Chris Norman A note to anyone who may use these lesson plans: These lesson plans were designed for Chris Norman‘s senior project at the International School in Bellevue. They were made to fit the specific class time limits during a WASL schedule week and a normal week at International School for the regular US History class for juniors. These are intended to be used by anyone wishing to teach their students about Native American history and culture, and most likely will have to be rearranged to fit different time slots. To accompany these plans, there is a PowerPoint document, a timeline, a bibliography, a quiz, exit slips to be filled out by students at the end of class, and many articles from different sources. The PowerPoint and this sequence of events sheet go together, but the PowerPoint is mostly used for the first section, which corresponds with the first day. It is not intended to be the main source of information, but rather a tool to help with bullet points and visual aids. I have included the URLs of the articles that may be accessed online. At some points, I planned to show certain current events on DVD from NWIN, which is a half-hour North West Indian News program run by the Tulalip Tribe. For information about NWIN, you may email KANUprogramming@msn.com. I would definitely recommend showing the NWIN videos, because they give very clear Native American standpoints on issues. Much of the information that I have inserted into the lesson plans is from notes and anecdotes that I learned from the government-to-government training through the Governor‘s Office of Indian Affairs. The website is http://www.goia.wa.gov/Default.htm and email is GOIAMail@goia.wa.gov. I highly recommend taking this class for a better understanding of Native Americans and their relationship with the government. Sequence of events Monday April 17th – 150 minutes Learning Objectives: By the end of this class, I would like students to correct stereotypes about Native Americans, to be able to describe the general content of the treaties in Washington, to know how tribes become recognized by the federal government, and what tribal sovereignty means to most Native Americans. - Tackle stereotypes- use PowerPoint Misconceptions o Ask: How are these cultural issues? o Ask: Are they true or misunderstandings? o Ask: Do Native Americans in our area fulfill these roles? o Ask: Did Columbus ‗discover‘ America? What constitutes a discovery? Political cartoon o Knoxville Racist Cartoon -Give Students Maps of Native American tribes in Washington -Brief overview of Salish Tribes http://coastsalishmap.org/start_page.htm -this site has explanations of villages all over Puget Sound area. -Treaties- use PowerPoint What is a treaty, what does it mean? Overview of treaties in Washington: http://www.goia.wa.gov/Treaties/Treaties.htm o Treaty of Medicine Creek o Treaty of Point Elliot –treaty with most tribes around King, Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap counties o Treaty of Point No Point o Treaty of Neah Bay –explicitly includes the right to whale Optional: Show North West Indian News #9 on this treaty o Treaty with the Yakima o Quinault Treaty o Treaty with Walla Walla –joint treaty between Washington, Oregon territories Examine Treaty of Point Elliot o Split examination of articles in treaty amongst groups of students o Have groups explain what their article means to whole class Upholding parts of treaties o Chinook Jargon: This was not real language- it was a mix of all different languages from the area, used by most of the tribes around, which is why treaties were written using it. It was named after the Chinook because they were river traders. o Types of rights: expressly retained, expressly relinquished, and those neither retained nor relinquished. o Reserved Rights Doctorine Similarities between treaties: Alcohol, slaves, forfeit of land, monetary compensation. Have students read article Treaty Rights: An Overview by Philip Martin on page 144 of Rethinking Columbus. Use this to clarify misconceptions about treaties -Break- -Timeline –explain as you go along, also pass out handout -Tribes today Tribal recognition o Why are some tribes not recognized? o How can a tribe become recognized? Treaties Executive Orders Federal Legislation o Snoqualmie Tribe Snoqualmie‘s were supposed to join Snohomish at Tulalip when treaty was signed, but members of today‘s Snoqualmie tribe mostly are descendents of those who did not. They were recognized, but lost recognition in 1950‘s Had to prove that they were an actual tribe in the past Old camp discovered, was perfect Snoqualmie evidence Re-recognized in the late 1990‘s o Duwamish Tribe Used to live in what is now urban Seattle The Duwamish was the earliest tribe to be removed, which explains why it has difficulty gaining recognition. Was almost recognized when Clinton left office, but Bush administration has made them start the process over. Muckleshoot and Tulalip oppose the recognition of this tribe, because they could potentially build a casino in Seattle, taking away business from the others. Chinook in the same boat as Duwamish -Sovereignty Tribes have been referred to as many different things o Independent Nations- This does not apply to tribes today in the sense that much of their business comes from non-tribal members, they are dependent on the United States for energy, resources, and do not have some thing such as standing armies or airports for their exclusive use. o Sovereign Nations- This can mean many different things, (will be discussed in next section on next PowerPoint slide). o Domestic Dependent Nations- Domestic Dependent Nations was what the Supreme Court said in 1831, no one knows why. This does not apply to all tribes because in 1831, many tribes were very independent from the United States. o Corporations o Federal Municipality- Tulalip is considered this because it is sort of a city recognized by federal government, but like Colville, Muckleshoot, and Yakima, is not just one tribe. What does Tribal Sovereignty mean to Native Americans? o Establishing a form of government Options for representative government One tribe in New York has only male leaders but only female voters Numbers and structure of those in the government is different for every tribe o Determining standards for membership (This will be discussed on Tuesday). o Establishing police power Maintaining own police force to deal with tribal members Tribal police may detain tribal members only; if non-members are committing criminal acts and are caught on reservation, the county sheriff has to come detain them, and vice versa with tribal members and the county o Administering judgment Lummi tribe in Washington expels all drug dealers Some tribes exclude drug dealers from everything except access to their house and the road. o Excluding people from tribal lands The ability to exclude people is a civil right o Charter businesses o Make taxes Yakima wanted to tax alcohol on reservation, but business owners and the state went to court with the Yakima tribe, and the Yakima withdrew. Then they banned the sale of Alcohol, which was also in their treaty. o Sovereign immunity Some tribes consider sovereignty as defending their resources Optional: show North West Indian News #2 on this tribal sovereignty. -If there is time, show movie clip from Smoke Signals about stereotypes. -Time for exit slips! (Leave 5-10 min. for this) Exit Slip for Monday, April 17th, 2006 Name__________________________ 1. Give two examples of what you have learned about Native Americans in Washington. 2. Do you have a better understanding about stereotypes and how to not make them? 3. Give two examples of what you have learned about tribal sovereignty. 4. Give an example of what you have learned about treaties and their impact on Native Americans today. -Give take-home article 1: Newcomb: Rejecting domestic dependent nationhood May be found at: http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1080574522 Tuesday April 18th – 50 minutes Learning Objectives: By the end of this class, I would like students to have an understanding of some cultural differences between Native Americans and other Americans and to know how tribes determine membership. -Discussion on take-home article 1: Newcomb: Rejecting domestic dependent nationhood -Overview of cultural differences, pick up on PowerPoint page 16 Many Native Americans split between those who are traditionally-minded and those who are contemporary-minded ‗Indian Time‘ o Time scale based on priority, not on a clock o Decisions made with tomorrow in mind Native Americans in Washington were subsistence people, lived off of the land Giving correlates with wealth Elders are determined on a basis of wisdom and knowledge, not by age Other instances o At the Colville Tribe, tradition is to wrap up babies around a board on their backs, and they can be carried around easily this way, or it can be leaned up against a tree so the baby can see everything that is going on. Sometimes, they are hung from the tree, which is fun for them because they blow around in the wind. Visitors to Colville Tribe are alarmed, and call the sheriff, who comes and explains that those babies are his grandchildren. -Tribal membership Traditionally finding a mate outside of tribe o Close family system: everyone in tribe is a relative o Mate comes from other village, integrates cultures o In this way, many tribes and bands are related o Families ties share culture and share culture loss Ways to measure: o Blood quantum 1/8 is standard for many tribes This contradicts culture- finding a mate outside of tribe Excludes many members of the community who aren‘t ‗Native American‘ enough o Maternal/Paternal o Location of birth Yakima Tribe: complications with birth, so mother had to be flown via helicopter to hospital, baby was not born on reservation One child stuck in no man‘s land: Mother‘s tribe said go with the father‘s, father‘s tribe said go with the mother‘s. o A Native American cannot be a member of more than one tribe. o Ask: Which one of these seems to make the most sense? o Ask: Which ones seem to not make sense? o Ask: If you were a tribal leader, what would you choose for your tribe? -Time for exit slips! (Leave 5-10 min. for this) Exit Slip for Tuesday, April 18, 2006 Name___________________________________ 1. Explain two cultural differences between Native Americans and other Americans 2. How does the blood quantum system for determining tribal membership contradict the culture of many Salish tribes? Explain. 3. How may other ways used to determine membership be seen as unfair in some situations? Explain -Give take-home article 2: ―Sobriety Movement‖, Seattle Times. May be found at: <http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi- bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1049342&date=19900106&query=Native+American> Friday April 21st – 50 minutes Learning Objectives: By the end of this class, I would like students to know explain the effects of alcohol on Native American tribes and to explain general demographic differences between Native Americans and other Americans. -Discussion on take-home article 2: ―Sobriety Movement‖, Seattle Times Have students answer questions on a handout (they may use the article): o In a short paragraph (3-5 sentences), explain how Native American communities have been affected by the use of alcohol, and how this trend is reversing. o Why is it believed that Native Americans are more susceptible to alcoholism? o Does the act of practicing culture and religion effectively combat this disease? Explain. -Seattle Times: Seattle makes Cedar River deal with Muckleshoot May be found at: <http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi- bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=cedarriver29m&date=20060329&query=cedar+river> -King County Journal: Critics eye Cedar River accord May be found at: <http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID= /20060409/NEWS/604090313&SearchID=73241653299340> -Examination of Cedar River articles- have students read them and discuss questions Ask: How does the attitude in the two articles differ? Ask: Should the Muckleshoot attempt to build a hatchery in Cedar River? Is it their responsibility? Ask: How can the watchdog group make sure that the tribe does not abuse their newly granted rights to hunting on this river? Ask: Is there a Native American perspective given in either article? -Demographics of Tribes Being forced off of land has left many Native Americans in poverty, without arable land, or a real strong sense of community. Show poverty table –US Census o May be found at: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/race/indian/cp-3-7/tab06.pdf o Discuss table- may use Puget Sound Salish tribes as an in-depth example of income. Remember: this data is from the 1990 census, may be outdated. o Many tribes are successfully growing, developing, and the trend is that there is much less poverty now than there was before. -Time for exit slips! (Leave 5-10 min. for this) Exit Slip for Friday, April 21st, 2006 Name__________________________ 1. What is the Cedar River? What is the issue with the Muckleshoot tribe and why should you care? Explain in a paragraph, describing the who, what, where, when, and why of the issue. 2. How well are Native Americans represented in either article? 3. How did the economic standing of Native Americans stand up against that of non- natives? Is this comparison any different today? Tuesday April 25th – 90 minutes Learning Objectives: By the end of this class, I would like students to know why in some states casinos are legal for Native Americans and not others, why casinos are a staple economic development for Native Americans, and explain other economic development that may be beneficial for tribes. -Quiz: Give students 15 minutes for this or until all of them are finished. Then redistribute quizzes to class and have them correct others‘ quizzes as I go over answers with them. -Economic Development (continued) Casinos o Why Casinos and not something else? Casinos are something that Native Americans could build that no one else could. Native Americans did not have any other unique industries very much natural resources. Most have very little land o When? In 1979, tribal leaders at a Seminole Bingo Hall in Florida decided to raise their prize limits above those permitted by the state Florida for charitable games. This began the national trend o Before Gaming, damaging practices to make money included: Strip mining Grazing Timbering in non-ecological ways Polluting with industrial waste Comparisons o Top twenty-five largest tribal casino tribes from 1990 to 2000: Mean poverty decreased 28.4 percent Mean income cap more than tripled o Top twenty-five largest tribes by population (casino or no): Mean poverty decreased 12.9 percent Mean income cap less than doubled o How is money split up Each tribe has it‘s own method to divide money Some tribes split the money per capita, that is every member gets a check with an equal share of profits each month Other tribes spend it on social programs, health programs, or housing for the needy Most tribes do not split per capita Most tribes do not have casinos Against religion Unethical to gamble Diversifying economy o Relying on casinos is not a good way to make all of your money. It is only one source. Investments from casino money are often made into other industries. o Many Native Americans realize that at some point in time, casinos will not be as profitable or reliable as they are now. o Entertainment is big, such as the White River Amphitheater -Have students read American Demographics article: Discovering Native America May be found at: <http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_2001_ August_1/ai_78426752> -Optional: Show NWIN #2 current event on casinos or NWIN #7 on economic diversity -Assign seminar discussion topic Treaty rights o Makah Whaling- Should it be allowed? o Give students 6-page seminar packet, which includes instructions and questions -Show NWIN current event #12 on Makah Whaling public debates (relates to seminar) -Time for exit slips! (Leave 5-10 min. for this) Exit Slip for Tuesday April 25th, 2006 Name__________________________ 1. Why does it make sense for Native American tribes to build casinos? Why not? 2. How are Native Americans diversifying their economies? 3. What are some ways that money is often split up amongst the tribe? -HW: Write one page of notes, typed, double-spaced, on the seminar packet texts, keeping in mind answers to the questions and using quotes from the texts. Friday April 28th – 90 minutes Learning Objectives: By the end of this class, I would like students to have discussed to the point where they have a firm idea in their own mind on what their position is on treaty rights, specifically the Makah whaling treaty rights. -Seminar discussion An introduction to what a Socratic seminar is and how it may be used can be found at: http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/schools/wjhs/depts/socialst/ams/Skills/Socrati cSeminar/SocraticSeminarIntro.html Pass an excel table around the room, having each student fill in his or her name in the first column. Then use the next three columns to grade the student on the 1) number of times participated, 2) the relevance of the participation, and 3) how many times he/she used quotes from the texts. (I used tally marks for each section- grading may be curved depending on how long the discussion goes for). Have one student be moderator, along with you interjecting to keep the discussion moving and relevant. Make sure that the discussion does not stay on one question the entire time and does not stray too far. The discussion should last for at least 45 minutes, possibly as long as 90 minutes. -Audience Evaluation Form (10-15 Minutes). Timeline for relations between Native Americans and the US of A. Mr. Duge 6th Period US History 1492- Columbus sails the ocean blue, begins the genocide of the entire native populations of Hispaniola and Puerto Rico. He also introduces sugar cane and African slaves. 1778- The first treaty is signed by the United States with the Delaware Nation. This treaty intended that if this tribe wanted to join the Union, it would become a state with two of it‘s own senators. 1830- Indian Removal Act: Native Americans east of the Mississippi were forced to leave their lands for less desirable land in places like Oklahoma. The Supreme Court upheld the treaties with tribes in Georgia, but Andrew Jackson did not care. The removal of the Cherokee from Georgia was called the Trail of Tears (1838). Many families and tribes to split up, as some stayed to fight, some left for different parts, and many died along the way. Five Civilized Tribes were the ones most involved in this removal: the Choctaw, Cherokee, the Chickisaw, the Creek, and the Seminole. 1863- Homestead Act: Anyone who settles 160 acres of land for five years, lives there, builds a house and a well, and plows 10 acres may own this land. This caused a lot of controversy because many white people would just settle on land that was promised as reservation land through treaties. 1871- Congress halts signing of any more treaties. From then on, all disputes will be negotiated with congress. Older treaties are still in effect. This is when executive orders for tribal recognition take effect. 1887- The General Allotment Act: Splits reservation land up amongst families. This was used to assimilate Native Americans into the rest of America. Many natives were shuffled around between reservations, and excess land was opened up to homesteading by white people. 1887-1906: Huge movement of non-native people, and 138 million acres of Native American land becomes 48 million acres (20 million desert) by 1924. 1898- Curtis Act: Under the pretense of giving the US government the authority to punish non-natives who were on native lands, native courts were abolished, and native laws were deemed ‗unenforceable‘ by federal courts, reducing powers that helped natives stay sovereign. 1906- Burke Act: Reservation lands are no longer held in federal trust, and this act allows for Native Americans to become US citizens if they settle the land apart from any tribe and adopted a ‗civilized‘ life. Many natives were subsistence people and were not interested in farming, so they had no use for the land, and would sell it to white people, further reducing land owned by Native Americans. 1920‘s: Women‘s suffrage movement helped Native Americans gain citizenship, but not Native American suffrage. 1924- Indian Citizenship Act: Makes all Native Americans citizens. They were not regarded citizens before, because they were considered citizens of their own nations. Many had become citizens prior to this by volunteering for WWI in exchange for citizenship and land. This act meant that all federal taxes and laws applied to Native Americans. 1934- Indian Reorganization Act: This helped to strengthen tribal governments by placing all of the reservation land in trust by the federal government forever, by placing individual‘s land in trust, and by instituting blood percentage as a requirement for membership. 1945- WWII: One third of all Native American men were in the army, which is much higher per capita than any other group in America 1952- Voluntary relocation programs: This was a series of programs instituted by the government to pay for vocational schools for Native Americans so that they would become working taxpayers, not sustenance people. 1953- Termination Resolution: The government would pay the tribal government to dissolve the tribe and cease recognition of that tribe. This would blend the people into the melting pot of America. 1953-1956: 105 tribes are dissolved, and land is taken away. The federal government tries to reverse this trend in the 1960‘s, but most tribes do not regain recognition. 1964- Civil Rights Act: Does not apply to Native Americans. 1968- Indian Civil Rights Act: Basically the same as the bill of rights, but for Native Americans. Differences include that it does not prohibit the establishment of a religion, because in many ways government and religion are inseparable for Native Americans. It also does not require the tribe to provide a lawyer if you cannot pay for one, and does not guarantee a jury in civil cases. 1978- Indian Child Welfare Act: Stops flow of native children to non-native homes. Because most Native Americans were poor, this was seen as an environment of neglect for children, so they were sent to foster families who were non-native. Many generations of Native American children grew up with no clue where they came from. Audience Evaluation Form You are about to participate in a presentation that is part of the student-designed, year-long Senior Project requirement at International School in Bellevue, Washington. Presenter: _____________________________________________________________ Topic of Presentation: Native American Culture and History classes _ Location: ______________________________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________ If you are willing to be contacted regarding this evaluation by a mentor or teacher: Evaluator‘s Name____________________ Phone_________________________ Please rate the following on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being lowest and 5 being highest. Part I ____ 1. Was the presenter prepared (equipment, materials, on time)? ____ 2. Did the presenter appear to have a good working knowledge of the topic? ____ 3. Did the presenter offer new, interesting, or educational information? ____ 4. Was the seminar successful in engaging discussion? ____ 5. Did the presenter offer quality answers to questions during/after the presentation? Part II ____ 1. Did this presentation motivate you to learn more about the topic? ____ 2. Did you feel the presenter was enthusiastic about his or her topic? ____ 3. Did you feel the presenter had spent a substantial amount of time preparing for the presentation? ____ 4. Did the presenter engage the audience in the presentation? ____ 5. Was the presenter responsive to the audience? Part III Please describe three things you learned from this presentation that you found valuable 1. 2. 3. How will you use this knowledge in the future? General Comments- Please offer specific comments for the presenter. Quiz for Native American History and Culture Name________________________ 1. What was the significance of the Trail of Tears? 2. What was the significance of voluntary relocation programs? 3. Native Americans gained most of the same civil rights that were guaranteed in the Bill of Rights through the creation of the ___________________________. 4. Native American foster homes were prioritized over non-Native American foster homes in the ________________________________. 5. Describe three things that Native Americans do to exercise tribal sovereignty (i.e. what does the Tribal government provide?) Matching 5. Native Americans east of the Mississippi a. The Indian Removal Act were forced to leave their lands for Oklahoma, despite the Supreme Court upholding their treaties. 6. This was the first treaty signed by the b. The Treaty of Neah Bay United States with a tribe 7. This was the treaty with the Makah which c. The Civil Rights Act granted them the right to whale. 8. This act guaranteed 160 acres of land to d. Voluntary relocation programs any white man who lived there for 5 years 9. This act did not apply to Native Americans e. The Treaty with the Delaware 10. These paid for Native Americans to go to f. The Homestead Act vocational schools off of the reservation The next six pages are the packet to be used by each student for the seminar. Socratic Seminar on Makah Whaling Students are to read all of the texts and answer the questions on a one-page typed, double spaced paper. Also on the paper, they will include quotes from the articles that assist them in answering the questions, and may write down questions of their own. These things will be very useful during the seminar discussion. The seminar will run for forty- five minutes to an hour. Students will be graded during the seminar on the amount of times they add to the discussion, on the relevancy of what they add, and whether or not they use specific quotes from the given texts. There are no wrong answers, but students should try to get their classmates to think more deeply about the topics. Main Guiding Questions: 1. After reading the texts, can you believe that it is important for the Makah to whale? 2. Why do some believe that the Makah do not need the right to whale? Are there other reasons than those in the texts? 3. Is there a balance between the rights of the Makah and the goals of those who wish to protect gray whales? Other Questions: 1. Can a treaty upheld by the US Constitution be brought down on the basis of moral values? 2. Should the Makah still retain the right to whale even though they gave up the practice 70 years ago? 3. Why is the issue of whaling for the Makah different from that of other treaty rights issues? 4. Can you find any other examples of cases in which treaties have not been upheld throughout American history? 5. Does a humane killing make the killing any better? Whale-hunt options aired By Kimberly Wetzel WASHINGTON — Makah tribal members and animal-rights activists squared off at a National Marine Fisheries Service hearing yesterday over the tribe's request to hunt 20 gray whales as part of its cultural traditions. Six years ago, the Makah Tribe killed its first gray whale in 70 years off the Washington coast. But a 2002 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals requires the tribe to obtain a waiver of the Marine Mammal Protection Act to conduct another hunt. The tribe, which has hunted gray whales for the meat and for ceremonial purposes for more than 1,500 years, requested the waiver in February. Patricia Lane, an attorney for the Humane Society of the United States, said that granting the waiver would weaken the Marine Mammal Protection Act and set a dangerous precedent. The law, passed in 1972, protects whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals and sea lions. "It will open the door to allow all sorts of groups for all sorts of requests," Lane said. Yesterday's meeting was intended to gather suggestions on alternatives to hunting and how the environment might be affected if hunting were allowed. The comments will be part of an environmental-impact study, the first step in deciding whether to grant the waiver. The activists' suggestions included placing the gray whale back on the endangered-species list, and finding ways the Makahs could perform ceremonial activities involving whales without killing them. "There's no humane way to kill a whale," said Naomi Rose, a marine-mammal scientist with the Humane Society. Tribal leaders said the fisheries agency should consider how the tribe would be affected by not being able to hunt whales. "Each time I sit through one of these things I think, 'Why are these people debating the history of my culture?' " said Dave Sones, Makah tribal council vice chairman. "There's a lot of frustration in the tribe." The Makahs want to hunt 20 whales over a five-year period, with a maximum of five kills per year. The tribe says an 1855 treaty between the Makahs and the U.S. gives them the right to hunt whales. "If we can get through these processes and secure our legal means as a tribe, our children won't have to go through this again," Sones said. Sones said the Makahs hunted whales long before U.S. and international whaling communities established guidelines protecting the animals. He also noted that it wasn't Native Americans who hunted the whales to near-extinction. The meeting was the last of four in a long process the tribe must go through to secure the right to hunt gray whales, which were taken off the endangered-species list in 1994. The National Marine Fisheries Service held yesterday's meeting in Silver Spring, Md., at the request of animal-rights activists who weren't able to attend the first three hearings. The draft environmental impact study should be ready next fall, said Donna Darm with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees the fisheries agency. It's unknown when a final decision might come. "We fully anticipate additional lawsuits," Sones said, "and we fully anticipate that the permits will be issued." The Makah Perspective: May 17th, 1999 In 1855, The Makah entered into a treaty with the United States Wherein they ceded title to thousands of acres of land in exchange for the federal Government's protection of their ancient whaling traditions. The Treaty of Neah Bay is the only treaty with such a clause written into it. On May 17, 1999 the Makah conducted the first successful whale hunt in more than 70 years. The Makah were forced to cease whaling practices in the 1920s due to the scarcity of gray whales caused by the commercial whaling industry. The resumption of Whaling had a profound effect on life in this small reservation. Suddenly Neah Bay was the focus of attention from around the world. Reporters from all over the Northwest were sent to Neah Bay to cover this historic event, and the controversy surrounding it. Environmentalists sharply opposed the hunt and were there in force. The border of the reservation was constantly guarded and clashes between protestors and the Makah were common in the weeks leading up to the hunt. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's vessels were a fixture in the waters of the Strait Of Juan de Fuca for weeks. Despite all the opposition, the whaling crew continued to practice the skills they needed to ensure their safety and a successful hunt. None had ever hunted quarry so large and they all knew the world was watching. There were, however, certain regulations set forth by the International Whaling Commission which deviated from the traditional methods of Makah whalers in the past. Whereas the traditional hunt involves using only harpoon strikes and a final strike with a special "killing Lance", the new method required a quicker and thus, more humane kill. Working with Veterinarian, Dr, Allen Ingling, from the University of Maryland, the Makah used both a harpooner and a rifleman. The rifleman would wield a specially designed .50 caliber rifle which, soon after the harpoon hits its mark, would deliver both the fatal blow and what was to become the "shot heard 'round the world." On the Morning of May 17, 1999, Makah whalers accomplished what they had prepared and trained months for. That morning, as the news of the successful hunt spread, the village of Neah Bay assembled on the beach to welcome the whale to the community as their ancestors did mote than 70 years ago. Canoes from many surrounding villages came to assist the Makah in delivering the quarry to the people. As the whale was towed to shore, the people ran into the water to have a closer look. With eyes wide, they touched the smooth skin and examined it's mottled pattern. Children looked on in amazement of the size of the creature. The whale was then prayed over as were the whalers. Prayers were offered to thank the whale for giving its life to sustain that of the Makah and to free its spirit for passage to the other side. After proper respect was paid, the whalers began carving and distributing the meat and blubber to the people to taste for the first time what had been a staple for their ancestors for thousands of years. The whale was butchered through the night and meat and blubber was either frozen, smoked or stewed. Later that week, Neah Bay was host to the largest celebration in its history. American Indians from all over the U.S. and Canada and indigenous people from all over the world came to celebrate the Makah's return to whaling. The Neah Bay High School Gym was filled to capacity with people from all over the world who came to sample the catch and news media from all over the country covered this historic event. Since then, the Makah have been involved in several court battles to retain their whaling rights which continue to be a link to the past and a source of pride for Makah both young and old. The Makah Whale Hunt: Politics Meets Tradition By Peter Walker In the debate over the May 1999 killing of a gray whale by the Makah Tribe of Washington state, both animal rights advocates and defenders of Native American culture present strong moral arguments. But the debate has largely ignored the important political implications of the hunt. Specifically, will the Makah hunt be used as a wedge to break international protections against whaling? And what does the Makah hunt say about the role of "tradition" and culture in our social choices? No reasonable person denies that the Makah have suffered deep cultural losses, nor that the whale is an important part of their culture. The question is whether killing whales is indispensable for revitalizing Makah culture and whether this goal outweighs the moral and political costs. There is much more at stake than the five whales per year that the Makah have permission to kill. Makah whaling provides a powerful tool for Japanese, Norwegian, Icelandic and Russian whalers who want to expand whaling globally. At the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission in 1999, Japan accused the U.S. government of hypocrisy for endorsing the Makah hunt and even subsidizing it with a $310,000 grant, while rejecting Japan's petition to allow "traditional" Japanese whaling. The two are not the same: The Makah have a responsible management plan based on cultural needs, whereas Japan barely disguises its commercial motives. But these distinctions are lost in the global politics of whaling. The Makah hunt plays perfectly into the hands of the Japanese and other whaling countries who use loopholes such as "scientific research" to continue commercial hunting. The whaling nations believe the Makah case will add "cultural need" to the list of loopholes they can exploit. That's why the Japanese offered financial support for the Makah hunt (which the Makah, mindful of being perceived as pawns of the Japanese, declined). Moreover, the Makah hunt is being used by the Japanese and others as evidence that whale populations globally are strong enough to end the ban on commercial whaling (scientists disagree). Japan and others have lobbied hard for "managed" commercial whaling. These management plans send shivers down the spines of those who have seen the same kind of "management" contribute to the decimation of Atlantic cod and Pacific salmon populations. In addition to this political fallout, another question raised by the Makah case is how "tradition" should shape our public choices. Proponents suggest that the cultural needs and traditions of the Makah outweigh political and moral objections. But traditions and political rights have always had an uneasy relationship, and for good reasons. Europeans had a long tradition of slavery until society declared it unacceptable. The Chinese bound and crippled women's feet. Some African societies practice female genital mutilation. These are practices that our society condemns, regardless of their being traditional. Many people believe that whales are such intelligent, social beings that their killing cannot be justified by tradition. The time for whaling, like these other traditions, has passed. Defenders of Makah whaling will reject the comparisons, but they should not dismiss the fact that killing whales is profoundly offensive to many people. Those who take a stand against native whaling are easy targets for charges of racism and neocolonialism. We must respect Makah culture, but we also should not devalue, in the name of cultural correctness, the deeply held views of millions of Americans. Moreover, the passionate defense of Makah "tradition" by some non-Makah is naive and even demeaning to the Makah themselves. All cultures change. The Makah have not actively whaled since the turn of the century. Pre-European Makah culture cannot be re-created, nor is that necessarily desirable. The Makah take offense at those who want to make them "museum pieces" to fit a romanticized vision of the Native American. Recognizing that cultural change is inevitable calls into question the idea of an unbreakable, unchanging cosmological circle between whaling and Makah culture. Some Makah, including many of the tribe's elders, believe that times have changed and that there are better ways to revitalize Makah culture. Non-Makah cannot tell the Makah what to do. The disrespectful behavior of some anti-whaling activists has only deepened feelings of hostility. But we can hope the Makah will recognize that today they are key players in the global politics of whaling. Gray whale populations are strong, but others are not. A voluntary suspension of Makah whaling would be a powerful blow against those who will surely exploit Makah tradition for their own profit and would bolster the precarious international sanctions that stand between whales and extinction. The Makah should have faith that they can be a proud culture without killing whales. The whales, on the other hand, may not survive without help from the Makah. Makah: The Tribe Who Would Be Whalers For more than half a century, gray whales have migrated peacefully past Washington state's Olympic Peninsula between their northern feeding grounds in the Bering Sea and southern nurseries in Baja, California. Yet for the past few years, these whales have faced death from whalers in U.S. waters. Claiming a need to instill cultural pride in its young people, the Makah Indian Tribe of Neah Bay, Washington, has sought to revive its long-dormant whaling tradition. The Makah Tribe has been aggressively pursuing the right to kill gray whales since the species was taken off the Endangered Species List in 1994. (The Makah were one of the principal supporters of the downlisting.) In the 1855 treaty of Neah Bay with the U.S. government, the Makah reserved the right to whale, but by the mid-1990s, they had not actually killed whales for more than 70 years. In 1998, the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) signed a management agreement with the Makah that allowed them to kill as many as five gray whales a year until 2002. In the agreement, the Makah said they would not sell any whale meat and would target only migrating whales. In keeping with tradition, the whalers would paddle a dugout canoe and throw a handheld harpoon. But in a sharp departure from the past, supposedly to make the kill more humane, they would follow the harpoon strike with shots from an anti-tank rifle fired by a tribal member following in a motorized "chase" vessel. In May 1999, a juvenile female gray whale was their first victim. Even after four shots from the rifle, she took eight minutes to die. A group of animal protection organizations sued the NMFS in 1998 for failing to follow proper procedure when preparing its Environmental Assessment (EA) of the hunt, as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Makah hunt EA, which found that the hunt would have no significant impact on the gray whale population or the environment, was drafted and finalized after the NMFS and the Makah Tribe had already signed the management agreement. In other words, the EA was a post-hoc analysis, even though NEPA requires an EA to be an assessment designed to assist in decision-making before resources are irretrievably committed to a course of action. The animal groups lost the original lawsuit and then appealed the lower court's ruling. In June 2000, the appeals court overturned the original ruling and ordered the NMFS to prepare another EA. Prior to this court action, the Makah had gone hunting again (in fall 1999 and spring 2000); although the hunters threw several harpoons, they killed no whales. The tribe claims that its rights supersede the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and the United States' domestic prohibition of whaling. For centuries the Makah hunted gray whales as they passed the Olympic Peninsula on their migration along the Pacific Coast between Alaska and Mexico. The tribe stopped hunting completely in the 1920s when commercial whaling had nearly driven the gray whale to extinction, but their interest in whaling had already decreased significantly by the turn of the century. No living Makah had ever hunted whales before May 1999, yet the tribe insists whaling is a vital part of its living culture. When it was noted that the Makah did not perform a traditional whale hunt but instead used motorized boats and whaling guns, tribal elder Hottowe replied, "We can't go back in time any more than the Europeans can go back in their covered wagons." Yet that is exactly what the Makah claimed to be doing with this hunt. A Tribe Divided Ironically, the whale hunt itself may threaten the tribe's survival. There is strong opposition to the hunt, even among tribal elders, and the arguments over whaling are causing rifts that even a massive influx of whale meat may not mend. In 1994, seven tribal elders signed a petition against the resumed whale hunt. Some tribal elders have criticized the lack of traditional and spiritual ritual and preparation, mostly through Native American-sponsored media. Elder Alberta Thompson, who went to the IWC in 1996 to persuade the commission to reject the Makah's petition for an aboriginal subsistence quota, called the day of the hunt, "The worst day of my life." Mourned elder Charles Claplanhoo, "It's going to divide us." We should not be denied our right to harvest whales By Ben Johnson and David Sones The Makah Tribe recently observed the 150th anniversary of our treaty with the U.S. government. One essential component of this solemn observance was missing: whale meat. That's because our right to harvest whales is systematically being denied purely on the basis of raw emotion, despite our treaty- guaranteed right to harvest whales in our traditional areas. We are a whaling people. Whales have always been central to our culture. Whales are so important to us that we voluntarily stopped hunting them in the 1920s because non-Indian commercial whaling was decimating gray whale populations. Today, gray whale populations have rebounded to historic levels. In fact, populations are so healthy, the whales were removed from the endangered species list in 1994. An approved whaling plan and two environmental assessments by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded that our planned harvest of up to five gray whales a year would not harm the population. The songs and ceremonies resurrected when we harvested a single gray whale in 1999 were a cultural renewal for our people — especially our children. Many of our young people are now enrolled in programs to learn the Makah language and songs. Our youth take pride in the effort to protect our treaty right to whale. The crew members who harvested the first whale are held in high esteem by our children because they know how much spiritual and physical preparation it took to be successful. Despite the cultural importance of whales to our society, despite our treaty-guaranteed right to harvest whales, and despite scientific assessments that say our harvest will not harm gray whale populations, we continue to be denied our constitutionally guaranteed right. To us, harvesting a whale is the same as harvesting a salmon, deer or elk. Just because our traditions may be different from the dominant non-Indian society, it doesn't mean they are wrong, just different. In the latest round of the comprehensive effort to deny us our treaty right, animal-rights activists have forced a federal appeals court to order another time-consuming, costly environmental-impact statement. Further, the court ruled the tribe must apply for a waiver under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to conduct a harvest. This is despite language in the MMPA that specifically states that it is not meant to abrogate any Indian treaty. We fulfilled our part of the treaty when we gave up hundreds of thousands of acres of the North Olympic Peninsula. Many Makah men and women have served with valor in the U.S. armed forces to defend the values and integrity America represents. We only ask the same in return. It is morally, ethically and legally imperative that the U.S. government uphold its treaty obligation and remove the barriers preventing us from exercising our treaty right to harvest the whale. The next two pages consist of the bibliography for everything used during the making of these lesson plans. Bibliography Barnes, Amoreena. "Whaling 1999." Makah.com. 2003. Makah Tribe. 24 Apr 2006 <http://www.makah.com/1999whaling.htm>. Butterfield, Nancy. "Sobriety Movement Stands To Liberate Future Generations Of Native Americans." The Seattle Times 6 Jan 1990. 15 Apr 2006 <http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi- bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1049342&date=19900106&query=Native+ American> Dailey, Tom. "Duwamish-Seattle." Coast Salish Villages of Puget Sound. 10 Apr. 2006 <http://coastsalishmap.org/start_page.htm>. "Discovering Native America - Native Americans reach 2.5 mn ." American Demographics (2001). 15 Apr 2006 <http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_2001_August_1/ai_784267 52>. James, Gordon. "Government to Government Training." Governor's Office of Indian Affairs. Tacoma DSHS Centennial I, Tacoma, Washington. 21 Feb. 2006. "Income and Poverty Status in 1989 of American Indian Tribes." Characteristics of American Indians by Tribe and Language. 1990. US Census Bureau. 15 Apr. 2006 <http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/race/indian/cp-3-7/tab06.pdf>. "Isaac I. Stevens." Beyond Lewis & Clark. 2006. Kansas State Historical Society. 10 Apr. 2006 <http://www.kshs.org/exhibits/blc/stevens.htm>. Johnson, Ben. "We should not be denied our right to harvest whales." The Seattle Times 02 Jun 2005 24 April 2006 <http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi- bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=makah02&date=20050602&query=Makah>. Martin, Philip. "Treaty Rights: An Overview." Rethinking Columbus. Ed. Bill Bigelow, and Bob Peterson. Milwaukee: Rethinking Schools, 1998. 144. McKinnon, Tom. "Native American Tribes." Washington State, Oregon, & California maps. 18 Apr. 2006 <http://www.wamaps.com/maps/native_american_tribes.jpg>. Newcomb, Steven. "Newcomb: Rejecting domestic dependent nationhood." Indian Country Today 29 March 2004. 10 Apr 2006 <http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1080574522> North West Indian News. Perf. Chenoa Egawa. DVD. Tulalip Communications Department, 2003. Radford, Dean A.. "Critics eye Cedar River accord." The King County Journal 8 April 2006: A1,A11. Richter, Matthew. "Knoxville News Sentinel." American Comments 2000. 18 Apr 2006 <http://www.iwchildren.org/genocide/Knoxvilleracist.jpg>. "Snoqualmie Tribe Title." Governor's Office of Indian Affairs. 2005. Washington State Governor's Office of Indian Affairs. 09 Apr. 2006 <http://www.goia.wa.gov/Tribal-Information/Tribes/snoqualmie.htm>. "Socratic Seminars." Introduction to Socratic Seminars. 21 May 2006 <http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/schools/wjhs/depts/socialst/ams/Skills/SocraticSem inar/SocraticSeminarIntro.html>. "Indian Removal Act of 1830." Studyworld. 2004. 14 Apr. 2006 <http://www.studyworld.com/indian_removal_act_of_1830.htm>. Thompson, William N. Native American Issues. 2nd ed. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2005. "Treaties." 2005. Governor's Office of Indian Affairs. 10 Apr. 2006 <http://www.goia.wa.gov/Treaties/Treaties.htm>. "Treaty Rights." Passamaquoddy Tribal Government Web Site. 20 Mar 2006. Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point. 10 Apr. 2006 <http://www.wabanaki.com/treaty_rights.htm>. Walker, Peter. "The Makah Whale Hunt: Politics Meets Tradition." HSUS. The Humane Society of the United States. 24 Apr 2006 <http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/what_are_the_issues/whaling/makah_the _tribe_who_would_be_whalers/the_makah_whale_hunt_politics_meets_tradition. html>. Welch, Craig. "Seattle makes Cedar River deal with Muckleshoots." The Seattle Times 29 March 2006: B5. Wetzel, Kimberly. "Whale-hunt options aired." The Seattle Times 19 Oct 2005 24 April 2006 <http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi- bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=whaling19m&date=20051019&query=Mak ah>. Editorials & Opinion: Saturday, January 06, 1990 Sobriety Movement Stands To Liberate Future Generations Of Native Americans Nancy Butterfield THE recent ``clean and sober'' celebrations that ushered in the New Year, including a huge gathering at Seattle Center, are powerful symbols of society's growing awareness of the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse. Yet, on the outer edges of all the non-alcoholic festivities, public-service announcements warning against drunken driving, and widely publicized do-it-yourself Breathalyzer machines in cocktail lounges, another, quieter revolution is taking place. A sobriety movement is sweeping Indian country from Alaska to Florida, and with it is a renewed pride in Indian cultures and tribal self-determination. And, as with much of the social and political activism in Native America, tribes in the Pacific Northwest are in the forefront of the movement. Two Puget Sound area Indian tribes held New Year's Eve powwows that celebrated both sobriety and Native American culture: the Suquamish Tribe, near Poulsbo, and the Nisqually Tribe, northeast of Olympia, publicly honored recovering alcoholics for their years of sobriety and commitment to helping other alcoholics recover. At least 30 people at the Nisqually powwow came forward to be recognized for sobriety that ranged in length from three weeks to 72 years. For years, these people were part of the grim statistics of Indian alcoholism: The federal Indian Health Service and tribal alcoholism professionals estimate 75 percent of all Indian families have at least one alcoholic member, and that nearly 100 percent have been affected in some way by alcoholism. The rate of American Indian accidental deaths, homicides, suicides and incidents of domestic violence - almost always fueled by alcohol - is much higher than the national average, as is the rate of death by alcohol-related diseases, such as cirrhosis and heart disease. Anthropologists and medical professionals have debated for years the reasons for Indians' susceptibility to alcoholism, without reaching a consensus. But many Native Americans believe it is attributable to a combination of genetic, cultural and political factors: Unlike European peoples, American Indians have been exposed to alcohol for only the last 400 years, giving them no time to develop a physical tolerance to its effects; deliberately being displaced and exterminated; and often alcohol itself was used to gain unfair advantage over Native Americans in economic transactions. Over the last 15 years, many Indian tribes have developed their own alcoholism programs, which range in sophistication from weekly Alcoholics Anonymous meetings to fully accredited residential treatment and recovery centers. But a watershed in the American Indian sobriety movement had been the release of an award-winning film, ``The Honour of All.'' Produced by Choctaw filmmaker Phil Lucas of Issaquah, the film chronicles the struggle and eventual victory over alcoholism by the Shuswap Band of Alkali Lake, British Columbia. The disease had ravaged an estimated 95 percent of the tribe's adult members. After a Pacific Northwest tribes are in the forefront of the movement. 15-year effort that started with one woman, today the village is 95 percent sober, and its members now conduct training for tribes throughout the U.S. and Canada. A barometer of the sobriety movement's impact is a recent decision by leaders of the 4,000- member National Indian Education Association to have its annual conference alcohol-free. Other efforts that are escalating the momentum of the growing Native American sobriety movement: -- The ``Red Road'' approach to sobriety, development by Gene Thin Elk, a Lakota, emphasizes traditional Indian values in regaining spiritual and physical balance and health. Thin Elk's workshops have drawn overflow crowds throughout the country. -- The fledging National Association of Native American Adult Children of Alcoholics (NANAACOA) has been formed by Seattle Indian Health Board leaders to address the needs of alcoholism's other victims: individuals who are not necessarily alcoholics themselves, but grew up in alcoholic families. NANAACOA leaders expected about 200 people to attend its first national conference last summer in Montana, but almost 800 people showed up - a testament to an idea whose time has come. -- High-visibility sobriety marches and rallies are taking place in Indian communities across the country, most notably among the tribes of the Sioux Nation. Lakota men on the Crow Creek Reservation in South Dakota have formed an organization called Dads Against Drunk Driving, and have called on other Indian men to stand with them in strengthening the contemporary role of men in tribal societies. Organizers on South Dakota's Rosebud Reservation have begun an annual ``Sobriety Day'' that includes a 17-mile walk; more than 250 people turned out for last year's walk. -- Many tribal alcoholism programs have taken an activist role in promoting community sobriety, including the Puyallup Tribal Treatment Center in Tacoma, which organizes an annual sobriety march through the city's East Side. Tribal youth have had a key role in organizing the event, and in the most recent march, one young woman expressed pride in her sobriety by carrying a sign that proclaimed: ``100 percent Indian, zero percent alcohol.'' And the Puyallup Tribe's Chief Leschi High School was one of 41 schools nationwide - and the only school, public or private, in the state of Washington - selected by the U.S. Department of Education as a ``drug-free school.'' The Anchorage Daily News, in its Pulitzer Prize-winning series on Native alcoholism, ``A People in Peril,'' calls the Indian sobriety movement ``a revolution of hope.'' Leaders say it is a revolution that already is changing the face of Indian country, and if successful, stands to liberate future generations of Native American people. Nancy Butterfield, a Chippewa Indian, writes on Native American affairs. She lives in the Tacoma area.