NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/misc/activism/progress/8648

Text File | 1992-11-23 | 30.6 KB | 603 lines

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!rich
From: Hank Roth <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Anti-Indian Movement
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:19:59 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 588

<<< via P_news/p.news >>>>
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>From:  David Goyette (a Mohawk warrior)
>Subject:  anti-Indian/right wing extremism
>Original article provided by: JOHN BURROWS
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
               C O M P E T I N G   S O V E R E I G N T I E S
                         IN NORTH AMERICA AND THE
                    RIGHT-WING AND ANTI-INDIAN MOVEMENT

                          **********************
                           Preliminary Findings
                          **********************

                    Center for World Indigenous Studies
            Right-Wing Extremism & Anti-Indian Network Project
                             January 13, 1988

[Ed. Note:  This article may be reproduced for electronic
transfer and posting on computer bulletin boards in part or full,
provided that full credit is given to the author and the Center
For World Indigenous Studies. The complete findings of the Right-
Wing Extremism & Anti-Indian Project may be found in _Anti-Indian
Movement on the Tribal Frontier, Special 2nd Edition_, by Rudolph
C. Ryser for $10.50 ($US).]

For orders or information, please write to:

Center for World Indigenous Studies
P.O. Box 82038
Kenmore, Washington  98028-0038


                          COMPETING SOVEREIGNTIES


     Indian and Native Nations, tribes and communities are in a
tug-of-war in Canada and the United States of America.  The first
nations of North America are locked in a political conflict with
the United States and Canadian federal governments and individual
State and Provincial governments over the question of, "Who will
exercise sovereignty over Indian lands and resources and the
people who live inside Indian and Native lands."  The struggle
between Indian Nations, States and the federal governments has
its origins in European colonization, and the subsequent
formation of the United States of America and Canada. Unsettling
as this long-term dispute between nations and states has been to
Indian peoples, it now seems to have spawned a reactionary
movement among non-Indians against Indians.  Incipient racism,
economic hard-times and honest fear have combined to form the
basis for an organized Anti-Indian Movement that threatens the
destabilization of Indian governments and the break-up of Indian
Nations.

     Organized activism aimed at the dismemberment of Indian
Nations has been growing since the late 1960s.  The Anti-Indian
Movement is now organized in 13 states in the United States and
at least four of the provinces of Canada.

     While the Anti-Indian movement has grown in size and
organizational sophistication in the last twenty years, it has
only been in the last ten years that a more virulent from of
reactionary-racism has begun to appear with greater frequency in
Indian Country.  Extreme Right-Wing groups which include the Ku
Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, the "White Aryan Nation", Survivalists,
Constitutionalists, and the Identity Church appear with
increasing regularity on and near Indian reservations --
particularly in the Pacific Northwest and Great Lakes Region of
the United States and Southern British Columbia, Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Ontario in Canada. Individuals associated with
the Anti-Indian Movement now appear to have occasional, if not
frequent, association with Right-Wing Extremist groups. This tide
of non-Indian reaction rides on the Back of discontent, racism,
economic troubles, and uncertainties about land and natural
resource rights which are partly connected to the long-term
struggle between Indian Nations, neighboring states and the
United States government.


                      ROOTS OF CONFLICT AND REACTION


     Indian and Native Nations claim the inherent right to
exercise power over their lands and resources and people within
their boundaries.  State and Provincial governments claim the
right to exercise power over CITIZENS within their boundaries --
including those living inside reservations. The Canadian and U.S.
governments claim the right to exercise power over all matters
granted to them by the federal constitution.  Caught up in the
struggle between Indian governments, State or Provincial
governments and the federal governments are thousands of
individual Indians and non-Indians who experience persistent
challenges to what they perceive as their rights.  In both
countries, the patterns of political competition over sovereignty
are very similar.


                      In the United States of America


     While the Tribal, State and U.S. governments dual in the
courts, executive agencies and legislative branches, individual
Indians and non-Indians feel the uncertainties produced by the
struggles.  Though Indian and native governments experienced
defeat after defeat and the State and federal governments
expanded their powers over Indian reservations through the first
half of the 20th Century, things began to change after 1964. The
tide of encroachments reducing Indian governmental powers began
to reverse.  From 1965 to 1975, many Indian nations and tribes
began to recover many powers and authorities once eroded by
various States and the U.S. government.  As a result of hard won
successes, Indian governments began to compete directly with
States and the federal government for control over lands,
hunting, fishing, taxation, social welfare, commerce, and a
growing list of other powers.

     Compared to the powers lost over the previous generations,
Indian nations and tribes could only consider their successes as
minor compared to their losses.  To a growing number of non-
Indians who took up residence inside Indian reservations between
1900 and 1965, Indian successes caused doubts and anxieties.
Non-Indians began to express doubts about whether their rights to
land and a way of life would be protected by increasingly active
Indian governments.  Individual Indians holding allotments on
reservations, but not living as members of the tribe, also began
to have doubts about the protection of their rights.  Increased
Indian government activity aroused increased concerns among both
Indian and non-Indian land owners.

     Non-Indians with significant economic interests on Indian
reservations sought protection from growing Indian government
power by turning to the U.S. federal courts.  Their success can
best be described as modest.  The U.S. courts did not produce the
broad reduction of Indian government powers originally hoped for.
Non-Indians turned to the State governments for protection and
found even less success.  Many non-Indians began to express
frustration which became anger and finally produced reactionary
political action.

     Though reservations and native communities are recognized by
the United States government to include reserved lands and
resources for Indian and native peoples, the U.S. Department of
the Interior has worked unceasingly to move non-Indians into
these lands.  Since the U.S. government enacted the General
Allotment Act of 1887 it has successfully annexed major portions
of reserved Indian lands for use by non-Indians.  A little more
than three-tenths percent (0.3% or about 567,000) of the total
non-Indian population in the United States now either own lands
or live on Indian reservations.  Fully forty-five percent (45%)
of the estimated 1,263,403 people on Indian reservations are now
non-Indian.  On some reservations, the Indian population now
represents less than 20% of the total number of residents.

     The Department of Interior's practice of promoting non-
Indian immigration into Indian reservations violated both the
spirit and the language of treaties and agreements with Indian
Nations.  Because of their greater numbers, non-Indians began to
organize inside reservations to undermine Indian communities and
their governments.  Immigrant non-Indians began to argue that
their presence actually reduces the size of Indian reservations
and opens the "annexed lands" to control by the State government.
They appealed to State governments and found increasing interest
in their concerns.  One-by-one, State governments have begun to
assert that where "non-Indians reside inside Indian
reservations," the authority of the State can and will be
extended.

     Competition for the land and resources and regulation of
people's lives is not new.  This struggle has been a continuing
fact of life for Indian Nations since Europeans began to colonize
the western hemisphere 495 years ago.  For 428 years, until the
1920s, Indian nations and the growing immigrant populations
competed through violent means:  Wars, massacres, battles, and
skirmishes.  In that time, the collective population of Indian
Nations fell from an estimated  15,000,000 to fewer than
1,000,000 -- a 94% drop.  Meanwhile, the non-Indian immigrant
population swelled from a few thousand individuals to more than
100,000,000 -- a 5000% increase.

     Over the same period, Indian and native peoples saw their
land and resource domain shrink from 3.6 million square miles to
just 680,000 square miles -- a drop of 81.2%.

     Since 1972, the size of the Indian and native land-base has
further shrunk to about 152,000 square miles -- with the
enactment of the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act.  An area
larger than the combined size of Arizona, Nevada, Oregon,
Washington, Idaho and Montana, an estimated 480,000 square miles
of land near Indian and native lands, remain contested.


                          In the State of Canada

     In Canada, Indian and Native Nations have had a similar
experience though of more recent vintage.  Eleven treaties
conducted by Indian Nations and the United Kingdom deal with
"Peace and Friendship," immigration, trade, travel, resource
extraction, "to open lands for settlement," and land cessions in
regions located primarily in southern Canada.  Nearly two-thirds
of what is now called Canada was never ceded to any European or
American State.  Consequently, many Indian Nations in Canada hold
the view that they have a relationship based on treaties with the
United Kingdom and not with the State of Canada.

     It was this perception that aroused Indian and Native
Nations to react to the Canadian government's developing plans in
the late 1960s and early 1970s to establish a new relationship
with the United Kingdom.  In 1969, the Canadian government
published the _White Paper_ which detailed proposals for the
termination of Indian and Native Nations.  After years of public
opposition by Indian governments, and the development of
alternative political proposals by Indian governments, Canada
shifted its emphasis.  The Canadian government began to move
toward a unilateral redefinition of relations between Canada and
the United Kingdom without consulting with Indian and Native
Nations.  Canada proposed to secure its independence from the
United Kingdom by "repatriating the Constitution." Put another
way, Canada sought a political process between the Canadian
government and the British government which would formally
constitute the State of Canada under its own constitution.  Along
with this process was the assumption by Canadian leaders that
Canada would assume full control over all Indians and their lands
-- thus breaking the relationship between Indian Nations and the
United Kingdom by agreement between Canada and Britain, and
without Indian consent.

     By 1979, the Canadian Constitutional Repatriation process
had begun to take form.  Indian Nations believing that the United
Kingdom would not break the promises it made in the eleven
Treaties, pursued a separate political process to enter
discussions with the British government. During the next four
years, Indian and Native Nations became a visible participant in
a political tug-of-war that involved the British government,
Canadian government and the governments of Canada's Provinces. On
April 17, 1982, Canada succeeded in gaining an agreement with the
British Parliament which allowed Canada to have its own
Constitution separate from Britain.  On that date, Canada became
a legitimate, independent State in its own right.

     Despite proposals and petitions from Indian and Native
Nations, Canada would not agree to include Indian Nations in its
new Constitution as a "Third Level of Government."  Indian and
Native Nations were specifically left out of the Canadian
Constitution as distinct political entities.  They were not
permitted to join in confederation with provincial and federal
governments.  Simultaneously, Treaties and agreements between
Indian and Native Nations and the United Kingdom were
unceremoniously abandoned by the British government.  Canada said
it would assume the responsibilities under such treaties -- an
idea soundly rejected by many Indian and Native governments.

     Since, under the new Canadian Constitution, Provincial
governments have primary authority over land and natural resource
questions, these governments began to move quickly to ensure
control over Canadian, Provincial AND Indian lands.  It was this
very move that Indian and Native governments feared would be the
outcome.

     In the past five years since Canada became an independent
State, the political conflict between Indian and Native Nations
and the Provincial and Federal governments has continued
unabated.  An incipient, Anti-Indian Movement, partly influenced
by events over the previous fifteen years and by events in the
United States began to grow.  But, unlike the United States'
Movement, Right-Wing political extremism has played a much more
public and active role.  The growth of fundamentalist religious
activities in and around Indian and Native communities has been
very rapid.  Elements of the Identity Church, in British Columbia
and Alberta particularly, have assumed considerable influence.
Elements of the Church of Jesus Christ Christian and groups of
"concerned citizens" have increased in number.

     While most of what is discussed below focuses on the United
States, virtually all has relevance to the situation of Indians
in Canada.


                         THE ANTI-INDIAN MOVEMENT

     Competition for control over Indian reservations now
includes individual non-Indians seeking to force the break-up of
reservation governments and lands.  On-reservation non-Indians
were joined by off-reservation non-Indians to achieve the break-
up of Indian Nations.  Off-reservation non-Indian activism began
to grow as a result of three factors:  Public activism by the
American Indian Movement in the early 1970s, growing success by
Indian governments to exercise some governmental powers over
lands, resources and activities in "ceded territories," and
movements by several Indian Nations to reclaim original lands and
resources wrongfully taken by the United States.

     What is now called the "Anti-Indian Movement" includes non-
Indian activists inside reservations and non-Indian activists
outside reservations.  It also includes a small minority of
Indians, both inside and outside reservations, who associate
themselves with the values and aspirations of the non-Indian
population.  While the Anti-Indian Movement has an important
impact in several areas of the country, the actual numbers of
activists is not more than 1000 individuals.  Far greater numbers
of sympathetic followers, have given their names to small
organizations in fifteen states.  The total number of sympathetic
followers is currently estimated at 5,000 to 10,000 individuals.

     Activists have formed small groups on and near Indian
reservations with names like, ALL CITIZENS EQUAL, TOTALLY EQUAL
AMERICANS, CITIZENS RIGHTS ORGANIZATION, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, WHITE
EARTH EQUAL RIGHTS, CONCERNED CITIZENS COUNCIL, PROPERTY OWNERS'
ASSOCIATION, and INTERSTATE CONGRESS FOR EQUAL RIGHTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES.  These groups have been linked through
individuals and interest issues with organizations formed in
cities and towns.  These include narrowly defined associations of
individuals concerned with sport-fishing, hunting, small
business, and recreation.  Such groups like S/SPAWN located in
Bellevue, Washington; Alaskan Constitutional Legal Defense Fund
in Anchorage, Alaska;  Bonduel Conservation Club in Wisconsin and
East Slope Taxpayers in Cut Bank, Montana fall into this
category.  These LOCAL GROUPS are linked independently and
through two main group associations:  THE INTERSTATE CONGRESS FOR
EQUAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES which has been a recipient of
financial support from Joseph Coors of Coors Beer fame, and the
PROTECT AMERICANS' RIGHTS & RESOURCES ASSOCIATION (PARR) which
was formed in Wisconsin in March 1987.

     These small associations of individuals and larger
associations of organizations have worked to gain support for
their interests through the National Associations of Counties
(NaCo), the National Wildlife Federation and the National Rifle
Association.

     While the Anti-Indian Movement has grown and become more
sophisticated in the last 20 years, its actual impact has been
fairly small.  In 1987, however, the Anti-Indian Movement began
to have an impact on the actual functioning of Indian
governments, and it had a greater affect on the political
aggressiveness of a number of State governments. Instead of
directing their attention to legal actions, the Anti-Indian
Movement focuses on political action centered on State
legislatures, State Attorneys' General, U.S. Congressional
offices and public opinion.


                        ENTER RIGHT-WING EXTREMISTS

     The formation of groups in the Pacific Northwest which have
the intent of intimidating, violently attacking and even killing
members of different societies (Non-Whites, Jewish people, etc.)
began in earnest ten years ago.  Organized activities began much
earlier in the mid-western states and the Great Lakes Region.
Individuals connected with various churches, political groups,
intellectual groups, and paramilitary groups broadly identified
with the NEW-RIGHT, ULTRA-RIGHT, and the NEO-NAZI movement assert
their intention to occupy and TAKE the five state area including
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming as a homeland for
what they call the Aryan Nation.  Groups like CITIZENS FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, COMMITTEE TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION,
NATIONAL SOCIALIST VANGUARD, CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST CHRISTIAN
(ARYAN NATIONS), POSSEE COMMITATUS, THE DUCK CLUB, and THE ORDER
have been established in towns near Indian reservations and on
some reservations in Idaho, Washington, Michigan, Minnesota,
Alaska, Wisconsin, Montana and South Dakota.

     All of these groups are ultraconservative and far-right in
their ideology.  All have close links with neo-nazi aspirations.
The most visible of these on Indian reservations are the Citizens
for Constitutional Government and Committee to Restore the
Constitution. Individuals active in the Anti-Indian Movement have
been directly linked to the Committee to Restore the
Constitution.

     The Anti-Indian Movement, Extreme Right-Wing groups and the
competition between governments are all concerned with LAND and
JURISDICTION.  These are refined terms for the same conflict that
has been going on for more than four hundred years.  The conflict
now, however, is political;  peppered with occasional instances
of violent behaviour.  It is also a conflict which rages both
INSIDE and OUTSIDE Indian reservations.

     Organized Anti-Indian activists have been joined by private
individuals on and near Indian reservations who fear Indian
tribes. Growing evidence suggests that Extreme Right-Wing
activists connected to such groups as the "White Aryan Nation,"
"The Order" and the "Identity Church" have located on and near
Indian reservations;  and, they are winning converts from "those
who fear Indian tribes."  This is a new wrinkle in Anti-Indian
activity, which may contain the seeds of greater conflicts in the
future.

     The Order operates near the Coeur d'Alene Reservation, while
elements of the Identity Church operate near the Quinault and
Lummi Indian Reservations.  The Duck Club operates near two
Klallam reservations in Northwest Washington State, and growing
evidence suggests that the groups have actually infiltrated some
reservations.  Citizens for Constitutional Government and the
Committee to restore the Constitution have strong political
connections in Southern California and have visible presence near
the Yakima, Lummi and Colville reservations in Washington State,
and the Nez Perce Reservation in Idaho.

     While the Anti-Indian Movement has its "racist leaders," it
has remained primarily oriented to political action and public
demonstrations. The Extreme Right-Wing groups, however, tend to
combine political action, intimidation, paramilitary activity,
actual land occupation and public demonstrations.  While both are
relatively small, these apparently converging movements have
important impacts on community stability through the use of
intimidation and "bully politics."


        ANTI-INDIAN AND RIGHT-WING HARMONIC CONVERGENCE:  1986-1987

     The apparent convergence of the Anti-Indian Movement and
Right-Wing Extremists is ominous not only because of the
instability and threat posed to Indian communities.

     Both the Anti-Indian Movement and Right-Wing Extremist
groups have an intense interest in both Indian land and reducing
Indian government's powers.  When combined with the efforts of
State governments and the United States government to further
reduce Indian rights and Indian lands, the Anti-Indian Movement
and emerging presence of Right-Wing Extremist groups operating
from a fundamentally racist, WHITE-SUPREMACIST ideology pose a
serious threat to Indian people.

     Out of sight, and out of mind, the movement to organize
opposition to Indian tribes (now twenty years old) has continued
to grow.  It has grown into a sophisticated movement involving
scores of small organizations, a few large organizations,
businesses, county governments, state legislatures, offices of
State Attorneys General, candidates for Congressional office in
three states, and a growing number of individual Indians and non-
Indians.  The Anti-Indian Movement has a few ideological
activists.  It now includes conservative and right-wing ideologs,
farmers, on-reservation land-owners, hunters, fishermen, small
businesses, and a growing number of individuals who have become
persuaded that Indian Tribes must be eliminated.

     Here are a few "apparently unrelated events" that took place
in 1987:

*    The PROTECT AMERICANS' RIGHTS & RESOURCES (PARR)
organization was formed in Wisconsin, in March 1987.  The PARR
called for a boycott of all high stakes bingo on Indian
reservations as a way to counter a threat by Chippewas to boycott
merchants in Ashland, Wisconsin.

*    In Montana, about 300 Indian and non-Indian farmers and
ranchers joined a "tractorcade convoy" to protest the Bureau of
Indian Affairs' control over the Flathead Irrigation Project.
Water, they said, should be under the control of the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation and eventually under the control of the users
themselves.  The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes joined
the Bureau of Indian Affairs to counter the protest.

*    In Washington, Indians arrested by U.S. authorities for
fishing the Columbia River received an acquittal from the Yakima
Tribal Court, but sit in a Federal jail.  Political intimidation
inside the Yakima reservation increased.  Non-Indian activist
increasingly exploit public ignorance about a U.S. Internal
Revenue Service challenge to the Lummi Indian Tribe's claim that
individual Indian earnings from the sale of trust protected
resources are exempt from U.S. income tax.  The subject is of
particular interest to leaders of the COMMITTEE TO RESTORE THE
CONSTITUTION.

*    The Michigan based organization, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH protested
Indian treaty-protected fishing and hunting in Northern Michigan.

*    In Minnesota, the TOTALLY EQUAL AMERICANS organization
expresses satisfaction and distrust with Montana Senator John
Melcher's proposed legislation for Congress to "review Indian
tribal authority to impose taxes on non-tribal persons on Indian
reservations."

*    THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (NaCo) considered
supporting a study to reclassify Indian reservations like
counties and cities.

*    The Washington State Attorney General authored a letter to
U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese expressing gratitude for a
December 9, 1987 meeting to discuss federal Indian policy, and
"the unheard voices [of] individual Indian and non-Indian
citizens who are being directly impacted by such federal Indian
policies."

The anti-Indian Movement has evolved a jargon of its own with
buzz words and slogans:  EQUAL RIGHTS, NON-INDIAN AND NON-TRIBAL-
INDIAN RIGHTS, INDIAN LAWS SUPPLANT THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES, THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS BEING IGNORED, INITIATIVE 456,
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL INDIAN POLICY ON
NON-TRIBAL INDIANS AND NON-INDIANS, EQUAL RIGHTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES, SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR A RACE OF PEOPLE, and
ABROGATION OF TREATIES.  Out of an historical context, these
terms and phrases have the ring of respectability, and even
"mainstream politics."  The contemporary environment in which
these phrases have taken on meaning is decidedly not mainstream.
Ultra-conservative groups have adopted buzz words and slogans
that are very similar, and Right-Wing Extremists frequently rely
on such words to express their views.


                        ANTICIPATING THE YEAR AHEAD

     In 1988, the Anti-Indian Movement and elements of the
extreme Right-Wing will continue to agitate on and near Indian
reservations over "special interests" like hunting rights,
fishing rights, land rights, jurisdiction, bingo, taxation and
"government representation on reservations."  Organizations will
increase efforts to lobby support for anti-Indian  legislation
and legal contests through state governments. Specific emphasis
will be placed on Attorneys General in the Western States who
will seek to force U.S. government consideration of new policies
to "protect non-Indians and non-Tribal Indians from tribal
governments."  Continuing efforts will be mounted to force the
establishment of a Presidential or Congressional Commission to
Investigate the effects of federal Indian Policies on non-Tribal
Indian and non-Indian citizens of the United States.  Finally,
the Anti-Indian Movement will mobilize resources to support anti-
Indian political candidates for state legislatures, and the U.S.
Congress.  Particular emphasis is being placed on Washington,
Idaho, Montana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Alaska and Nevada.

     It can be further expected, despite recent indictments of
leading Right-Wing Extremists, there will be a greater
convergence between Anti-Indian Movement activists and
ultraconservative and right-wing groups like the Citizens for
Constitutional Government, Committee to Restore the Constitution,
Church of Jesus Christ Christian and the Duck Club.  Though
closely associated with more militant extremist, these groups
have achieved a level of public respectability and appear
(PUBLICLY) insulated from extremist groups.  Because some of the
ultraconservative groups are lead by individuals who have
achieved some prominence as State and County elected officials,
they are even more able to wear the label of respectability.

     Indian government, fishing, hunting, land, taxation, equal
rights, will broaden as the principal themes of the Anti-Indian
Movement.  Changes in the U.S. Supreme Court opposing Indian
tribes will be increasingly exploited.  State legislatures,
county governments and popular referenda will continue to be used
to promote "popular opposition to Indian tribes." Because the
United States and Canada are entering a "political year," the
more respectable elements of ultraconservative and right-wing
groups will assume a greater level of public visibility --
exploiting popular discontent and local economic upheavals.
Indian tribes can expect a substantial escalation in frequency of
incidents and political action.

     Despite a long felt wish that "people would just leave
Indians alone to live as they wish," organized efforts to subvert
Indian governments, create political division inside Indian
tribes and force State, Provincial, County and Federal Challenges
to tribal government authority continue to mount.  Despite the
growing Anti-Indian Movement, there is no effective plan among
Indian tribes to counter it across the country or inside Indian
reservations.  There is no consensus among Indian leaders about
what the Anti-Indian Movement consists of, nor is there a
consensus about what the movement actually means and why it is
occurring.  This condition of disarray will continue to be
exploited.

     Indian Tribes are on the defensive in nine states in the
United States and three provinces in Canada.  Though not winning
many actual concessions from the U.S. government, the Anti-Indian
Movement is rapidly moving with success among State and
Provincial governments (many legislators and Attorneys General),
Counties (County Executives, Commissioners, Sheriffs) and
increasing numbers of "distressed non-Indians" on and near
reservations.  Anti-Indian organizational efforts are strongest
in Washington, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan,
Wisconsin, Alaska and Nevada in the United States.  Canadian
Anti-Indian Activists and Right-Wing Extremists have increasingly
close ties with their U.S. counter-parts.  Their strength is
greatest in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario.
In some instances, these groups will expand by organizing joint
actions across the U.S./Canada border.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-
Copyright 1988 Center For World Indigenous Studies

This file and the CWIS publication Catalog are available from:
The Quarto Mundista BBS 1:352/333 206-786-9629 Freq CWIS-CAT.ZIP
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Post comments direct to P_news on Fidonets or p.news on Peacenet,
or send by e-mail to: [e-mail].......