Posted on

Wilma Mankiller – Healthcare for Indigenous Veterans

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Healthcare for Indigenous Veterans | References

This image depicts indigenous veterans wearing their uniforms.
https://www.ihs.gov/vaihsmou/

The healthcare services provided to Native Americans by the United States government have been substandard since their inception. Indigenous veterans suffer more than any other group because of the inadequacy of the programs offered by the Indian Health Service (I.H.S.) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (V.A.). In 2019, Senator Tom Udall and Representative Ro Khanna introduced a bill aimed at addressing this issue. The Health Care Access for Urban Native Veterans Act focuses on creating appropriate standard care for those who have served because the problems faced by Native American civilians are compounded by the psychological and physical trauma of military service. Lack of access, understaffed facilities, and racist bureaucracy have kept indigenous veterans from receiving the care they deserve. Considering Native Americans have historically served in the armed forces at a higher per-capita rate than any other racial group, this sort of legislation is more than overdue. Wilma Pearl Mankiller, a Cherokee chief who was heavily involved in healthcare reform, would have wholeheartedly supported this bill. She would have recognized it as a necessary step toward equal treatment under the law. However, Mankiller would have also realized that the bill does not go far enough. Its focus on urban veterans leaves out a large portion of the individuals in need of care. She knew, from personal experience, that the situation on reservations was just as dire as that in cities. Wilma Pearl Mankiller would not only have championed the Health Care Access for Urban Native Veterans Act but would have also fought to provide the same level of care to indigenous communities in rural areas. 

This Image shows the V.A. and I.H.S logos alongside one another.
https://www.isharemedical.com/ihs-va-directtrust-hisps/

Udall and Khanna’s bill is intended to correct the United States’ disgraceful mismanagement of the medical needs of indigenous veterans. The legislation concentrates on the seventy percent of Native American veterans who choose to live in urban centers after their time in the military. Most of these individuals are unable to access the urban I.H.S. system because the V.A. does not reimburse them for their visits. They are forced to rely on overcrowded Veterans Affairs hospitals run and staffed by non-indigenous people. Udall stated that the bill is intended to “ensure more Native veterans have equal access to timely, culturally-competent care regardless of where they choose to live after leaving their military service.” Culturally-competent care is doubly important for veterans because they often have more complicated psychological conditions than civilian patients. This type of care incorporates the beliefs, traditions, and values of the patients’ upbringing in the healing process. Indigenous veterans, living anywhere, should receive treatment equal to that of their white counterparts. The Health Care Access for Urban Native Veterans Act, which has been on the Senate legislative calendar for over a year, is a slow but necessary move toward improvement.

The Health Care Access bill fails to address the concerns of the thirty percent of veterans who choose to reside in rural communities. These individuals are often underserved because of geographical barriers and insufficiently staffed I.H.S. programs. In remote areas, many indigenous veterans with disabilities are unable to travel to healthcare facilitates. Neither the I.H.S. nor the V.A. provides any transit service for these people. Unlike in urban environments, public transportation is rarely an option. Understaffed facilities worsen the situation because they often lack medical professionals specialized in veteran care. In Hopi veteran Vanissa Barnes-Saucedo’s case, the “I.H.S. helped her get the medications she needed to manage her PTSD, but staff members lacked practical knowledge related to veteran-specific issues.” This struggle seems to be the converse of that faced by urban veterans who are unable to find culturally-competent care in whitewashed V.A. facilities. It is the U.S. government’s legal responsibility to ensure that all indigenous veterans receive proper care. Since Udall and Khanna’s bill only assumes part of this responsibility, it does not come close to solving the problem of substandard care. 

This image is of a Native American veteran sitting atop his motorcycle.
https://www.nhonews.com/news/2020/jan/28/native-american-veterans-still-struggling-get-heal/

Wilma Pearl Mankiller would have supported the Health Care Access for Urban Native Veterans Act, despite its shortcomings, because of her personal experience with trauma and medicine. She was in a car accident in 1979, which necessitated seventeen surgeries and years of physical therapy. This experience lead her to spend much of her time as Cherokee Chief “developing a comprehensive healthcare system” for her tribe. The time she spent as a leader and lobbyist acquainted her with the racial biases in the United States’ lawmaking process that lead to the holes in Native American healthcare. She would have realized that Udall and Khanna’s bill is an attempt to help the largest, most easily accessible, portion of the community in need. Even though it does not solve the problems of all Native American veterans, it does address the concerns of thousands of disgruntled people. Mankiller would have openly acknowledged that the bill ignores far too many individuals because of their location. So much of her life was spent dealing with rural health care issues that she would not have allowed them to go unrecognized. However, this recognition would likely follow her ardent endorsement of the bill. If Wilma Mankiller were still politically active in 2019, she would have fought for the healthcare rights of indigenous veterans living in both rural and urban environments. 

The goals of the 2019 Health Care Access for Urban Native Veterans Act align with those historically supported by the late twentieth century Cherokee Chief Wilma Pearl Mankiller. Senator Udall and Representative Khanna’s bill is part of a progression toward a standardized system of appropriate care for all indigenous Veterans. Mankiller’s personal health concerns and passion for protecting indigenous peoples lead her to devote her life to a similar objective. She would have wished to include rural veterans in the legislation, but this would not have stopped her from standing behind it. Wilma Mankiller’s narrative suggests that she would have struggled unceasingly to provide proper healthcare to Native American veterans.

Posted on

Matika Wilbur – Ainu Sovereignty

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Ainu Sovereignty | References

The Ainu people are a small Indigenous nation located in Northern Japan. For centuries the Japanese government and citizens of Japan aggressively discriminated against the Ainu people while creating policies that forced them to assimilate. In 1899, the Japanese government enacted the Hokkaido Former Aborigines Protection Act essentially creating a legal way for the government to assimilate the Ainu people into Japanese society. For nearly a century, the Ainu people were forced to leave behind their traditions and culture and instead adopt those of the Japanese. Like boarding schools across the United States forced upon Native American children, Ainu children were forced to go to Japanese schools where they were taught the Japanese language and traditions rather than their own. The Ainu language and other important cultural practices were not allowed. Despite the fact that the goal of this act was for the Ainu to assimilate into society, many Japanese people still discriminated against all Ainu people, no matter how great an effort they made to cooperate and appear more Japanese. 

The Hokkaido Former Aborigines Protection Act was finally removed in 1997 and replaced with the Ainu Cultural Promotion Law. This law worked to promote the diversity that the Ainu culture brought to Japanese society. This forced both the local and national government to make efforts to promote and protect the Ainu culture. In 2007, the United Nations also made a declaration that outlined rights of Indigenous people, which Japan chose to agree to and support. Both these acts represent the apparent support that Japan had for creating a more inclusive and diverse population. The Japanese government recognized that their economy may see improvements by creating and supporting certain polices that mitigated the discrimination against the Ainu people.

Ainu people protesting
Ainu people protesting for their rights that the Japanese government have promised to uphold. Accessed via https://apjjf.org/2017/18/lewallen.html

In response to the acts the Japanese government adopted in opposition to assimilation, they chose to create a museum putting the Ainu people’s culture on display for everyone to see and learn from. This action at first appeared to many to be a great act to repair the poor relationships between the Ainu and Japanese. However, many Ainu people were very unhappy and actually in opposition to the purpose in which the museum, Upopoy, was meant to serve. While the government effectively displayed the Ainu culture, they still failed to help actually create programs to that helped the Ainu people. They failed to help increase jobs for the Ainu people, so many still remained in poverty even after the museum was built. The museum failed to actually provide any help to improve the lives and ensure the futures of the Ainu culture, most notably the future of their language. Almost as importantly, the government never out-right stated that their acts of assimilation and discrimination were wrong. This failure to apologize and admit to their wrong-doing goes to show that the intentions of the Japanese government were not to actually improve the livelihood of the Ainu, but instead improve their own economy and worldly appearance.

Matika Wilbur’s work and efforts as an Indigenous activist focuses on creating a new narrative and image of what an Indigenous person looks like and is. The many photographs she has taken during her travels across the United States for Project 562 has shown the diversity of Indigenous people. The pictures show people of all ages and different genders. With each photo, she attaches a statement describing the pictured individuals, including their jobs, families, activist efforts and various other unique attributes. Wilbur clearly shows through her images how powerful native people are and how giving them their own voices relays a stronger message than having non-native individuals attempt to interpret what is being said. During a Ted Talk she spoke at, she mentioned how the media represented native Americans through characters such as Tonto played by Johnny Depp and many different adaptations of the “brave” or “savage” Indian. Wilbur wants to change this imagery to make sure Indigenous people are represented correctly.

Image of a Tulalip family
Photograph taken by Matika Wilbur of a Tulalip family dressed in traditional regalia worn to prepare for their annual canoe journey. Wilbur took this photo for Project 562 to accurately represent Indigenous people around the country including the Tulalip nation. Accessed via http://www.project562.com/gallery/

Given Matika Wilbur’s avid pursuit for representation of Indigenous people in the United States, she would stand with the Ainu people in opposition of Upopoy. She would also oppose the actions of the Japanese government that clearly show their true negative intentions concerning the Ainu people’s future success. Wilbur’s main priority as an activist is to give the people she is supporting their own voice, rather than having the government or other majority groups speak for them. Given her clear perspective on what needs to happen in the United States with Native American representation, Matika Wilbur would fully support the Ainu’s efforts. She would completely agree that the Japanese government needs to take accountability for their prior actions while helping to support the education and job availability for the Ainu people.

Posted on

Chief Leschi – Schaghticoke Nation Lawsuit

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Schaghticoke Nation Lawsuit | References

In October of 2016 the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation filed a lawsuit against the State of Connecticut claiming the state unlawfully seized the nation’s land and  has profited from since 1801 without properly compensating the tribe. The suit is seeking compensation from the state to the tune of $610 million and announcing the tribe’s intention to seek restoration of its federal recognition that was granted in 2004 then revoked the following year.

Modern boundaries of the Schaghticoke reservation. It is bounded by the New York border on the west, the Housatonic River on the east, and is downstream from the town of Kent, CT.

In 1736, the Colony of Connecticut established 2,400 acres of land in its northwest corner along the border with New York as a reservation for the Schaghticoke people. The state is required to act in the best interest of the Schagticoke people in managing the tribe’s land (which is held in trust by the state for the tribe) and funds as per statutes dating as far back as 1757. Between 1801 and 1918, the state sold or in other ways profited from portions of the reservation promising to compensate the tribe, and today, only 400 acres remain in the hands of the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation. Both the constitution of the United States and of the State of Connecticut mandate proper compensation for any and all land seized by the government, but to this day no compensation has been given to the Schaghticoke people for the 2,000 acres stolen from them. The State of Connecticut is likewise required by Connecticut law to render an annual accounting of the funds of the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation and any profit made from their lands–a mandate that has been similarly ignored.

Location of the Schaghticoke reservation in Connecticut.

Were Chief Leschi still alive today, he would certainly not stand for Native lands being stolen and not properly paid for. It is likely that he would even go a step further and demand the return of the land itself and not just compensation. This is a motion the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation has attempted to no avail. In 2010, the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation filed a land claims action for the return of 2,100 acres of the stolen land–the majority of which remains undeveloped and sparsely populated. This suit, however, was dismissed by the Second United States District Court in light of the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ reasoning for revoking the tribe’s federal recognition in 2005–a move resulting from a massive lobbying campaign by members of the government of Connecticut that began when the tribe was granted federal recognition in 2004. The Schaghticoke Tribal Nation appealed the ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the District Court’s ruling whereupon the tribe appealed their case to the United States Supreme Court which denied to review the decision.

This assessment of Leschi’s view is based on his actions with regards to the Medicine Creek Treaty and his stand that the Nisquallies be granted proper land–not merely the leftover scraps proposed in the treaty. The negotiation process and treaty terms were rife with grievances against the Native representatives. Washington Territorial Governor and Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Isaac Steven expressly instructed the interpreters to only communicate in the crude trade language of Chinook Jargon (a language with only five hundred words and unsuited for negotiating the complex language of treaties) and not the full language in which the representatives were fluent, Lushootseed. Stevens arrived at the negotiating table with a pre-drawn treaty and, by most accounts, strong-armed the Native representatives into signing instead of listening to their perspective and negotiating terms that fit their needs. Yet, Leschi, a man with a reputation for level-headedness and a renowned moderator, was willing to look past these and plenty other grievances, but he would not waver on securing a proper land deal for his people.

A sign marking the border of the Schaghticoke reservation.

The 1854 treaty granted the Nisquallies a reservation of 1,280 acres made of the least desirable land that could be found along the Puget Sound. It was made of densely forested rocky hillsides and marshy shoreline unsuitable for farming with no access to the rich prairie land or Nisqually River from which Nisquallies drew most of their food and wealth–not to mention their name which literally translates to “people of the grass country.” Accepting these terms would have meant relegating his tribe to dependence on outside forces as the vast majority of the land that enabled Nisquallies’ self-sufficiency and livelihoods was being stripped away. Such an arrangement was so unacceptable for Leschi that there are several accounts claiming he stormed out of the negotiations without signing the treaty and that his signature was forged. The subsequent war that erupted the following year in 1855 between United States forces and several tribes around the South Puget Sound area under Leschi’s leadership forced Governor Stevens back to the negotiating table. New reservation lines were drawn giving both the Puyallup and the Nisqually greatly expanded borders on much more productive and desirable land–one of the very few instances in United States history whereupon a war with Native Americans resulted in better treaty terms for the Native Americans.

Considering his determination to prevent his people from essentially getting ripped off and to defend their ability to function as a sovereign nation, and the fact that, of everything in the negotiation process and treaty terms that could cause grievance, it was the land issue that drew the greatest opposition and resistance from Leschi, were he alive today he would in no way stand by and permit the State of Connecticut to break their own laws in order to unjustly (and unlawfully) steal land from the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation.

Posted on

Neville Bonner – Leadership Qualities

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Mauna Kea | References

Pioneering

Although Bonner had many valiant and praiseworthy traits, one which truly

Queensland Country Life, Australian of the Year Quality

stands out is that he was a pioneer for his people. Despite being an Aboriginal man during a time of great adversity, Bonner stayed true to his morals in order to become the first person of Aboriginal descent to enter the Australian parliament. The number of ‘firsts’ that Neville Bonner accomplished on behalf of his people is both astonishing and highly commendable; including starting a business and becoming the first aboriginal to be elected to Australia’s senate. Despite little education and no political background, Bonner served as a bulldozer for advancing the rights of his fellow Aboriginal community members. Therefore, it is only appropriate that Bonner should be considered a pioneer of his time.

Because of Neville Bonner, Aboriginal Australians all over the country have one more influential leader to look up and aspire to. Furthermore, Aboriginals are recognized by their country’s constitution, they have laws that safeguard their land and communities, and Australia now protects, rather than rejects them. Like a pioneer, Bonner ventured into uncharted territory and dared to do the unexpected, with little support from the world around him. Today, he is a highly regarded and respected Aboriginal man, who deserves every ounce of recognition for his pioneering of laws that protect indigenous people and land.

Resilient

Bonner at a Land Rights March in Brisbane

Coming from an Aboriginal descent, Neville Bonner was not accepted by the white community. As a result, he was not able to receive the education he deserved. He lived in a discriminatory world in which he was not recognized by his own country’s constitution. Even so, Bonner continued to work hard in order to provide himself and his family a better path than the one society fabricated for them. He worked as a carpenter, managed a dairy farm, and even created his own boomerang manufacturing business before beginning his political career.

As an Aboriginal politician in the Commonwealth parliament, Neville Bonner was resilient in promoting Aboriginal rights and welfare during a time when the rest of the parliament was not willing to help Aboriginal communities. During his time in parliament, other politicians never considered Bonner his equal, often leaving him alone and rarely befriending him. Nonetheless, he was never afraid to express his Aboriginality to his colleagues, even if it meant that he had to vote against his party- something Bonner did over 30 times throughout his political career.

Bonner’s retirement from politics did not prevent him from advocating and speaking for Aboriginal issues. He was never ashamed of his Aboriginal culture, and hoped to remain true to his Aboriginal voice when speaking for his people. Bonner’s legacy continues to inspire Aboriginals today to rise above the stereotypes forced upon them by the government and contribute to the advancement of society.

Adaptable

From a young age, Neville Bonner had the ability to excel in any field or job he

Bonner Showing Off His Company’s Boomerangs

was tasked with. Bonner faced a frequent changing of schooling situations during his youth. The first school Bonner attended was the South Lismore School. He and his siblings were sent home the first day by the Head Schoolmaster because the white families kept their children home. After the death of Neville’s mother, his grandmother moved the family to Queensland where they attended the Beaudesert School. At this school, Neville was able to skip three grades in one year, proving that he was highly adaptable in any situation, so long as he had the right tools.

The trait of adaptability followed Bonner in virtually every job he had acquired. One of Neville’s first jobs was working on a cattle station. He started roughly the time that his wife became pregnant and by the time his son was born he had already become the Head Stockman. Eventually, his son became ill and the three moved to Palm Island. Bonner was forced to find another job on the island and became the Health officer on the island. Despite this completely different occupation, he was able to adapt extraordinarily well. The superintendent of the island tasked Bonner to make bricks to rebuild the infrastructure, or lack thereof. Again, granted the opportunity, Bonner made the best of his situation and was able to build a house for himself out of the bricks. Bonner was always adapting to positions of leadership in every field naturally. The adaptability that Bonner displayed in his various jobs and schooling led him excel in his career as a politician.

 

Posted on

Chief Leschi – Biographical Timeline

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Schaghticoke Nation Lawsuit | References

Posted on

Louis Riel – Sixties Scoop Settlement Snub

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Sixties Scoop Settlement | References

The ‘Sixties Scoop’ was a period in the late 20th century when provinces of Canada forced adoption of indigenous children into white families in Canada, the United States, and as far as Europe. As the federally-supported boarding school system of cultural genocide was wound down, the task of forced assimilation was placed on social workers in provincial child welfare systems. Social workers coerced parents and used any reason possible to take indigenous children away from their parents, such as after doctors appointments, using any minor accidental injury as an excuse. The sixties scoop was arguably even more effective at the goal of the residential schools that Prime Minister Macdonald laid out in 1879, writing, “Indian children should be withdrawn as much as possible from the parental influence, and the only way to do that would be to put them in central training industrial schools where they will acquire the habits and modes of thought of white men.” Forced adoption furthered this goal in a way the residential schools could not.

Ending over 18 class-action lawsuits, on October 6th the federal government reached an $800m settlement agreement to make reparations to surviving adopted indigenous people, who should each receive around $25,000. However, people of the Métis Nation and other native people without Federal Indian Status are not eligible for compensation, despite being victims of the sixties scoop. Jeffery Wilson, the class action lawsuit attorney who represented Ontario First Nations scoop survivors, commented that, “the reason Métis are not included is because there is no records to identify Métis during the relevant period of time.” This is contradictory to the many lived experiences that survivors have come forward with.

In a television interview, David Chartrand, president of the Manitoba Métis Federation, rebuffed the claim, “I can give them a list of names and names and families and families. We’re finding them every day, and on our own dime.” Chartrand saw the snub as yet another case of Canada disregarding the Métis, as they have done in the past with the sixties scoop itself. He connects it to Canada’s 1870 land grab after the Red River Rebellion, where Louis Riel’s achievement was promised in the Manitoba Act for 240 acres of land to be set aside for each Métis nation member, giving them a “head start” before white colonialists arrived en masse. After the act, the federal government improperly distributed the land, failing their promise and allowing white settlers to prospect, ultimately leading to the Northwest Rebellion and Louis Riel’s unjust execution. Chartrand spoke, “There’s a sense of being again left out, not only the first time. You go back and reflect on history. Canada left us out in 1870 in the land claims. And again in 1960, they did that to us as children, they left our children out, they sold our children – because it was a cost saving for Canada to give them away to the United States and other countries, and again in 2017 we’re being abandoned by Canada and the children are being left out.” Louis Riel would likely agree with his present successor – Canada continues to ignore Métis sovereignty while conquering and dividing indigenous communities through uneven reparation.

In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favor of the Métis on Canada’s land theft after 1870, requiring Canada to negotiate a treaty with the Métis. At the time, Chartrand reminisced about Louis Riel’s philosophy, “He said there were two societies with treaty together. One was small but in its smallness had its rights. The other was great but in its greatness had no greater rights than the rights of the small. You know, how more fitting can that be today?” Riel would engage in sixties scoop reparations as a negotiation between two nations; diplomatically, as he did with the creation of the provisional Manitoba government, Bill of Rights, and petition for a reservation in Montana, while also willing to take military action when necessary, knowing he’s doing the right thing as a leader for his people.

A recent debate has been made over whether to posthumously exonerate Louis Riel. Riel remains controversial among white Canadians: Québécois widely support him, but many anglophones still view him as a traitor, including the conservative political scientist Thomas Flanagan, who has written extensively on Riel. George Goulet is a Métis scholar who argues that Louis Riel was genuinely illegally convicted under an English statute of treason carrying the death penalty that was no longer the applicable law in Canada. The fact that fresh wounds continue to be made against the Métis nation show a government that is still in the wrong. The Métis National Council believes the act could be one of whitewashing history. Chartrand spoke, “This would probably alleviate Canada’s stress and pressure and guilt that they have maintained when the facts are very clear that they murdered this great leader. Exoneration is not about Riel. Exoneration is about Canada.” Settler colonialism continues in Manitoba; the federal government fought the Supreme Court to continue violating the agreement they made with Riel while leaving his people out of the sixties scoop settlement. The Métis survive with strong leadership, willing to demand sovereignty just as Riel did.