From: Thomas Taaffe <redorman@theofficenet.com> (by way
of Robert
Dorman <redorman@theofficenet.com>)
Dear Friends,
After a brief respite, we are beginning another round of letters.
This time
we are targeting a letter to Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary
for the Bureau
of Indian Affairs. Please send him a letter (using the e-mail
address above
the letter), using the one provided below or one of your own.
Please
CC a
copy back to us at bambam@anthro.umass.edu so that we may track
the success
of our efforts.
While it is probably too soon to tell, your efforts may be
be having a
positive effect on the situation. Given that it is an election
year, the
White House may not want any adverse publicity. We urge you to
continue to
writing letters, as well as contacting your congresspeople and
senators, to
keep the federal government's nose to the fire.
Thank you for supporting the Dine'h.
Thomas Taaffe
Listserve Manager
Friends of Big Mountain
bambam@anthro.umass.edu
Bureau of Indian Affairs e-mail address: nedradarling@bia.gov
Kevin Gover
Assistant Secretary
Bureau of Indian Affairs
1849 C St., NW
Washington, D.C. 20240-0001
Dear Sir,
I wish to appeal to you on behalf of the resisting Dine'h people
of Black
Mesa in Arizona, who you have made it your responsibility to remove
from
their sacred homelands in any conceivable manner, and directly
onto
devastatingly contaminated land. I intend to represent to you
a rapidly
growing number of concerned American and global citizens, who
do not abide
by the methods nor the justification with which you have gone
about this
task, deeming it legal, humane, and culturally appropriate. By
the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, by citation from the European Parliament,
and
by one of your official goals, to direct tribal self-determination;
it can
not be so.
Before all other interests, is it not your first priority to
look after the
physical and mental health of the indigenous people on the land?
If not, why
not? Perhaps there are other interests that you have found more
important?
Certainly, it is widely understood that the "Navajo-Hopi
land dispute" was
contrived by government directed and crafted tribal councils and
influential
energy interests, whose sole intent has been to clear away coal
and water
rights on the Joint Use Area, to open the way for more development.
It is no
secret the richest resources in the U.S. for uranium and coal
lie beneath
this "disputed" land. The dispute has never been between
the Hopi and Navajo
peoples, who wish to protect the land and their families, but
instead
between both tribes and the U.S. government, via the BIA. In the
two years
leading up to the BIA's very formation of the Navajo Tribal Council,
the
commissioner of Indian affairs published several letters instructing
Indian
Service employees to suppress and control Indian ceremonies, dress,
and
dances. Should the people, who protested loudly the authority
of such a
body, be ignorant to the correlation there, especially when the
only
authority of the new Tribal Council was to sign over mining rights?
You have
indicated that it is in the best interests of the people that
you serve to
surrender their land, and that their own tribal government has
decided it is
best to do so. But such a governing body can never be indicated
as any
excuse for the openly hostile removal of elderly and traditional
families.
Furthermore, such respected Hopi elders as Martin Gashweseoma,
Dan Evehema,
Thomas Banyacya, as well as countless more Hopi traditionals,
have loudly
voiced support and unity with the Dine'h resistors. The "huge
differences"
that you have suggested exist between the two tribes do not even
begin to
overshadow their common view of the land as sacred, their belief
in all
people as relatives, and their common purpose as guardians of
their sacred
homeland.
The actual differences in this case lie between the BIA's public
addressing
of the Dine'h peoples' situation, and the actual treatment of
these same
people. I understand that many Dine'h are afraid of the harassment
of the
BIA officials that come to their homes armed with semi-automatic
weapons to
count their livestock and tell them that they must sell their
livestock or
they will get impounded - if not today then tomorrow or next week
when no
supporters are around to witness their actions. Do you feel that
signatures
obtained under these circumstances constitute an endorsement of
your policy,
especially when most remaining Dine'h are not even capable of
understanding
the meaning of the word "relocation", nor of signing
their names? Do you see
aggression towards these peaceful people as the only solution
to your
"Indian question?" If so, do you not understand the
thin line you tread
between legal business and outright genocide?
Mr. Gover, since you have instigated and enforced the laws
that
fundamentally undermine the rights of these people, stripped them
of the
land they have held for many hundreds of years, and placed their
lives and
livestock in physical danger; you have a special responsibility
to undo the
damage you have done. I enjoin you: enforce the prohibition of
your agents,
rangers, and employees from bulldozing ceremonial hogans and sacred
burial
sites; begin today!
Cease the clinically documented cruel treatment of animals
impounded by your
agency by discontinuing altogether the seizure of this the people's
only
livelihood. Since you continue to resell the animals to the same
people you
took them from, it is obvious to the growing number of witnesses
that
although they are being seized under the auspices of protection
from
overgrazing, this is not the case. Suspend immediately your enforcement
of
the virtual death sentence issued upon the people, not being allowed
so much
as to break a green twig in gathering firewood to stay alive in
twenty-below
weather, repair living structures, or obtain drinking water. Inform
your
employees that it is brutal and unnecessary treatment of what
are usually
elderly persons, to physically intimidate and threaten with imprisonment
those who do not sign agreements, (most do not know English, sir!)
or those
who attempt to survive.
By beginning with these directives you will prove to the world
that your
intentions do not include banishing altogether the religion and
way of life
of the Dine'h people. I would like to assume that the BIA does
not feel that
the forcible relocation of native people living on their traditional
land is
a good way for the U.S. government to treat its indigenous peoples!
Sir, I
want to thank you in advance for your time on this important and
urgent
matter, and with most respectful sentiments, I do await your reply.
Sincerely,