One of my favorite newspaper opinion writers is Mark Trahant, editor of the Seattle P-I's op-ed page. As an enrolled member of the Shoshone-Bannock tribe (Idaho), Trahant often brings a fresh perspective on the stories of the day, even after they've seemingly been flogged to death. This past Friday, he commented on an article from The Economist called Is America Turning Left?
An editorial in which a bona fide Native American takes aim at Lou Dobbs-style uber-racism? That's definitely worth a look.
The Economist opens with:
For George Bush, the presidency is becoming a tragic tale of unintended consequences. In foreign policy, the man who sought to transform Iraq, the Middle East and America's reputation has indeed had revolutionary effects, though not the ones he was aiming for. Now something similar seems to be happening in domestic politics. The most conservative president in recent history, a man who sought to turn his victories of 2000 and 2004 into a Republican hegemony, may well end up driving the Western world's most impressive political machine off a cliff.
That's easy enough to see, and agree with, even for this conservative publication. And they suggest, as do many others, that the Presidency is 2008 is the Democratic Party's (unless they throw it away).
Yet this President Bush is not a good scapegoat. Rather than betraying the right, he has given it virtually everything it craved, from humongous tax cuts to conservative judges. Many of the worst errors were championed by conservative constituencies. Some of the arrogance in foreign policy stems from the armchair warriors of neoconservatism; the ill-fated attempt to "save" the life of the severely brain-damaged Terri Schiavo was driven by the Christian right. Even Mr Bush's apparently oxymoronic trust in "big-government conservatism" is shared in practice by most Republicans in Congress.
So, while warning against our country moving to the left, they also say it ain't necessarily so:
On the one issue where Mr Bush fought the intolerant wing of his party, immigration, the nativists won—and perhaps lost the Latino vote for a generation... America, even if it shifts to the left, will still be a conservative force on the international stage. Mrs Clinton might be portrayed as a communist on talk radio in Kansas, but set her alongside France's Nicolas Sarkozy, Germany's Angela Merkel, Britain's David Cameron or any other supposed European conservative, and on virtually every significant issue Mrs Clinton is the more right-wing. She also mentions God more often than the average European bishop.
Thank you for getting that right! I get so sick of RWNM ranting endlessly about the extreme left-wing Clintons. It's so not true! But Trahant has a different take on the matter: It's not a matter of right or left, but rather one of America turning inward. I could recap it all, but I always tend to make my diaries over-long. So I'll just go with a money quote, and let interested readers follow the P-I link to read the rest:
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio regularly sends missives to news organizations about the dangers posed by the new majority. He said, "Not only have House Democrats done nothing to strengthen our ability to combat illegal immigration, they have actively voted to undermine our efforts."
This is inward-looking America. We can go-it-alone. We don't need the 12 million people who have been an integral part of our economy, of our success.
Mainly, Trahant's writing about trade, from the POV of a major west-coast port. But he also discusses an important point:
Our obsession with security is turning us into an island; it's more difficult for Americans to travel around the world and for people from other nations to come here.
If there's one demographic in this country who has every right to want to close the door on immigration, it's the continent's aboriginal inhabitants. (At some time or another, many/most have probably wished they'd nipped it in the bud back in the 16th & 17th centuries...)
Ethnic Cleansing in Indian Country
Meanwhile, not all natives are of the same open-minded orientation as Mr. Trahant. Tim Giago (recently retired editor of Indian Country Today) penned an opinion piece today about the Comanche tribe's efforts to include tribal members living "off the reservation" in a rework for the tribal constitution. (And, boy, is off the reservation loaded term bandied around too lightly by the corporate media these days...) But many tribes don't do the same:
It is a lesson to me that Indian nations such as the Comanche consider all of their people as citizens of their Nation. No matter where they reside they are still permitted to engage in the political processes of the Nation. Among many tribes, including most of them in South Dakota, once a person moves from the reservation they abdicate their right to vote or to run for office. They are not allowed to become involved in planning the budget that includes health, education and the welfare of tribal members. And yet, when it comes to determining the monetary allocations requested by the tribe from the federal government, all tribal members are counted whether they live on or off of the reservation. The higher the body count, the higher the funding.
There's also been a tendency amongst tribes to purge their membership rolls in recent years, even those living on the rez. I first heard about it a few years back, when an Isleta Pueblo friend told me that there was "ethnic cleansing" going on at her tribe. And the motive was ugly and small: Money greed. Less members, more casino proceeds for the ones who are left. This has a become steady trend in Indian country in recent years - typically in tribes with casinos:
- Narragansetts in Rhode Island removed 100 people from the tribal rolls, including former Tribal Council member Yvette Champlain
- The Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma has been purging "freedmen" from its membership:
A federal court in Oklahoma wrapped up four-week trial in the case of two Creek Freedmen who want their membership in the tribe reinstated. Ron Graham and Fred Johnson are descendants of Africans who were made members of the Creek Nation after the Civil War. The men say the tribe has kicked them out and is denying them benefits.
According to The Daily Oklahoman, the court heard from several experts in the field of Black Indians and Indian affairs. Daniel Littlefield, the director of Sequoia Research Center at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, said Africans and Indians lived side by side for generations.
- In Temecula, CA, the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians has been up to similar tactics:
After weeks of waiting to learn their fate, a group of Pechanga Indians who fought in court to retain membership in the tribe got word this week that they are being kicked out... The move not only strips the members of their membership in the tribe but also takes away thousands of dollars in casino profits adult tribe members get each month along with health insurance, college scholarships and other benefits provided by the tribe.
...
The decision comes more than two years after an enrollment dispute erupted between members of the enrollment committee and Indians claiming descent from Manuela Miranda, the granddaughter of an original Pechanga "headman" named Pablo Apis. The committee sought to disenroll the Miranda descendents, in part, because Miranda allegedly cut her ties to the tribe.
These have been some high-profile cases, but there's plenty more, like at Isleta, which haven't had press attention - even if word does get 'round via the moccasin telegraph... And so, it would seem, there's people everywhere sending others into exile. A trend likely to ramp up if global warming produces but a small fraction of the predicted environmental refugees in coming decades.
A Small Bit of Warmth in an Overheated World
I'm always interested in unconventional coalitions. One of those, opposing Richard Pombo's public lands giveaway just two short years ago, helped loosen the Republican Party's grip on many, many Western anglers and hunters.
Currently, there's a variety of ad hoc coalitions forming to oppose the Border Wall - especially along the Rio Grande in Texas. Peoples' connections and affinities across the border are complex and deep rooted. People along the border mostly don't want to have a huge barrier erected in their midst. It's no accident that there were electorial gains along the border last November, most notably Ciro Rodriguez's unseating of incumbent Henry Bonilla in TX-23. The vast majority of residents along the border are opposed to The Wall, and most are represented by Democrats in the House, now, too.
The various No Border Wall coalitions are comprised of environmentalists, Chambers of Commerce, mayors, boaters and don't tread on me private property types. Strange bedfellows indeed. Often, such paradigm-shifting coalitions have exceptional power. And I hope this one works out that way. Here's a link for a YouTube video called Walling up the Rio Grande.
Anyhow, an ad hoc outfit calling itself Border Ambassadors has organized a series of events called Hands Across el Rio from August 25 to September 16, from El Paso to Boca Chica (assuming it's hurricane free on the appointed date).
With the exception of El Paso y Juarez...we will launch kayaks and canoes upriver from each principal international pedestrian bridge. Any one who wants to join our flotillas for any portion or any day of this historical event is welcome to do so. Kayaks, canoes, inner-tubes. We will paddle down river to each international bridge respectively and meet up with fellow grass roots citizens from both sides of our Rio who are opposed to the wall. As we experienced in Roma and Miguel Aleman this past weekend...we will be inviting the grass roots folks from both sides of el Rio...to form a human chain in symbol of our border solidarity and amistad.
As Mayor Chad Foster says..."We're joined at the hip". That’s something that folks like Lou Dobbs and members of Congress who have never lived inside the checkpoints do not understand. Our Congressmen and Texas legislators from the border region have spoken out against the border wall. The Texas Border Coalition of our border mayors, judges and economic experts have all spoken in our behalf...in solidarity...against the wall. Our border sheriffs have spoken out against the wall. No one in Washington is listening to them. Now...we the people of the Rio Grand Corridor...from both sides of el Rio...must make our voices heard. "NO Border Wall...!" "Hell NO!!!
We can tell the Congress and the national media all day long that we who live on the border live in friendship with our neighbors on the other side of el Rio. We can tell them that we don't want to be in a militarized zone...on American soil...here in Texas. Now...we will show them why we don’t need one. We get along just fine!
Marisa Treviño wrote about feelings about the wall along the Rio in USA Today last week:
It was something that caught Chertoff and the Department of Homeland Security off guard, the White House, Congress and even the average American citizen who lives miles away from the border in question — Texans, who actually live along that portion of the border, don’t want it.
It’s a concept that is hard for the rest of the country to grasp. After all, aren’t border residents living in fear for their lives by living on the frontlines with what conservative extremists like to term "the invasion" of illegal immigrants?
Well, according to border residents, the only invasion they’re feeling is the one from Washington that is dictating that a fence be built through, along and around their communities.
What's the world coming to when it's "controversial" to have a friendly get together with your neighbors? Best wishes for all the upcoming events: Itinerary here. If you feel inclined to help, there's a wish list on their front page.
P.S. There's a petition you can sign to oppose The Wall. Below, melvin links to another anti-Wall petition, this one with a wildlife focus to it.