1 10 1 https://dawnlandvoices.org/collections/files/original/6a9f7d001b94196065cc7f9afbf714ea.pdf 6754cea6d99dddb093504d6b0c85db3c PDF Text Text Op-Ed: Six things you did not know about the federal acknowledgme... http://ctmirror.org/2014/06/03/op-ed-six-things-you-did-not-know-a... The CT Mirror (https://ctmirror.org/2014/06/03/op-ed-six-things-you-did-not-know-about-the-federal-acknowledgment-of-indian-tribes/) Op-Ed: Six things you did not know about the federal acknowledgment of Indian tribes By: RUTH GARBY TORRES | June 3, 2014 OK, I admit it…you caught me. I used that headline because I am deluged with this type of attention grabber when I am reading online news and using social media. And I just can’t help myself; I have to find out what the ten tricks are to keeping the airline from losing my luggage, the five magic foods I should be eating and 300 things that successful people don’t do. But don’t click away from this opinion piece just yet. You may actually read something that you hadn’t considered before. #1 – Yes, Virginia (and Connecticut and California), there really are tribes east of the Mississippi and further west than Arizona and they continue to exist today. (http://ctmirror.org/about-us/#submitoped) Because you don’t know their histories, never learned about them in school and never saw a movie about them starring Kevin Costner does not prove that these tribes disappeared. Tribes in these states and others have distinct histories but many share the challenges presented by the existing administrative process to determine if a tribe will be acknowledged by the federal government. How exactly does a petitioning tribe produce documents that show evidence of their political and social activities during times when government policies were determined to annihilate and assimilate indigenous peoples? #2 – Contrary to what you may hear from public officials in Connecticut, there will still be many obstacles for tribes petitioning under the proposed changes to the acknowledgment process and beyond that process. Back in 2005 when many of these same public officials were running around with their hair on fire because the Schaghticokes and Eastern Pequots were federally recognized, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the City of Sherrill vs. Oneida Indian Tribe case. To be clear, I am not a lawyer, legal scholar or expert but anyone can find explanations of this case in plain English. In short, the Oneidas legally purchased private properties in New York, which the City of Sherrill wanted to tax. The court held that, “Given the longstanding, distinctly non-Indian character of central New York and its inhabitants, the regulatory authority over the area constantly exercised by the State and its counties and towns for 200 years, and the Oneidas’ long delay in seeking judicial relief against parties other than the United States, standards of federal Indian law and federal equity practice preclude the Tribe from unilaterally reviving its ancient sovereignty, in whole or in part, over the parcels at issue.” Yes, that was plain English. Plainer still are my words – Connecticut land owners can relax now. You can thank Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Even if tribes here have legitimate claims to dispossessed land that you now call home or if tribes purchase land in the future, tribal sovereignty will not automatically be restored on those lands. With the reform of the recognition process, tribes still retain the burden of satisfying rigorous criteria demonstrating that they have survived against the many pressures of annihilation and assimilation. And even upon recognition, there is no guarantee of land, of tribal governmental authority over land, and certainly no guarantee that gaming development would be either permissible or economically practical. A long and deep recession stands between the glory days of Indian gaming expansion and the present economic realities. And if that weren’t enough to make folks relax, there’s that pesky 2009 Carcieri vs. Salazar decision that limits the federal government from acquiring new trust land for tribes. Relax already, put the hair fires out and/or get better legal advice! #3 – Tribal sovereignty and federal acknowledgement are not gifts, prizes or awards. Tribes cannot win [ding, ding, ding] recognition. 1 of 3 2/16/16, 7:55 AM �Op-Ed: Six things you did not know about the federal acknowledgme... http://ctmirror.org/2014/06/03/op-ed-six-things-you-did-not-know-a... When a tribe is on the U.S. government’s list of recognized tribes, it means that the U.S. government has acknowledged a relationship that is Exit "Clean Read" mandated by the Constitution. A successful petition for federal acknowledgement is a finding that a tribe has been improperly overlooked and that the federal relationship was previously neglected. mode The federal government cannot grant, bestow or award tribal identity. It acknowledges that which already exists. The use of language in media outlets and coming from government officials is like the proverbial bouncing ball. Follow the bouncing ball in Connecticut. “Tribe” is the word you first heard the state’s various elected officials use when referring to Connecticut’s tribes (Eastern Pequot, Golden Hill Paugussett, Mashantucket Pequot, Mohegan and Schaghticoke). Based on the political strategies deployed against the tribes, the words evolved in an effort to use language to change reality. Our tribes were spoken of as “tribal groups,” “Indian groups” and the whispered message, “not Indian.” A new name emerged in the Connecticut governor’s February 24, 2014 letter to President Obama, verbal calisthenics meant to minimize, perhaps even dismiss, the state's relationship with the tribes. He refers to them as, "living descendants of the groups for which the reservations were first established." Huh? #4 – This is not the first time that Connecticut public officials demanded changes to the federal acknowledgement regulations. Inflammatory cries like, “fundamentally flawed,” “not transparent enough,” and “impose a moratorium on recognition decisions until we can fix this system,” were aimed at the federal acknowledgement process and hurled at the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) starting in 2000 when the BIA determined that the Eastern Pequot petition had passed muster and would continue toward a final federal acknowledgement determination. This same year, the New York Times reported that a BIA researcher told Connecticut’s former attorney general, “You may not like hearing this, but the best evidence supporting the Eastern Pequots' federal recognition comes from the state's own record, comes from the fact that the state has maintained and documented a continuous government to government relationship.” There was actually a shortage of soapboxes until 2005 when political pressure succeeded in having both the Eastern Pequot and Schaghticoke federal recognition decisions overturned. Until then, the soapboxes were set out regularly. “We have to fix this broken process,” was a common theme but the deployed strategies and public record indicate that the officials did not care about the broken process. They cared (and still do) about controlling gaming expansion. And they act as if the only way to prevent another casino from cropping up in the state is to cut off petitioners at the pass. Fourteen years ago, the marriage of gaming and federal recognition was celebrated in Hartford, Kent, North Stonington and Washington, DC. Well played and professionally executed. #5 – Changing the regulations that acknowledge tribes is a remedy to address a social justice issue. Does it make it easier for tribes? The Obama administration is accused of making it “easy” for tribes to petition for acknowledgement. Easier, perhaps, but not easy. Hmmm…did the abolition of Jim Crow laws make it “easier” for blacks to vote? Did the reformation of child labor laws make it “easier” for children working under oppressive and unsafe conditions? Does the 2009 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act make it “easier” for women to earn equal pay? Yup. And changing the acknowledgement regulations will make this process more transparent and amenable to evaluation and oversight; however, even with reform, acknowledgment will not be easy. Rebuilding a tribal nation’s infrastructure after nearly four hundred years of purposeful demolition is difficult, and over the last decade, has been further complicated by U.S. Supreme Court rulings. And, by the way, this is a national issue – affecting the future of Indian peoples across the country – and none of the local media outlets are reporting on that. #6 – Federal acknowledgment/recognition of Connecticut tribes is the small picture. In 2010 the Obama Administration announced its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. One of the last few colonial hold-outs, we finally endorsed a non-binding statement on how the world’s nation states must understand, negotiate with and live among the world’s indigenous populations. Engaged groups with diverse stakeholders spent more than 25 years to produce the Declaration, 2 of 3 2/16/16, 7:55 AM �Op-Ed: Six things you did not know about the federal acknowledgme... which was finalized in 2007. http://ctmirror.org/2014/06/03/op-ed-six-things-you-did-not-know-a... Exit "Clean Read" mode The Declaration “solemnly proclaims the following [in part] as a standard of achievement to be pursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect: Article 8 [of 46], section 2b: [nation] states shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources..” Five of the six reservations in Connecticut were established long before the State of Connecticut was established. The Connecticut colonial government set aside land for the exclusive use of the tribes and these long standing reservations are substantially important evidence of continuous tribal existence. The proposed regulations acknowledge this while the State is trying to deny it. So, when the next news story you read is that Connecticut is trying to abolish the remaining state reservations so that the state can evade the impact of potential changes to the federal acknowledgment regulations, would you kindly think of these six things you did not know about the federal acknowledgment of Indian tribes? Ruth Garby Torres, MPA is a living descendant of the group for which the Schaghticoke reservation was first established. She is the author of a chapter about the Schaghticoke experience with the federal acknowledgement process published in Recognition, Sovereignty Struggles, and Indigenous Rights in the United States: A Sourcebook, edited by Amy E. Den Ouden and Jean M. O'Brien (University of North Carolina Press, June 2013) Comments 0 comments 3 of 3 2/16/16, 7:55 AM � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Schaghticoke Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource "Op-Ed" (2014) by Ruth Garby Torres Description An account of the resource Ruth Garby Torres is a member of the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation (Indian Legal Program 10). She is an author, public servant, academic, and a recipient of numerous awards for her work (Charter Oak "Alumni"). A lifelong Connecticut resident, except for a brief period in Cambridge, Massachusetts while studying at Harvard, Torres is well-known in her community for her expertise regarding policy surrounding Native American tribal recognition; she has written and spoken about the issue extensively (Rodriguez). Torres received her Bachelor's degree in an online program at Charter Oak State College and her Master of Public Administration from the Harvard John F. Kennedy School of Government ("Spotlight"). Torres has been involved with public service since she was a teenager, when she was elected to the Schaghticoke Tribal Council, the youngest Schaghticoke councilor in history. She has worked for the Connecticut State police for over twenty years, in numerous capacities (Rodriguez). Torres has served on many different boards and committees, including the Yale Native American Cultural Center board ("Spotlight"). During her time at Harvard, Torres participated in the program "From Harvard Square to the Oval Office," which aims to give women better access to positions working in public policy (Rodriguez). Now that she has an MPA, Torres plans on continuing her work in public service, specifically on public policy in Indian country to improve the quality of life for Native peoples ("Spotlight"). <h4>Writing</h4> A number of Torres' works appear in anthologies, such as Dawnland Voices: An Anthology of Indigenous Writing from New England and Recognition, Sovereignty Struggles, and Indigenous Rights in the United States: A Sourcebook, and she has facilitated many formal discussions surrounding indigenous rights in America (Rose). Along with a fellow Schaghticoke tribal member, Trudie Lamb-Richmond, Torres co-edited the section in Dawnland Voices focusing on the Schaghticoke tribe. In Torres’ 2014 op-ed, “Six things you did not know about the federal acknowledgement of Indian tribes,” she presents the basics of federal acknowledgement of Indian tribes in clear, plain language, with plenty of humor and wit. The piece highlights the many struggles that Native people face when seeking recognition, and similar issues. Torres is particularly invested in Tribal Recognition practices, as the Schaghticoke, have been alternatively recognized and de-recognized at both state and federal levels over the course of history. Their status is still presently unresolved, and the Schaghticoke people remain in a kind of political limbo. Torres comes from a long pedigree of Schaghticoke writers addressing government entities, particularly concerning sovereignty and tribal rights. Torres is particularly on point in her op-ed, wittily engaging a largely uniformed audience, while also insisting on the lasting presence of Native peoples in New England. It is a commonly held belief that all the Native people in New England died after King Philip’s War, which did result in the deaths of many Native people. Although many Natives lived on after Philip was executed, the public delusion that Native populations disappeared after the conflict still persists in the twenty-first century. Indians still live in New England, and our constant denial of that is harmful, which Torres underscores. Torres' awareness of public perception of Native people is apparent in her bitingly accurate recognition of policies and media that continue to make Native struggles difficult today. Torres explains how changes to the federal recognition process are not actually making the process easier for tribes, and she notes how the media portray Indians as freeloaders who want to take advantage of tribal sovereignty (which then perpetuates broader public biases against all Natives). Torres highlights how reality is quite different than media scape-goating, citing the City of Sherrill vs. Oneida Indian Tribe case, which holds that tribal sovereignty will not be restored just because the historically tribal land was repurchased. Essentially, land that has been Indian land for generations (hundreds of years) that has moved to other hands, often through illegal processes, becomes no longer accessible by Natives. Torres highlights how such cases are unfortunately common, and that Native rights are consistently challenged, denied, or whittled away, despite constant effort to maintain them. Her writing is enriched by deep research and an awareness of mainstream media bias; she is careful and methodical in making her points clear and well-informed. Again, aware of media presentation and public biases and false perceptions, Torres notes that the Obama administration has been trumpeted for making federal recognition “easy." While the changes to the process of federally recognizing tribes have definitely made it easier for Natives to have their tribes recognized, the process remains far from “easy”. Torres succinctly writes: <blockquote> Rebuilding a tribal nation’s infrastructure after nearly four hundred years of purposeful demolition is difficult, and over the last decade, has been further complicated by U.S. Supreme Court rulings. And, by the way, this is a national issue – affecting the future of Indian peoples across the country – and none of the local media outlets are reporting on that. </blockquote> Beyond defending her own community, Torres recognizes the jeopardy of all tribal Nations and peoples. While she writes from her own tribal perspective, her writing reaches beyond their sphere and recognizes the national import of these issues, both in the media, and in their impacts on the many Native peoples involved. Torres writes beyond her own tribe, remarking that tribal recognition is only one issue amongst many that Native people face in a global context. Showing her vision beyond the local, Torres notes that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, released in 2007, announced that the rest of the world “must understand, negotiate with and live among the world’s indigenous populations" (Torres). The Declaration had been in process for over twenty-five years by the time it was revealed. Torres notes the magnitude of the many injustices Natives in our country must face, and the various frictions that exacerbate their ability to do so. As a powerful, persuasive living example, Torres has dedicated much of her life to fighting these injustices and educating other people about them, so that maybe they can do the same. <h4>Works Cited</h4> CharterOak State College. <a href="http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=41517d2e63f0636389bcc086d&id=4facb96e78">"Alumni Spotlight: Ruth Garby Torres."</a> CharterOak State College. Jan. 2010. Web. 18 Apr. 2015. ---. Alumni. CharterOak State College. 2015. Web. 18 Apr. 2015. Rose, Christina. "Connecticut Attacks Proposed Fed Rec Revisions, Fears Land Claims, Casinos." <a href="http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/">Indian Country Today Media Network</a>. 10 June 2014. Web. 15 Apr. 2015. Indian Legal Program. "<a href="http://conferences.asucollegeoflaw.com/triberecognition/files/2013/10/Conference-Speakers-Biographies.pdf">Speaker Biographies.</a>" Who Decides You're Real? Fixing the Federal Recognition Process. January 16-17, 2014, Arizona State University, College of Law, Ventana Ballroom, Tempe, AZ. Tempe, AZ: Indian Legal Clinic, 2014. Web. Rodriguez, Karla. "<a href="http://www.cawp.net/news.html">Spotlight on CAWP Member Ruth Garby Torres: A Woman of the Future.</a>" Connecticut Association of Women Police. Hollis Internet Marketing, LLC, 2011. Web. 18 Apr. 2015. Torres, Ruth Garby. "<a href="http://ctmirror.org/2014/06/03/op-ed-six-things-you-did-not-know-about-the-federal-acknowledgment-of-indian-tribes/">Op-Ed: Six Things You Did Not Know about the Federal Acknowledgment of Indian Tribes</a>." The CT Mirror. The Connecticut News Project, 03 June 2014. Web. 15 Apr. 2015. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Torres, Ruth Garby Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="http://ctmirror.org/2014/06/03/op-ed-six-things-you-did-not-know-about-the-federal-acknowledgment-of-indian-tribes/#" target="_blank">CT Mirror</a> June 3, 2014 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2014-06-03 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Alexa Procaccianti UNH '15 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Ruth Garby Torres. Used with permission. Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Document Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context DV-336