Tribal Advocates Seek Senator's Apology (Ted Stevens (R-Alaska))

[Khephra]

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Tribal advocates are seeking an apology from Sen. Ted Stevens, saying his reference to the Alaska Native sovereignty movement as a threat to the state was racist.

Stevens spoke last week on public radio about why he wants to prevent tribes from receiving certain federal grants.

"The road they're on now is the road to the destruction of statehood because the Native population is increasing at a much greater rate then the non-Native population. I don't know if you realize that," Stevens said.

He said tribes want to have "total jurisdiction over anything that happens in a village without regard to state law and without regard to federal law."

more.............

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-alaska-tribe-remark,0,6743700.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

[bushisanidiot]

1. Psst.. Stevens: IT WAS THEIR LAND FIRST!

Why don't you get the hell off it.

[Tempest]

2. Stevens is a idiot

Of course the tribes have total jurisdiction in their villages. That's why the feds created sovereign nations laws.

Arnold is the same kind of stupid. He expects to make the tribes in California to kick in casino money to the state budget. Sorry Arnold, you have no control over the tribes.

[Bandit]

3. Not in Alaska they didn't

Alaska Natives are subject to ANILCA which was signed into law by President Carter. It gave them huge amounts of land and cash so they would not sue the government for sovereignty. Alaska Natives never signed any treaty with the US government nor ever were granted tribal status along the same lines as lower 48 tribes received.

[Tempest]

4. From the article

The state's Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that sovereign tribes exist in Alaska, and disputes have surfaced over what powers the ruling includes. At least three cases are pending in state or federal courts on sovereignty.

Some of the lawsuits contend the tribe isn't federally recognized, despite a 1993 decision by the Department of the Interior recognizing sovereignty of Alaska's native villages.

[roguevalley]

5. I hope he loses his job. Now maybe the Bush won't vote for him.

He's rude, stupid and full of shit. I WANT HIM OUT!!!!!!!!!

Pray that Tony Knowles wins the Senate seat that Dad
gave to Lisa.

RV, living in occupied Alaska

[lumpy]

6. Native Alaskans have gotten the same treatment as native

Americans in the lower states. The greeds have tried for years to take away their fishing rights, their tribal authorities and customs. For God's sake, liquor is verboten in villages making booze smuggling lucrative for some tribal members. Ted Stevens is Alaska's little martinet. The 'good White Alaskan' frontier is dead, destroyed by the freebes extended by the US government.

[demdave]

7. I don't see it as racist speech. It is a legal dispute.

It appears, as per the article, that the courts will have to decide what right and authority the tribes have under previous agreements. To call this racist diminishes the definition. Playing the race card every time someone doesn't see an issue your way, does the same.

[lumpy]

8. Racism sometimes takes on a legal disguise.

Stevens points out (true or not) that native Alaskans are multiplying at a rate that threatens to upset the balance of power in this sad State of affairs. This is just another attempt to dismantel previous agreements regarding tribal rights. Racist ? Yes.

[demdave]

9. Nope. It is acknowledging fact, if it is fact. It will be settled in court

If the tribes have juristdiction and the right to run courts and issue laws, the courts will rule that way. If they don't, they don't.
To call it racist speech is simply a lame attempt to silence to opposition. The position of the tribal speaker was, I say it is racist therefore it is. I saw no backup arguement for why it was racist. Steven's spokeperson elaborated on Steven's statement by saying, "if the sovereignty movement is successful, the increase in the Native population would lead to more claims for the creation of sovereign tribes, more tribal courts and more questions about jurisdiction." (my quotes) That does make sense. Regardless, it will be settled in court.

[lumpy]

10. Ok take the race card out of it.

This is an attempt to dismantel agreements and declarations of autonomy that have been in place for many years ( most unsuccessfully in many cases, I might add).

[demdave]

11. Could be true, I was addressing the original article which was about

demanding an apology for racist speech. That was plainly an attempt to silence debate.

[roguevalley]

12. not to hijack the thread but does anyone know more about

a group from Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula planning to work out a recall of Murkowski? I've lost the thread here.

[NewJerseyDem]

17. Link to thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=57746

[lumpy]

13. Thanks for admitting that it might be true

that this is an attempt to continue to suppress Alaskan Indian rights and hardwon agreements
by right wing politicsl pols. Racism is still abundant in the state of Alaska however.

[demdave]

14. I fail to see where I admitted anything other than this will be

determined in court. If you took this as agreement that this is an agreement of an attempt to continue to suppress Alaskan Indian rights and hardwon agreements by right wing politicsl pols, I must not have made myself clear. I do not make the assmption that I can tell what is in other's minds and hearts. I wil take them at their words and let the courts settle the score. If there is a legal dispute, I think it is the court's duty to settle it. Aside from that, it is really rrelevant and presumptuous to declare that I know why.

[lumpy]

15. You said it "could be true"

indicating that you think it might be true that etc etc etc. Let's leave it to the courts that are filled with Indian rights advocates, of course, naturally, surely, by all means.

[demdave]

16. Could be true does not equal might be true

I thought I made that clear.

[9215]

18. I agree

I'm no Stevens fan, by any means, but this situation requires further analysis.