Not long ago, I ran into an old friend whom I had not seen in quite a few years. "Joe" and I grew up in the Syracuse, N.Y. area. We’d both moved away and returned to the area since graduating from high school some 20 years ago; he’s now a building contractor and was not overly happy to learn for whom I write.

"How can you work for the Indians?" He asked, amazed. "They’re trying to steal peoples’ land." Indians stealing land? Had I not known a little better, the reporter in me might have sensed the scoop of a lifetime.

My old pal then launched into his interpretation of the Oneida and Cayuga land claim cases, which have been in the news in this area on-and-off for the last few years. Joe rambled about how "we conquered them fair and square" and "all that stuff happened over 200 years ago anyway." Indians, he said, were nomads who "didn’t really own the land anyway" and therefore have no business trying to evict "legitimate property owners." Besides, "they don’t pay any taxes and they want all this land claim money from the taxpayers - why should I have to pay them anything?"

I inquired whether or not Joe is a member of the Upstate Citizens for Equality. He said no, but that the anti-Indian, anti-sovereignty group is "right on" in his estimation.

Joe admits he is not a big reader of newspapers, nor does he watch the TV news with any regularity; neither offers much coverage in the way of Indian-related news anyway. But he insisted that "everybody knows this stuff - where have you been?"

I wanted to tell him that "I’ve been paying attention" but bit my tongue. Instead, I tried to explain that "we" didn’t "conquer" anybody. The federal government and some of the tribes in what is now Upstate New York negotiated and signed treaties guaranteeing certain lands, without interference, to the Indians. New York State later acquired most of the Indian land in the state; because the state had no standing to acquire Indian land without federal approval, which it never received, such land sales were ruled invalid. None other than the Supreme Court has upheld the Cayugas’ right to compensation. (At present their award of roughly $247 million is under appeal.)

"It looks like the Indians are right on this one," I said, speaking of the Cayuga land claim in particular. Joe would have none of it. "It ain’t fair," he insisted. When I explained to him that the judge in the Cayuga case ruled that no private landowners would be evicted, he just shook his head. "We can’t have people living under different rules," he insisted. "It ain’t right."

I attempted to explain the mechanics of sovereignty, of government-to-government relations. I tried to get him to understand the Constitutional origins of the concept of sovereignty and its importance to Indian people.

"That’s B.S.," said Joe. "No my friend, it’s in the Constitution," I replied. "And there’s not an Indian tribe out there today that would willingly compromise its sovereignty."

"Well why the heck not?" Joe asked. "Why can’t they compromise? What’s their problem?"

What’s their problem? I pointed out that the Indian tribes have, to varying degrees, lost all or most of the following: their land, culture, religion, language and way of life, in addition to an incredible (and unknowable) percentage of their population strength. If your sovereignty was all you had left how would you or even how could you compromise? Then what would you be left with?

Joe just shook his head again. "It’s still a bunch of B.S."

Recent poll results concerning the war in Iraq reveal that almost one-quarter of those surveyed believe that weapons of mass destruction have already been found. This of course could not be further from the truth, as anyone with even a cursory knowledge of foreign affairs and current events should know. Where do these people get their information?

As songwriter Paul Simon once noted, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." This statement is, unfortunately, all too true too much of the time.

Our conversation drifted elsewhere; Joe and I eventually exchanged phone numbers and went our separate ways. I wonder if my friend heard a word that I said about the Indians.

Indeed, I was left with the dual questions of how to get through to the "Joe Six-packs" of America, whose brains are filled with years of knee-jerk anti-Indian rhetoric, and whether it is worthwhile to even try.

Concerning the latter question, getting the Indian perspective into the spotlight on any issue is certainly desirable. Hopefully, through our editorial and perspectives pages, this column and the rest of our coverage, we will continue to be influential in Indian affairs. Unfortunately, I don’t think we have too many Joe Six-packs on our list of subscribers. Regarding that first question, however, actually getting Joe Six-pack to listen is another challenge to which I admit that I have yet to find an answer.

You just witnessed a clumsy attempt to ascend a soap box and preach the Indian Industry agenda. PARR was open to listening this tribal propaganda until it got to the lie about tribal sovereignty being guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Oh well look who the reporter works for. Appears this whole article is a vehicle to get someone; anyone to believe the "it’s all mine" Indian Agenda. Because he asked for a response, following is a reply to Tom Wanamaker’s article by PARR’s West Coast columnist Elaine Willman. Elaine does a terrific job of dismantling his article point by point.

Mr. Wanamaker,

Call me "Mrs. Joe Six-Pack," although I haven't touched the stuff in nearly 30 years, and be courageous and fair enough to print this response to your perspective. Please bear in mind while reading this, that I descend from very strong paternal and maternal Cherokee ancestry. My mother and grandmother were enrolled members, as could I also be. My respect and affection for Native American culture where it strengthens individual Indian citizens is a lifetime respect. Where it weakens individual Indian citizens, it is a lifetime sorrow.

Your old friend, Joe from Syracuse, very much expresses thoughts and concerns across America these days, and Indian leaders would be well served to respond more honestly. For example, there is zero reference or discussion of "sovereignty" in the U.S. Constitution, the guiding document of the sovereign states and of the sovereign United States. Nor do the only three references to "Indian" in this revered document, remotely elude to sovereignty. The mention of Indians occurs as follows:

Article I, Sec. 2: (Apportionment of representatives) mentions "Indians not taxed," for purpose of voting and taxing. The phrase "Indians not taxed" was inserted because numerous American Indians even in the late 1700's were assimilating into American life, were employers or employees, were land, home and business owners, and therefore were taxed. Indians who had not-assimilated were "Indians not taxed." All this should have changed with full citizenship for Indians in 1924, but that's another story...

Article 1, Sec. 8: (Commerce Clause) states, "To regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." This clear and simple clause is about conducting business with Indian tribes and does not translate to a mental or political leap that dependent Indian tribes whose territories are part of a state, are full sovereigns. (Restated clearly in Nevada v. Hicks, 2001).

Article IV (Fourteenth Amendment) There is also reference in the body of this article to "Indians not taxed."

So two Constitutional references are specific to individual Indians, and one reference is specific to doing business with Indian tribes. Where, Mr.. Wanamaker, does this translate to "inherent tribal sovereignty," of the same weight and leverage as say, France, Canada, South Dakota, Washington, or the United States?

Many Americans are frustrated with how tribal leaders equate full and separate "inherent tribal sovereignty," with nearly two hundred years of complete financial and regulatory dependence upon another sovereignty - the federal government of the United States. How do sovereignty and dependence on the public dole equate? Only a fully weaned and self-sustaining child has at least the opportunity to become a "sovereign" individual. The same is true for countries, tribes and nations.

The tiresome myth that inherent tribal sovereignty is pre-Constitutional needs a little sunshine. This misplaced theory has unfortunately succeeded a bit too often. It's my belief that anything "pre-Constitutional" in this country was in fact, nullified by the U.S. Constitution.

The Upstate Citizens for Equality chapters are pro-equality, not anti-Indian, but I can see how this would confuse you. The very premise of federal Indian policy, separate governing federally recognized tribes and apartheid Indian reservations, tramples mightily upon equality by creating a "special" class of American citizens. And resulting from that "special" designation is the creation of two classes of American citizens - the taxed and the non-taxed. The U.S. Constitution accommodated "special preferences" to classes of persons only to the extent that Indians were and still are viewed as dependent wards. How does inherent tribal sovereignty and dependence as wards co-exist?

We who are taxed mightily to support non-taxed "quasi-dependent, sovereign" Indian tribes, would appreciate an occasional word of gratitude, instead of constant whining and haranguing that more recently has escalated to political, economic and litigious bullying. As Indian industry continues this trend, expect hundreds of thousands of us, nay millions of us, to ask the very same questions and make the very same comments as your old pal, Syracuse Joe. Expect us to never cease to defend our rights, too.

Sincerely,

Elaine D. Willman, Executive Director Citizens Standup! Committee Toppenish, WA 98948

One final PARR comment, it seems to me that the Indians are constantly whining about being degraded by the use of Indian names for sports teams. With this in mind this question arises. What gives Mr. Wanamaker, the right to stereotype those who find his rhetoric unpalatable, as stupid rednecks (Joe Sixpack)????

Back to Elaine D. Willman Home Page.