what this conference is about. That’s the standard I expect my administration to be held to.

So we’re making progress. We’re moving forward. And what I hope is that we are seeing a turning point in the relationship between our nations. The truth is, for a long time, Native Americans were implicitly told that they had a choice to make. By virtue of the longstanding failure to tackle wrenching problems in Indian Country, it seemed as though you had to either abandon your heritage or accept a lesser lot in life; that there was no way to be a successful part of America and a proud Native American.

But we know this is a false choice. To accept it is to believe that we can’t and won’t do better. And I don’t accept that. I know there is not a single person in this room who accepts that either. We know that, ultimately, this is not just a matter of legislation, not just a matter of policy. It’s a matter of whether we’re going to live up to our basic values. It’s a matter of upholding an ideal that has always defined who we are as Americans. E pluribus unum. Out of many, one.

That’s why we’re here. That’s what we’re called to do. And I’m confident that if we keep up our efforts, that if we continue to work together, that we will live up to the simple motto and we will achieve a brighter future for the First Americans and for all Americans.”

President Obama wants to be clear: “What matters far more than words . . . are actions to match those words,” and action is the standard to which he expects his administration to be held. He derides the “false choice” that previous administrations have given Native Americans - that “you either had to abandon your heritage or accept a lesser lot in life,” and he rejects outright the basis of that false choice – the belief “that we can’t and won’t do better.” In perhaps the finest words of all he said: “We know that, ultimately, this is not just a matter of legislation, not just a matter of policy. It’s a matter of whether we’re going to live up to our basic values. It’s a matter of upholding an ideal that has always defined who we are as Americans. E pluribus unum. Out of many, one.”

The problem with the motto “Out of many, one” is that it reminds indigenous peoples of the dark and unrelenting history of eradication that has been the policy (at times stated but mostly unstated) of the United States concerning the indigenous peoples who inhabited this land for millennia before there even was a United States. The motto reminds us of genocide, at first by slaughter and, continuing even today, by assimilation. Of course, the President did not have this in mind when he said it; he meant it in the most positive sense.

However, within hours of the President’s remarks, the U.S. State Department issued its 15-page white paper titled “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.” (see attached .pdf file if the following link does not work U.S. State Department’s statement about U.S. support for UNDRIP) This document, not the President’s fine words, reflect the real position of the United States on the extent to which it has changed its position on and is willing to support UNDRIP. And folks, it isn’t good. It is so cleverly written that one commentator (Rudolph Ryser, writing for the Fourth World Eye, a publication of the Center for World Indigenous Studies) referred to it as “verbal sleight of hand.”

Let’s take a look at how the U.S. State Department, indeed, the entire Executive Branch of government, intends to “support” UNDRIP by lip service alone.

U.S. State Department position: UNDRIP unnecessary to protect rights of Native Americans

The white paper issued by the State Department fleshing out the details of the U.S. endorsement of UNDRIP is really quite disappointing. Largely a laundry list of everything the federal government has done for the indigenous people of this country over the last two years, its primary message can be boiled down to: “We’re already doing all these wonderful things to help out the native peoples that live in our country, so U.S. endorsement of UNDRIP is unnecessary. But since we want to continue in our role as the leader of the free world, and the United States always stands up for what is right, we’ll go ahead and endorse it anyway.” This conclusion is all but confirmed when one reads the fine print of the article and finds that the United States government’s application and implementation of UNDRIP will be limited largely to already existing federally recognized tribes and be carried out within the framework of existing US and state law. In other words, even though the United States is “endorsing” UNDRIP, it sees no need to alter any of its laws or policies pertaining to the indigenous peoples within its national boundaries and jurisdiction. In fact, the State Department says the United States should serve as a “model” to the rest of the world in this regard.

Application of UNDRIP will not include all indigenous peoples but be limited to members of “federally recognized tribes”

The language of UNDRIP refers to indigenous peoples, not “tribes” and especially not “federally recognized” tribes. The very use of these terms greatly narrows the scope of the United States’ endorsement of UNDRIP, perhaps leaving out more indigenous people than it includes. The whole point of UNDRIP and the thirty years of work put in by thousands of indigenous people from around the world that resulted in UNDRIP was to have nation-states acknowledge the inadequacies of their existing laws and policies with respect to their indigenous populations and to set out a framework of principles upon which changes to those existing laws and policies should be based. It is this acknowledgment and change that UNDRIP seeks to achieve in order to protect the rights of indigenous peoples around the world.

While the Administration claims that it will support UNDRIP, there are three major foundational concepts that the State Department claims to support, but when the language in which they are discussed is closely examined, the United States’ support turns out to be verbal “sleight of hand” in which the three concepts are really rejected. First is the right of indigenous peoples to freely determine their political status; second is the right of indigenous peoples to have their treaties with the Federal and state governments recognized and honored; and third is the right of “free, prior and informed consent.”

US endorsement rejects UNDRIP’s right of indigenous peoples to “freely determine their political status”

With respect to this all important element of the right to self-determination, the State Department states:

“The United States is therefore pleased to support the Declaration’s call to promote the development of a new and distinct international concept of self-determination specific to indigenous peoples. The Declaration’s 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.” (emphasis added)

This language is a complete misstatement of UNDRIP’s position on the concept of self-determination. There simply is no language or provision in UNDRIP that can be interpreted as calling for the development of a “new and distinct international concept of self determination specific to indigenous peoples.” Not only does UNDRIP not 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, it actually seeks to encourage nation-states to adhere to the concept of self determination under international law when dealing with indigenous peoples. The sixteenth perambulatory clause of UNDRIP reads as follows:

“Acknowledging that the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, affirm the fundamental importance of the right to self-determination of all peoples, by virtue of which they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development,” (emphasis added)

And yet, the State Department goes on to state:

“For the United States, the Declaration’s concept of self-determination is consistent with the United States’ existing recognition of, and relationship with, federally recognized tribes as political entities that have inherent sovereign powers of self-governance.”

Stated quite simply, the United States will continue to deny indigenous peoples within its national boundaries the right to “freely determine their political status.” Their political status will be determined by the United States government, and, furthermore, the State Department has the arrogance to assert that this policy is consistent with UNDRIP’s concept of self-determination. On December 18^, 2010, Rudolph Ryser, writing for the Fourth World Eye, a publication of the Center for World Indigenous Studies, described the position of the United States on this issue very well:

“The US government has held fast to the idea that the right to choose one’s political status must be limited for indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples domestically and presumably internationally must be held in perpetual tutelage under the control of each states’ government–even if a state government demands fealty through force of violence. . . Freely choosing a political status is the most basic of concepts built into the principle of self-determination. Without that right, there is no “self-determination.” The US position is to essentially nullify the right of indigenous peoples to freely make decisions about how they will organize as a political community.” (http://cwis.org/publications/FWE/2010/12/18/us-government-on-undrip-yes-but-no/ accessed 12-27-2010)

US endorsement ignores UNDRIP’s obligation of nation-states to honor their treaties with indigenous peoples

One of the most galling aspects of the 200-year relationship between the United States and the native nations, tribes and bands it continues to dominate is the long and continuing practice of the U.S. government in breaching or simply ignoring the many treaties it has signed with Native American peoples. UNDRIP addresses this directly in its 8^th, 14^th and 15^th perambulatory paragraphs and sets forth the right in Article 37:

“Article 37

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded with States or their successors and to have States honour and respect such treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.

2. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as diminishing or eliminating the rights of indigenous peoples contained in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.”

Incredibly, this critical issue is not even discussed in the State Department’s white paper. In fact the word “treaties” appears only twice, both times in the same paragraph, in which the State Department lauds the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for consulting with “Northwest treaty tribes” regarding the designation of critical habitat and with four other unnamed tribes regarding their “ocean treaty fishing rights for groundfish in conjunction with the Pacific Fishery Management Council process.” While we all are grateful for the rare occasions in which the U.S. government “consults” with us, it is laughable that the Obama Administration has announced its “support” of UNDRIP without even addressing the issue of honoring treaties, one of the bedrock elements of UNDRIP. Apparently, this Administration, like its predecessors, continues to view treaties with native nations, tribes and bands as documents that have no real force of law and, therefore, are subject to being breached or abrogated whenever it is convenient for the U.S. government to do so. In fact, the Supreme Court enshrined this practice and made it “legal” when it invented by interpretation the “plenary powers of Congress” doctrine (see Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 23. S. Ct. 216, 47 L. Ed. 299 (1903)). So, we now see that this Administration plans to make no change with respect to its recognition, observance or enforcement of treaties it has struck with indigenous peoples. Rather than come right out and say that, however, the State Department has just ignored the issue entirely.

US endorsement rejects UNDRIP’s right of indigenous peoples to “free, prior and informed consent”

Articles 10, 11, 19, 28 and 32 of UNDRIP require that before certain actions are taken by the federal, state or local governments that would affect indigenous peoples, their lands or resources, traditional way of life, or other cultural or spiritual values or concerns, the government must obtain such a people’s “free, prior and informed consent.” This means before starting work on any project, or even in some instances removing indigenous people from their lands to another location, the government must inform and consult with the leaders of the affected native nation, tribe or band, in good faith and without any elements of coercion, and obtain their consent. No consent, no project – it’s as simple as that. However, here is what the State Department says about the endorsement and implementation of this right in UNDRIP:

“In this regard, the United States recognizes the significance of the Declaration’s provisions on free, prior and informed consent, which the United States understands to call for a process of meaningful consultation with tribal leaders, but not necessarily the agreement of those leaders, before the actions addressed in those consultations are taken.” (emphasis added)

As stated by Rudolf Ryser (cited above): “In other words, the United States may dictate actions and policies that affect the lives and property of indigenous peoples without their consent, but they may be informed. That is a position utterly inconsistent with the concept of “free, prior and informed consent.”

Summary: The U.S. endorsement of UNDRIP means “business as usual” for Native Americans

The bottom line result of the Obama Administration’s so-called “change” in position is really no change at all. At best, it is a “conditional” endorsement of UNDRIP, one which essentially allows the United States to ignore any provision of UNDRIP under any circumstance which would require a substantive change in US law or policy. Its greatest achievement does not benefit the indigenous peoples of the United States. Rather, it allows the United States to come in from the cold spotlight under which it has shivered since September 2007 as the last of the four pariah nations to have opposed UNDRIP without having to commit to changing any of its laws or policies that are detrimental to the indigenous peoples that live within its borders. At best, the Administration’s “change in position” allowing the United States to endorse UNDRIP entirely misses the point. At worst, it is a cynical move in the game of international politics that signifies nothing for the indigenous peoples of this country but “business as usual.”

As always, the burden of bringing about real change, “change you can believe in” will fall upon the native nations, tribes and bands of this country. No messianic figure, much less President Obama, is going to announce legislative and policy changes that will restore or secure the federal government’s recognition of our sovereignty and our concomitant right to freely determine our political status and freely pursue our economic, social and cultural development. If we want a brighter future for us and our children, a future filled with freedom to choose and opportunity to achieve, we shall have to seize it with our own hands. It will not be given to us. We shall have to do the hard work over the long haul.

Two Eagles (Perry Chesnut)

Secretary of State, Modoc Nation

P.O. Box 2232

Issaquah, WA 98027-0100

425-770-7345 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              425-770-7345      end_of_the_skype_highlighting pchesnut@indigenous-rights.org

A Note on the Modoc Nation’s interest in and work done with respect to UNDRIP

On November 20, 2008, the Modoc People issued its Declaration of the Rights of the Free and Sovereign People of the Modoc Indian Tribe (Mowatocknie Maklaksûm), the first and, to our knowledge, still the only such declaration modeled on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) to be issued by any native nation, tribe or band in North America. In the exercise of these rights, we came together as a unique indigenous people and tribe in the Lava Beds National Monument on June 19^th 2010 and unanimously ratified our first modern constitution and elected our initial government. On July 15, 2010, in response to the U.S. State Department’s call for consultations with federally recognized Indian tribes, our new government sent Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State, the response of the Modoc People. In this response, we summarized the history of the Modoc People’s relationship with the despotic and corrupt Klamath Tribal government and why that 146-year history of our subjugation and abuse has led to our decision to dissolve all political allegiance and ties to the government of the Klamath Tribes. We stated that unless the United States changed its position on whether to endorse UNDRIP, the Modoc Nation and People’s struggle for self-determination through self-government would be considerably more difficult. We concluded by stating, “… the Modoc people, organized as the Modoc Nation (formerly Modoc Tribe), hereby respectfully request that the United States government reverse its position on UNDRIP and adopt its provisions without limitation or modification.” (emphasis added)

We Are Still Fighting For Our Homeland!

Keint-poos fought Army, died for tribal homeland along Oregon border

Published: Saturday, November 20, 2010, 10:00 AM

His name was Keint-poos, but he was better known as Captain Jack, the name bestowed by white men. And his fate might be likened to what George Washington would have faced at the hands of the British.

View full sizeOregon Historical SocietyKeint-poos was better known as Captain Jack to white settlers and soldiers around the Modoc Tribe's homeland in the Lost River area along the Oregon-California border.

Keint-poos (the spelling preferred by Modocs today) led a band of the Modoc Tribe that for millennia lived in the Lost River area along what's now the Oregon-California border. He was born around 1837 in a village known as Wa'Chamshwash.

The Modocs in the early days got along with the white settlers who were beginning to occupy their homeland. However, their attitude changed as more outside pressures came to bear, and they lost their land.

Conflicts turned bloody in the 1850s, and in 1864 the Modocs were finagled into a treaty relegating them to the Klamath Reservation. That aggravated animosity with the resident Klamaths, a longtime enemy.

The Modocs, vastly outnumbered, were strangers in a strange land and found themselves in virtual subjugation. A harsh winter on the reservation saw them so near starvation that they had to eat their horses.

Keint-poos appealed to the Indian agent for relief only to be rebuked, said Perry Chesnut (Two Eagles), Modoc Nation secretary of state, in a current movement to have the tribe recognized apart from the Klamaths.

"He goes to the agent, who curses him out ... and says, 'If I hear any more complaining, I will lock you in the stockade,' " Chesnut says.

Keint-poos famously responded: "I am not a Dog! I am a Man. If I am an Indian, I and my Men shall not be slaves for a race of people that is not any better than my people. I shall not live here. If the Government refuses to protect my people, who shall I look [to] for protection?"

In 1865 he led his people off reservation to their homeland. The U.S. Army herded them back in 1869. Up to 180 Modocs under Keint-poos left again in 1870. All they wanted, he insisted, was a small patch along Lost River where they could live in peace.

In 1872 the Army was again dispatched to escort them back to the reservation. On Nov. 29, troops arrived at the Modoc camp. Keint-poos agreed to have his people go with them. Then came disagreement over the Modocs disarming. Shots were fired, and the brief Battle of Lost River was on.

The Modocs took refuge in a natural fortress known as the Lava Beds. The Army followed and mounted an attack Jan. 17, 1873. Thirty-five attackers died while the Modocs suffered no casualties.

Thus began the Modoc War, essentially a standoff that lasted four months with the Modocs vastly outnumbered but holding off the Army.

On April 11 the two sides met to talk peace. The unarmed U.S. delegation was headed by Gen. Edward R.S. Canby, a highly regarded Civil War hero.

On signal, the Modocs drew hidden pistols and opened fire. Canby and the Rev. Eleazer Thomas died. Alfred Meacham was severely wounded. Leroy Dyar and Frank and Winema (Toby) Riddle escaped.

Keint-poos and his "army," thinned by desertions to 33, fled again. They were pursued and overwhelmed by a massive force under by Canby's successor, Gen. Jefferson C. Davis.

Keint-poos and the other five were tried as war criminals, the only Native Americans in U.S. history so treated. Legal experts today agree the trial was a travesty.

Keint-poos, Black Jim, John Schonchin and Boston Charley were hanged Oct. 3, 1873. The two youngest, Barncho and Slolux, also faced the gallows, but President U.S. Grant commuted their sentences to life in Alcatraz.

Keint-poos' followers were shipped first to Nebraska, then to Oklahoma, where there are descendants today. Those who did not follow him remained on the Klamath Reservation.

Vilified by the press at the time, Keint-poos is now regarded by many as a freedom fighter.

"To us he is a hero," says Chesnut. "All he wanted was a small reservation about a mile long on the river north of Tule Lake.

"From our perspective, nothing has changed in the last 147  years. We are still being held captive to a race of people no better than our own, and we shall not rest until we free ourselves from the yoke of their oppression. We are a separate tribe of people, with our own unique identity and culture."

-- John Terry, Special to The Oregonian

Thanksgiving: A Native American View | | AlterNet

I saw his article and thought it well worth reading.

Thanksgiving: A Native American View

For a Native American, the story of Thanksgiving is not a very happy one. But a member of the Dineh Nation and the Yankton Dakota Sioux finds occasion for hope. An AlterNet Thanksgiving classic.

January 1, 2000  |  

  

I celebrate the holiday of Thanksgiving. This may surprise those people who wonder what Native Americans think of this official U.S. celebration of the survival of early arrivals in a European invasion that culminated in the death of 10 to 30 million native people. Thanksgiving to me has never been about Pilgrims. When I was six, my mother, a woman of the Dineh nation, told my sister and me not to sing "Land of the Pilgrim's pride" in "America the Beautiful." Our people, she said, had been here much longer and taken much better care of the land. We were to sing "Land of the Indian's pride" instead. I was proud to sing the new lyrics in school, but I sang softly. It was enough for me to know the difference. At six, I felt I had learned something very important. As a child of a Native American family, you are part of a very select group of survivors, and I learned that my family possessed some "inside" knowledge of what really happened when those poor, tired masses came to our homes. When the Pilgrims came to Plymouth Rock, they were poor and hungry -- half of them died within a few months from disease and hunger. When Squanto, a Wampanoag man, found them, they were in a pitiful state. He spoke English, having traveled to Europe, and took pity on them. Their English crops had failed. The native people fed them through the winter and taught them how to grow their food. These were not merely "friendly Indians." They had already experienced European slave traders raiding their villages for a hundred years or so, and they were wary -- but it was their way to give freely to those who had nothing. Among many of our peoples, showing that you can give without holding back is the way to earn respect. Among the Dakota, my father's people, they say, when asked to give, "Are we not Dakota and alive?" It was believed that by giving there would be enough for all -- the exact opposite of the system we live in now, which is based on selling, not giving. To the Pilgrims, and most English and European peoples, the Wampanoags were heathens, and of the Devil. They saw Squanto not as an equal but as an instrument of their God to help his chosen people, themselves. Since that initial sharing, Native American food has spread around the world. Nearly 70 percent of all crops grown today were originally cultivated by Native American peoples. I sometimes wonder what they ate in Europe before they met us. Spaghetti without tomatoes? Meat and potatoes without potatoes? And at the "first Thanksgiving" the Wampanoags provided most of the food -- and signed a treaty granting Pilgrims the right to the land at Plymouth, the real reason for the first Thanksgiving. What did the Europeans give in return? Within 20 years European disease and treachery had decimated the Wampanoags. Most diseases then came from animals that Europeans had domesticated. Cowpox from cows led to smallpox, one of the great killers of our people, spread through gifts of blankets used by infected Europeans. Some estimate that diseases accounted for a death toll reaching 90 percent in some Native American communities. By 1623, Mather the elder, a Pilgrim leader, was giving thanks to his God for destroying the heathen savages to make way "for a better growth," meaning his people. In stories told by the Dakota people, an evil person always keeps his or her heart in a secret place separate from the body. The hero must find that secret place and destroy the heart in order to stop the evil. I see, in the "First Thanksgiving" story, a hidden Pilgrim heart. The story of that heart is the real tale than needs to be told. What did it hold? Bigotry, hatred, greed, self-righteousness? We have seen the evil that it caused in the 350 years since. Genocide, environmental devastation, poverty, world wars, racism. Where is the hero who will destroy that heart of evil? I believe it must be each of us. Indeed, when I give thanks this Thursday and I cook my native food, I will be thinking of this hidden heart and how my ancestors survived the evil it caused. Because if we can survive, with our ability to share and to give intact, then the evil and the good will that met that Thanksgiving day in the land of the Wampanoag will have come full circle. And the healing can begin. Jacqueline Keeler is a member of the Dineh Nation and the Yankton Dakota Sioux. Her work has appeared in Winds of Change, an American Indian journal.

Native American Veterans

In Native American culture our veterans are honor and held in a position of honor.  This is the way our culture has always been, as in the days before discovery we honored those who provided protection and preservation of our tribal members.  Today you will see many gatherings where during the Grand Entry all of the dancers follow the Veterans who are the honor guard and carry the flags.  Some Pow Wows will have the drums play only one veterans song and others may play up to four.  These songs were written by our ancestors to honor the hero's in our tribes.

  

We honor those who have served and who are serving and keep them close to our hearts.  The job they do is sometimes tough, and even with the difference of opinion in our country we know that they are serving to defend the freedoms we have in this country. 

Censored News Special Edition: Modoc Nation: Statement on UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Censored News Special Edition: Modoc Nation: Statement on UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Opinion: Vote Yes on Klamath County Measure 18-80

KC Measure 18-80 is a non-binding advisory measure intended to inform the Klamath County Commissioners as to whether the voters of the County want Klamath County to remain involved in the implementation of the Klamath Basin Restoration Act (KBRA) and the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA). 

Pintails take flight at Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge (photo USFWS)

The wording of the measure has stirred up controversy because if you are for the KBRA/KHSA you must vote "No," which will advise the Commissioners to remain involved in their implementation.  On the other hand, if you don't like the KBRA/KHSA and would like to see their implementation slowed or stopped, you must vote "Yes," as in "Yes, I want the County Commissioners to pull out of the KBRA/KHSA implementation process."  This mangled wording of the measure is very likely to mislead a lot of voters opposed to the KBRA/KHSA into voting "No" when they really need to vote "Yes." 

One can often learn more about a proposed measure by looking at who supports it than by trying to decipher its actual language or separate fact from propaganda in the advertising surrounding it. Both the Herald & News and the Klamath County Chamber of Commerce are urging a "No" vote on KC Measure 18-80.  So too is the "Klamath Bucket Brigade."

The Herald & News has always been politically aligned with the arch-conservative wing of the Republican Party, which means that it caters to big business.  Big business in this case means the large agribusiness interests in the Klamaths Basin, whose advertising dollars make up a large part of the newspaper's revenue stream.  Native Americans, ducks, geese and fish don't run very much advertising in the paper, so their views and interests are largely ignored.

The Klamath County Chamber of Commerce is supported and influenced by its membership, which, these days more than ever, is dominated by corporate farms and ranches, farm equipment dealers, fertilizer and pesticide sellers, crop storage and distribution companies and other related agribusiness interests.  The Chamber is pro-business, regardless of its impact on Native Americans, wildlife, climate and environment, or even the viability of entire ecosystems.  Their only interest is in helping their members make more money - period.

Klamath Bucket (photo by Michael McCullough, Flickr)

The Klamath Bucket Brigade has urged people to vote "No" on Measure 18-80.  Remember them?  They are the people who formed a mob in 2001 and committed federal crimes by breaking into the headgates on Link River and turning water into the "A" Canal.  Incredibly, no one was arrested or prosecuted. In fact, they were treated as "heroes," and their disrespect for law and order was memorialized by that monstrosity of a sculpture known as "The Bucket" that stands at the entrance to the Klamath County Government Building.  To the Modoc people, that bucket is a constant finger in the eye.

All of these groups either are or represent the large farmers and ranchers and related agribusiness interests in the Klamath Basin who are trampling Modoc treaty water, hunting, fishing and gathering rights and who will deprive us of them forever if the KBRA is implemented. 

Forget about the KHSA – everyone knows the dams will not be removed under the terms and conditions of the KHSA because there are just too many poison pills and obstacles built into it.  It is just the carrot on the end of the stick needed to get people to go along with the KBRA transfer of water rights from the Modoc Nation to a handful of wealthy and politically influential large-scale farmers who are farming our ancestral homelands on or near the Lower Klamath and Tulelake National Wildlife Refuges, using our water, and receiving taxpayer funded  subsidies to purchase electricity at below market rates to run their pumps.

Yes, it is true that a “yes” vote would be advisory only.  But it would send a powerful message to the Commissioners that the taxpayers no longer support the KBRA/KHSA as written and approved last February 18, 2010.  They would ignore such a vote at their own political peril.  The same message would spread up the political food chain to higher levels of government:  "Political support for the two measures is splintering and beginning to fall apart."  If I were a resident of Klamath County (and I was for more than 50 years), I would vote “yes” on Measure 18-80 to send that message. 

As a Modoc citizen I want to see the dams taken out - but not just some of them, all of them - so that the abundant life and beauty of our ancestral homelands can be restored to their former glory.  Furthermore, I am committed to stopping the implementation of the KBRA because it takes away our water rights and our rights to sue the federal government for failing to live up to its trust obligation to protect our treaty water, hunting, fishing and gathering rights, which have been ignored since 1912, by which time the Klamath Reclamation Project had completed construction of the main "A" Canal, Clear Lake Dam and the Lost River Diversion Dam.  Since that time, our sacred wetlands, which were supposed to have been protected and preserved as the Lower Klamath and Tulelake National Wildlife Refuges, have been 80% "dewatered."  Twenty-two thousand acres of these two wildlife refuges are being leased to a handful of wealthy farmers, so they can grow crops like potatoes and sugar beets - crops that are notoriously wasteful of precious water.

The Farmers Want Every Last Drop of Modoc Water
(photo by voices.washingtonpost.com)

That's right, folks.  The same farmers and ranchers who wrap themselves in the American flag, and proclaim on their Bucket Brigade website "Let Freedom Ring - Let the Water Flow," and who profess to be against "big government," have used big government and the taxpayers to fund, build and operate the Klamath Reclamation Project, which restricts the freedom of the Modoc people and restricts the free flow of water.

By saying one thing and doing another, they have managed to steal 80% of the water the Creator intended for our sacred wetlands which are able to support an ever decreasing population of waterfowl, fish, eagles and other wildlife.  Still, the few are not satisfied.  They want it all, and that's just what they will get if the KBRA is implemented.  Indeed, that is the very purpose behind the several years of secret, closed-door meetings that resulted in the KBRA/KHSA.

Send the right message to the politicians up the line.  Vote "Yes" on Klamath County Measure 80-18.  

Still Here

Movie in Klamath Falls on Modoc War screening

share

Modoc Nation moves forward in break with the Klamath's

Modoc Nation moves forward in break with Klamath

August 25, 2010

Associated Press

August 25, 2010

KLAMATH FALLS, Ore. -- The recently created Modoc Nation, formerly The Modoc Tribe have broken away from the Klamath Tribes. They are working to create legitimacy among other Indian tribes and government agencies.

Earlier this summer, Modocs declared their independence from the Klamath Tribes.

Tribal officials told the Herald and News in Klamath Falls that nearly 100 adults, including 30 enrolled Klamaths, have obtained voting memberships.

Officials said the goal of the Modoc Nation is to become completely self-sufficient in 15 years and end any reliance on federal funding.

They say the only long-term relationship will be to ensure that hunting, fishing, and gathering rights are recognized.

Welcome!

Welcome to our site!
Please feel free to ask any questions you have.
We will try to answer them as soon as possible.

Blessings!
Chief Greywolf

137th Anniversary of the Modoc War this year.

Great report on KDRV.com  News Watch 12 TV from Ron Brown.
Thanks Ron!
See the link on th upper right hand corner of this Blog
under Modoc War