Metacom was the 2nd son of Massasoit. He became a chief in 1662 when his brother Wamsutta died. At first he sought to live in harmony with the colonists. As a sachem, he took the lead in much of his tribes' trade with the colonies. He adopted the European name of Philip, and bought his clothes in Boston, Massachusetts.
But the colonies continued to expand. To the west, the Iroquois Confederation continued expanding, pushing tribes east, thereby encroaching on his territory. Finally, in 1671 the colonial leaders of the Plymouth Colony forced major concessions from him. He surrendered much of his tribe's armament and ammunition, and agreed that they were subject to English law. The encroachment continued until actual hostilities broke out in 1675.
When the war eventually turned against him, he took refuge in the great Assowamset Swamp in southern Rhode Island. Here he held out for a time, with his family and remaining followers.
Hunted by a group of Ron Burgundys lead by Captain Benjamin Church, he was fatally shot by Praying Indian John Alderman, on August 12, 1676, on Mount Hope in Bristol, Rhode Island.
After his death, his wife and eight-year-old son were captured and sold as slaves in Bermuda, while his head was mounted on a pike at the entrance to Fort Plymouth where it remained for over two decades. His body was cut into quarters and hung in trees. Alderman was given one of the hands as a reward.
He is listed in 100 Native Americans Who Shaped American History, written by written by Bonnie Juettner, published by Bluewood Books (2002).
Friday, April 11, 2008
Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968
The U.S. Supreme Court had long made clear that although Indian tribes were subject to the dominant plenary power of Congress and the general provisions of the Constitution, tribes were nonetheless not bound by the guarantee of individual rights found in the Fifth Amendment. The most important decision affirming this principle is Talton v. Mayes (1896). Subsequent Supreme Court decisions affirmed the line of reasoning that tribes were not arms of the federal government when punishing tribal members for criminal acts and that Indian tribes were exempt from many of the constitutional protections governing the actions of state and federal governments. In the 1960s, Congress sponsored a series of hearings on the conduct of tribal governments and heard testimony regarding the abuses that some tribal members were enduring at the hands of sometimes corrupt, incompetent, or tyrannical tribal officials. The Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) was enacted in response to these revelations.
The most important provisions of ICRA were those that guaranteed (1) the right to free speech, press, and assembly; (2) protection from unreasonable search and seizure; (3) the right of a criminal defendant to a speedy trial, to be advised of the charges, and to confront any adverse witnesses; (4) the right to hire an attorney in a criminal case; (5) protection against self incrimination; (6) protection against cruel and unusual punishment, excessive bail, incarceration of more than one year and/or a fine in excess of $5,000 for any one offense; (7) protection from double jeopardy or ex post facto laws; (8) the right to a trial by a jury for offenses punishable by imprisonment; and (9) equal protection under the law, and due process. ICRA also stipulated that the writ of habeas corpus would be available in tribal court.
While ICRA included many familiar constitutional protections, it either ignored or modified others. The law did not impose the establishment clause, the guarantee of a republican form of government, the requirement of a separation of church and state, the right to a jurytrial in civil cases, or the right of indigents to appointed counsel in criminal cases. Congress excluded these provisions because it recognized the unique political and cultural status of tribes.
The effects of the ICRA were substantial; by requiring tribes to meet certain standards, the law caused tribal judicial systems to mirror mainstream American courts and procedures. While the benefits to individual liberties were laudatory, the effect also homogenized tribal courts, and limited their sentencing powers.
In 1978, the Supreme Court dramatically limited the impact of ICRA in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez. That case involved a request to prevent enforcement of a tribal ordinance denying tribal membership to children of female (but not male) members who marry outside the tribe. The petitioning mother claimed the ordinance discriminated against her child based upon sex and thus was a denial of equal protection and violated ICRA.
The Court held that tribal common-law sovereign immunity prevented a suit against the tribe. It concluded that Indian tribes are required to adhere to the substantial requirements of ICRA, but that in deference to tribal self-government, Congress did not intend for federal courts to oversee compliance with ICRA, except in habeas corpus proceedings or unusual circumstances. Since 1978 and Martinez, those persons who allege noncustodial violations of ICRA are limited to pursuing their claims in tribal forums. Generally federal courts play no enforcement role in any of the provisions of ICRA that don't involve the narrow review of the imposition of incarceration by tribal courts in criminal proceedings.
Proposals to amend the ICRA to provide for more effective enforcement by the federal courts have been made and remain controversial. However, any remedy must balance the rights of the individual tribal members with a respect for tribal sovereignty and self-government.
The most important provisions of ICRA were those that guaranteed (1) the right to free speech, press, and assembly; (2) protection from unreasonable search and seizure; (3) the right of a criminal defendant to a speedy trial, to be advised of the charges, and to confront any adverse witnesses; (4) the right to hire an attorney in a criminal case; (5) protection against self incrimination; (6) protection against cruel and unusual punishment, excessive bail, incarceration of more than one year and/or a fine in excess of $5,000 for any one offense; (7) protection from double jeopardy or ex post facto laws; (8) the right to a trial by a jury for offenses punishable by imprisonment; and (9) equal protection under the law, and due process. ICRA also stipulated that the writ of habeas corpus would be available in tribal court.
While ICRA included many familiar constitutional protections, it either ignored or modified others. The law did not impose the establishment clause, the guarantee of a republican form of government, the requirement of a separation of church and state, the right to a jurytrial in civil cases, or the right of indigents to appointed counsel in criminal cases. Congress excluded these provisions because it recognized the unique political and cultural status of tribes.
The effects of the ICRA were substantial; by requiring tribes to meet certain standards, the law caused tribal judicial systems to mirror mainstream American courts and procedures. While the benefits to individual liberties were laudatory, the effect also homogenized tribal courts, and limited their sentencing powers.
In 1978, the Supreme Court dramatically limited the impact of ICRA in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez. That case involved a request to prevent enforcement of a tribal ordinance denying tribal membership to children of female (but not male) members who marry outside the tribe. The petitioning mother claimed the ordinance discriminated against her child based upon sex and thus was a denial of equal protection and violated ICRA.
The Court held that tribal common-law sovereign immunity prevented a suit against the tribe. It concluded that Indian tribes are required to adhere to the substantial requirements of ICRA, but that in deference to tribal self-government, Congress did not intend for federal courts to oversee compliance with ICRA, except in habeas corpus proceedings or unusual circumstances. Since 1978 and Martinez, those persons who allege noncustodial violations of ICRA are limited to pursuing their claims in tribal forums. Generally federal courts play no enforcement role in any of the provisions of ICRA that don't involve the narrow review of the imposition of incarceration by tribal courts in criminal proceedings.
Proposals to amend the ICRA to provide for more effective enforcement by the federal courts have been made and remain controversial. However, any remedy must balance the rights of the individual tribal members with a respect for tribal sovereignty and self-government.
Squaw Peak officially Piestewa Peak
By: Connie Cone Sexton
A federal panel's decision Thursday to officially rename Squaw Peak after fallen soldier Lori Piestewa is a miracle, a blessing and a controversy that needs to end, her mother said.
Priscilla Piestewa said she wants Piestewa Peak in Phoenix to serve as a symbol for all those in the military who make sacrifices to protect the United States.
"But I hope that all the tension can be over," she said. "I hope more people will come together for peace. If we can't find peace at home, how can we find peace in the world?"
In an 11-2 vote, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, whose members represent Agriculture, Homeland Security and other federal departments, agreed to change the name of the summit, a move that follows action taken by a state panel in 2003. The new name will be used on maps and other federal publications, although "Squaw Peak" may appear on such documents as a second reference.
Bob Hiatt, who works in the cataloging and support office for the Library of Congress, voted against the change, along with a representative of the U.S. Census Bureau.
"I don't think she (Lori) met the requirements," Hiatt said. "She had no direct association with the feature. She lived in northern Arizona. Any celebrity she had was as a result of what the governor of Arizona did."
Want to know more? Click here: http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2008/04/10/20080410piestewa.html
A federal panel's decision Thursday to officially rename Squaw Peak after fallen soldier Lori Piestewa is a miracle, a blessing and a controversy that needs to end, her mother said.
Priscilla Piestewa said she wants Piestewa Peak in Phoenix to serve as a symbol for all those in the military who make sacrifices to protect the United States.
"But I hope that all the tension can be over," she said. "I hope more people will come together for peace. If we can't find peace at home, how can we find peace in the world?"
In an 11-2 vote, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, whose members represent Agriculture, Homeland Security and other federal departments, agreed to change the name of the summit, a move that follows action taken by a state panel in 2003. The new name will be used on maps and other federal publications, although "Squaw Peak" may appear on such documents as a second reference.
Bob Hiatt, who works in the cataloging and support office for the Library of Congress, voted against the change, along with a representative of the U.S. Census Bureau.
"I don't think she (Lori) met the requirements," Hiatt said. "She had no direct association with the feature. She lived in northern Arizona. Any celebrity she had was as a result of what the governor of Arizona did."
Want to know more? Click here: http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2008/04/10/20080410piestewa.html
Lumbee slur: Big-mouth DJs with small minds
By Lorraine Ahearn
How could this be OK?
That was the fundamental question when a Lumbee friend called last week, outraged, after her high school-age daughter heard a trio of shock jocks trashing the tribe on Raleigh’s WDCG (105 FM).
Now, the first thing that might come to mind is last year’s April fool, Don Imus, and the "nappy-headed hos" remark that earned him a you-know-what-storm and cost him his CBS Radio show.
But if you listened to last week’s "Bob & the Showgram" segment — which remained up on the G-105 Web site for several days until cooler heads prevailed — some differences became apparent.
The segment, led by DJ Bob Dumas, began as banter with a departing station intern who said she was leaving to get married. After the unnamed intern mentioned that she was marrying a Lumbee, stock sound effects such as fake "woo-woo-woo" Indian chants played in the background.
Dumas and his co-hosts quizzed the intern at length about her fiance, asking whether he was "full-blooded" and whether the couple planned to have a "teepee warming" after the wedding and suggesting she tell her parents, "At least he’s not black."
After making fun of the intern, who laughed along, Dumas and his co-hosts ridiculed Indians in general as "lazy" and Lumbees specifically as "inbred."
Read more of this controversy here: http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080411/NRSTAFF/756073241
How could this be OK?
That was the fundamental question when a Lumbee friend called last week, outraged, after her high school-age daughter heard a trio of shock jocks trashing the tribe on Raleigh’s WDCG (105 FM).
Now, the first thing that might come to mind is last year’s April fool, Don Imus, and the "nappy-headed hos" remark that earned him a you-know-what-storm and cost him his CBS Radio show.
But if you listened to last week’s "Bob & the Showgram" segment — which remained up on the G-105 Web site for several days until cooler heads prevailed — some differences became apparent.
The segment, led by DJ Bob Dumas, began as banter with a departing station intern who said she was leaving to get married. After the unnamed intern mentioned that she was marrying a Lumbee, stock sound effects such as fake "woo-woo-woo" Indian chants played in the background.
Dumas and his co-hosts quizzed the intern at length about her fiance, asking whether he was "full-blooded" and whether the couple planned to have a "teepee warming" after the wedding and suggesting she tell her parents, "At least he’s not black."
After making fun of the intern, who laughed along, Dumas and his co-hosts ridiculed Indians in general as "lazy" and Lumbees specifically as "inbred."
Read more of this controversy here: http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080411/NRSTAFF/756073241
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.JPG)
