Lesson Plan Sequence of events

Document Sample
Lesson Plan Sequence of events Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                               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.

				
DOCUMENT INFO