Dear Supporters:
Waited patiently, to no avail, for a reply from U.N.
Special Rapporteur, University of Arizona, Professor, James Anaya to the NPPA’s
email and letter dated January 27, 2014 (see 1/27/14 blog below). The letter
was in response to the January 24th “Media Advisory/Press Release” and
Prof. Anaya’s visit with Peltier at Coleman Penitentiary. (Footnote #1)
The “press release” incompletely quotes Prof. Anaya but
referenced his 30 August 2012 “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights
of indigenous peoples, James Anaya, on the situation of indigenous peoples in
the United States.” (The ‘Report’)
The latest “Director” of the newly reformed ILPDC quoting
from the Report, pages 13 & 20, relates directly to Peltier. But, there’s
even-money that Harry David Hill did not read beyond those two quotes or the
entire fifty-page Report. But we did.
Prof. Anaya compiled an historical document reviewing
dozens of reports, federal programs and information and allegations in summary
form presented in Appendices I and II that comprised fully one-half of his Report
(pp. 24-50), and by visiting seven States in eleven days between April 23 to
May 4, 2012 to reach his conclusions presented in the first half of the Report.
Nothing new was presented in Prof. Anaya’s Report,
analysis, and statistics reviewing the history of the treatment of Native
Americans (and other indigenous cultures). He comes to conclusions that are
commonly known and accepted by all who understand these historical perspectives.
Early on he mentions “Of course their (Native American
tribes, Indian Nations) greatest contribution is in the vast expanses of land
that they gave up, through treaty concessions and otherwise, without which the
United States and its economic base would not exist.” This is a common theme
that Prof. Anaya fails to, or avoids placing into its proper perspective. Of
course these things happened, but contrary to the prevailing myth, before the
Europeans entered the continent and under Manifest Destiny continued the push
from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the North American continent was not a
Valhalla as many are led to believe. Long before, and during the European
colonial powers or the successor United States and the white man’s relentless
quest for land and resources, there was trouble in paradise.
And for the vast stretches of the continent, who’s to say
who owned what? Many tribes claimed rights and ownership of the same lands.
Anaya’s Report devotes considerable space, an entire
section, to crimes against women.
While visiting and posing for smiling photos with Peltier
at Coleman Penitentiary, did the good professor ever think to ask Peltier to
clarify the details of when and why he stuck a gun in Anna Mae Aquash’s mouth
trying to force her to admit she was an informant (or provocateur as they like
to be labeled). Or why Peltier’s AIM comrades went with their unfounded
suspicions anyway and put a bullet in the back of her head, dumping her body in
a ditch? Or, how Peltier knew that Anna Mae was dead in December 1975 when her
body wasn’t found until the next March? Was that part of the Anaya-Peltier hug
fest in the visiting room? Obviously, not.
A challenging statistic offered in Anaya’s Report (p.11)
is:
“Estimates are that nearly 80 per
cent (sic) of the rapes of indigenous women are by non-indigenous men, many of
who (sic) have made their way into indigenous communities but who are not
presently subject to indigenous prosecuaorial authority because of their
non-indigenous status. Congress has yet to pass key reforms in the Violence
Against Women Act that would bolster tribes’ ability to prosecute these cases.”
Neither of the references Prof. Anaya offers (Steven W.
Perry, Statistical Profile and U.S.D.O.J. Report) supports that conclusion. Although,
Perry’s decade old study relating to “Victimization in Indian Country”
indicates that “Violent victimization of American Indians, by race of offender
and type of victimization, 1992-2001,” the “rape/sexual assault” statistic does
approach 80%, but the findings do not account for or differentiate those crimes
against Native American women by white offenders occurring on “Reservations”
per se, or elsewhere. It does, however clarify that attempts were made to
determine “…how many victimizations took place at those locations (Reservations
or Indian lands). “From 2000 to 2002—0.5% of all reported violence—occurred on
Indian reservations or Indian lands.” And that, “Victims could be of any race.”
Not all Native Americans live on Reservations, nor are all residents on
Reservations, Native American. So, Professor Anaya’s 80% conclusion is suspect
and may be erroneous.
Although based apparently on a faulty assumption, Prof.
Anaya’s point of allowing more tribal authority against anyone who commits a crime on a Reservation or tribal land is well
taken.
Prof. Anaya’s support of Peltier is fatally flawed (Fn.
2). He has bought into the mythology that in some perverse way a free Peltier
will see some level of reconciliation and some payback of the “historical”
(white man’s) “debt.” A careful examination of the facts, adding to that
Peltier’s own self-incriminating statements over the years since his conviction
should be the topic of the professor’s next Report.
Referring to Peltier as an “activist and leader in the
American Indian Movement,” describing the murder of Agents’ Coler and Williams’
as “…a clash on the Pine Ridge Reservation” clearly indicates that Professor
Anaya needs more time for additional research on both the facts surrounding
Peltier’s actions that day at Jumping Bull and the devastation wrought by AIM,
an organization that contributed nothing, along with Peltier, to the betterment
of Native America.
In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods
Footnotes:
1) Didn’t really expect a reply, nor not waiting or expecting
one from Robert Redford. It’s so typical that supporters want to avoid any
serious follow-up discussions. They make their emotional pleas and then move on
to other matters. Healthy debate uncovering the precise details and facts only
serve to remove the sheen from the Peltier folklore and that’s unacceptable to
the diehards. Especially when those details come from Peltier’s own words.
2) Not an uncommon theme in the history of the Peltier
matter.
