Slide & # 39; Pocahontas & # 39; of Trump raises the long history of problems between the government and Native Americans



[ad_1]

When President Trump called Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" this week during a ceremony honoring Navajo war veterans, he not only ignited a controversy over whether he used racial slander against an opponent.

Trump also reopened a wider conversation about the uncomfortable relationship of the federal government with, and the abusive treatment of, Native Americans. It is a story that included mbad murders and efforts to strip the tribes of their land, language and culture. More recently, conflicts have shifted to cultural and legal fights over property, pet and casino rights.

"Trump is not alone in making insensitive comments or doing insensitive or totally horrible things that hurt American Indians," said the Rev. John Norwood. , general secretary of the Alliance of Tribes of the Colonial Era. "There is a growing awareness of the history of Native Americans, but the insensitivity to them is still incredibly frequent."

Norwood added that Native American groups have not always been on the losing side, especially in recent years in legal battles and the cultural protests they have waged. "But unlike all other Americans, we are not immigrants, and yet we feel that it is often an uphill struggle for us in our own land."

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said it was "ridiculous" to think that the president would insult anyone other than the senator from Mbadachusetts. But Warren – who says he has a Cherokee heritage – and groups that include the National Congress of Native Americans and the Colonial Age Tribes Alliance were blasted by criticism of the president.

Native American representatives said the sway over Trump's words especially because they are part of a long history of US government actions. UU and political officials who have continued to hit a nerve.

Andrew Jackson

After Trump honored a small group of Navajo men on Monday at the White House for their work as spokesmen for the US Marines during World War II, Native American groups noticed who did it while standing in front of a painting by President Andrew Jackson.

Jackson, who was president from 1829 to 1837, known for signing the Indian Deportation Act, which forced more than 60,000 Native Americans to move from their homelands in the southeast to areas west of the Mississippi River. Cherokees, who were among those who endured what was called Trail of Tears, called Jackson the "Indian killer."

While Native American groups widely noted the strange contrast of the Trump and Navajo honorees near a Jackson painting, at least one Native American present said it did not bother him.

Thomas Begay, a code talker who supported Trump while the president gave thanks for Begay's service, told a CNN contributor that the painting "baffled" him but did not offend him .

  Washington Redskins "title =" Washington Redskins "/> 
 
<figcaption> Tony Gonzalez leads a protest in Santa Clara in 2014 against the use of" Redskins "as team mascot. <span clbad= Karl Mondon / TNS

Pets athletes

For decades, many Native American tribes have campaigned against team mascots that use tribal names and images, and fans of the Atlanta Braves, Seminoles of Florida State University and Kansas City Chiefs celebrate famous scores and victories by wavin "There are exceptions in which individual tribes have no problems with a local team, but in general most tribes condemn American Indian pets because they are psychologically harmful to American Indians," said Norwood.

Perhaps the most controversial sports team in this category is the Washington Redskins, owner Dan Snyder says he will never change the name, which he describes as an imbu gone from the story of "who we are" and "where we come from".

The federal government became involved when it was asked to deny trademark rights to the Redskins and others using native images. Those challenges largely went nowhere in the past. But the government delivered a symbolic victory to tribal activists in 2014, when the United States Patent and Trademark Office denied the team's trademark registrations because they were "disparaging Native Americans."

Victory may not last long. That's because the Slants, an Asian and American band that was also denied a trademark for having an offensive name, won a Supreme Court case this year over the issue. The judges said denying the registration simply because people were offended was against the 1st Amendment.

Casinos

Trump's ongoing fight with Warren – he calls it "Pocahontas" many times – is not the only dispute with Native Americans that has caused Him trouble.

Trump repeatedly clashed with the tribes after a 1988 federal law facilitated the opening of casinos on tribal lands. In interviews and advertisements of the time, painted the tribes as directed by criminals and gangsters who, as he says now about Warren, misrepresented his background.

"I think I could have more Indian blood than a lot of the so-called Indians trying to open the reserves," Trump said in 1993 during an interview with radio host Don Imus.

Speaking at a meeting of the Native American Affairs Congress that year, Trump also questioned why the tribes received special status in the casino business. "If you look, if you look at some of the reservations you have approved … they do not look Indian to me, "Trump said at the time to the California Democrat, George Miller.

The point of view is not exclusive to Trump. As tribal casinos have spread, they often face protests from more established gaming companies. Just two years ago, MGM sued the state of Connecticut over a law that allows tribes, but not non-tribal companies, to compete to build a casino adjacent to a reserve. MGM called the law unfair.

  Dakota Access Pipeline "title =" Dakota Access Pipeline "/> 
 
<figcaption> Oceti Sakowin camp last year at the edge of the Cannonball River in North Dakota, north of the Standing Rock Sioux Preserve. <span clbad= Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times

Dakota Access Pipeline

Throughout 2016 and 2017, thousands of Native Americans from all over the United States descended on North Dakota to camp for months in protest against efforts to build an oil pipeline of crude oil that transports 500,000 barrels per day from the western part of the state to another pipeline in Patoka, Illinois.

The Sioux of Standing Rock and the Sioux of Cheyenne River said that the Dakota Access Pipeline would threaten their way of life as well as the water and land that had depended for generations.

It was another chapter in a centuries-old battle between the US government and Native American groups over land rights, which federal authorities often earn. s behind the pipeline said they had received permission from local jurisdictions and the federal government to build, and said they would do so safely.

In the last month of his presidency, President Obama said he understood the concerns of the tribes and environmental activists. "My point of view is that there is a way to accommodate the sacred lands of Native Americans," he said in an interview with NowThis News and added that the US Army Corps of Engineers. UU I was looking for alternative routes. 19659009] But shortly after this year's inauguration, the Trump administration gave final approval for construction. During the campaign and his presidency, Trump said that national energy production, such as through oil pipelines, should be accelerated to meet the energy needs of the United States. UU And feed the economy. It was another defeat for the tribes.

<! –

-> <! - -> <! -

Medium size svg

- -> <! - -> <! -

large svg

-> <! - ->

jaweed.kaleem@latimes.com

Twitter: @jaweedkaleem

[ad_2]
Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.