The Seattle School District kindly informs us that racism emanates from whites and the society they control - period. Well then, as a young honky growing up in Chicago I must have had it coming, or just been confused. And I don't know how to explain these reports of gays being racist to blacks in San Francisco - except that maybe they were driven to it by bigotry they'd suffered themselves. (San Fran being notoriously inhospitable to gays). But now - in a case that will almost certainly tank due to the sovereign immunity shield for Native American tribes - a white worker who quit after alleged racial slurs and harrassment went uncorrected is suing a construction company run by the Colville tribe of eastern Washington. The Seattle P-I has more.
Arguments in the case were heard Tuesday before the state Supreme Court in Olympia. It is the first time in more than 25 years that the high court has heard a tribal sovereign immunity case. A ruling is likely months away. Wright's case hinges on convincing justices that tribes' immunity unfairly shields tribal for-profit corporations doing off-reservation work....Wright, a pipe layer, took a construction job in Oak Harbor in 2002 replacing a water system at Navy housing on Whidbey Island. His employer was the Colville Tribal Services Corp.Wright contended...one co-worker "constantly spat on me when I was working in the ditch below him and shouted things at me like 'You're my white bitch.'" He said two co-workers, without permission, took his Honda for a joyride. Another allegedly called him a "Nazi German bastard" and threatened to kill whites and burn their homes. He said he repeatedly complained to his boss. Court records show that Colville Tribal Enterprise Corp. officials called one meeting and told workers that racial epithets and harassment wouldn't be tolerated. Wright said the harassment continued. In February 2003, after eight months on the job, he quit.
The goal of tribal sovereign immunity, the article notes, was to keep tribes from losing land and other assets. Here the issue is work environment, and alleged racist treatment. Wright could try his case in tribal court, but what's the point of that? Too bad Hate Free Zone Washington's racism police are only interested in protecting "targeted immigrant communities and allies." Sounds like Wright was certainly targeted.
Due to his being "other" (see "cultural racism" subsection, Seattle School District racism definitions, first link, at top).
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at May 18, 2006 04:30 PM | Email ThisOther whites (like me) say speak softly and carry a big firestick.
Funny thing; punks sense that you are someone to leave alone. . . . and these....are punks.
The ones who don't, go another appropriate way.
That being said the Renquist Court took huge chunks out of the sovereignty issue (see Oliphant v Suqumaish Tribe)the new Roberts court is unlikely to be more favorable to tribes. The Washington courts have not been hugely favorable to tribes over the years either.
The real issue here is if the actions of the Colville company are covered by the sovereign immunity since the work performed was off the reservation involved an non native client and was a federal contract subject to federal discrimination rules. They could well lose this one.
Posted by: dennis on May 18, 2006 08:47 PMYou say that, "There is no purpose to sovereign immunity, its [sic] not a grant it is a right that comes from being sovereign. The Congress and the framers of the Constitution made tribes sovereign so they got the same legal rights as any government."
This is factually misplaced and entirely untrue.
The Constitution in no way makes Indian tribes sovereign. Indian tribes in America are governed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) established by the founders in Article I, Sec 8 of the U.S. Constitution," The Congress shall have Power to regulate Commerce . . . and with the Indian Tribes. The central function of the Indian Commerce Clause is to provide Congress with the power to legislate in the field of Indian affairs. The preference between the national government and the Indian Tribes in hiring is granted to Indians only as a quasi-sovereign tribal entity that is wholly governed by the BIA. Indian tribes are not accorded the same rights as a government at all, but they are dependant on acts of Congress and owe allegiance to the U.S.A. under the Constitution.
INDIAN TRIBES ARE NOT NOW NOR HAVE THEY EVER BEEN – SOVEREIGN
Lawyers, newspapers, and even quack liberal judges can use the term "sovereign" in this context, but it does not rationally apply unless one completely changes or ignores the word's literal meaning. As found by the Spanish and other American settlers, Indian tribes were functionally incapable of a sovereign status because they had no cohesive government, unified state, written language, or laws. Sovereignty is not a loose and malleable concept of figurative cultural status, but a precise one. Black’s Law Dictionary defines sovereignty as ”A person, Body, or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested; . . . “ The Colville Indian tribe is not independent nor has it ever been, nor does it have supreme authority over anything . . . at least by law. If they ever actually had a "supreme authority," they lost it to American settlers when they made treaties with the them. Some say they got a raw deal. I say, tough $hit stupid -- get over it.
Liberal morons don't like it . . . but it's the facts. Sounds like you may have been listening to phony quacks like Ward Churchill and their neo-popular liberal-progressive history/civics/bull$hit.
How
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 19, 2006 05:10 AMHey Matt, you may care to console with a kindred spirit here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605120006
What is wrong with any one group of folks wanting to sustain and perpetuate their people? Or is it (Ta ta!) only white people that you object to replenishing their populations? There's that nasty old Liberal White Guilt rearing its ugly (and in your case monstrous) head again!
BTW bozo, he wasn't speaking exclusively to white males (beleaguered or otherwise), but to the entire race to consider the consequences of a culture that values personal gratification and career over raising families.
Most of the comments following that article were from mouth-breathers (liberals) that uniformly sneered: "Racist!" at Gibson because he dared to state the obvious. Question to them: Why is it OK to encourage every race other than whites to procreate, but racist for whites to do so? When the separatists shouted "White Power" they meant (1) Whites are better than other races and (2) Perpetuating the white race at the expense of other races. They were wrong and were shunned for it.
But, thanks largely to Liberal White Guilt like bartleboob displays, every race in America can now proudly proclaim their heritage except whites! What is so horrifying to you bartleboob in having pride in your heritage?
So bartleboob, (to get back on topic) do you believe that it was OK for the indians to harass the white guy without interference, consequence, or recrimination?
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 19, 2006 07:14 AMInternational law as early as 1560 recognized the sovereignty of the tribe, See "De Los Indies" by Vittora, the early social philosphers including Hobbes, Jean Bodin and Hugo Grotis all defined a sovereign a being having internal apparatus for the administration of justice, defined territorial areas, and a continuity of leadership. All of which the tribes had, have and exercised.
It was on the concepts of Hobbes et call and Spainish concepts of interenational law that the US and the British recognized the sovereign status of the tribes. Sovereign is a derived word of Latin meaning above or superior and tribal governments or arrangement were clearly superior or above individuals.
In any case John Marshall defined the tribes as sovereign in the Marshall trilogy and the Congress has defined them as sovereign starting with the Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790 and continuing in unbroken progression to the Indian Self Determination Act of 1987. Even Ronald Reagen recognized their sovereignty when he signed the Indian Tribal Tax Status Act of 1984.
If tribes were not sovereign they could not have gambling. Face the fact.
As to my reading of Ward Chruchill he is a scum bag and a disgrace to every one. I am neither a liberal, and idoit, an attorney (my parents were married) nor a fool. Nor am I native American.
If you really believe that tribes were not capable governments before the enligthenment of the white man you compound ignorace with foolishness. There justice and tribal governments in some case were exemplars of the type.
Posted by: Dennis on May 19, 2006 07:52 AMAs to your last statement, I'm gonna have to call Barbara Streisand. Prove it. Show me where they were anything better than stone age groups. It isn't a coincidence that they even call themselves "tribes", not "Civilizations".
I will agree with you on one thing....Ward Churchill is most decidedly a scumbag!
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 19, 2006 08:01 AMTwo tribes in this state have already done just that, and went to court over it and won. They were small tribes (I forget which two) that aren't near any major population centers, and only have a gas station apiece... but the state is now having a hissy fit because if other tribes follow suit, that's a lot of gas tax money they won't get.
Posted by: Mike H on May 19, 2006 08:30 AMI also sugggest for your enlightenment that you read The Cheyenne Way which for years was required reading at the U of Wash law school, I also would recommend 500 Nations by Alan Josephy. I would also recommend your read any of the work of Charles Wilkinson, particularly Indians Time and the Law. Finally I would recommend the article, The Spainish Origins of Indian Tribal Law" by Felix Cohen "Georgetown Law Review 1942.
Tribes do not call themselves tribes in there own langugage, tribe is a white man's term applied to the groups of natives. Many native groups were not tribes in any definition of the word. Native Americans in their own cosmology do not have names for themselves or in almost all native languages the term to describe themselves mean the people or the humans. Tribalism was applied by the English to the natives as way to understand the groupings of natives. It is a term of art not law and has become adopted the say way as the term Indian has become adopted even though both are factually incorrect.
Can't spend more time debating with you I have to go to work with tribe so we can cliam more of your land.
Posted by: Dennis on May 19, 2006 08:35 AMIn “Oliphant v Suqumaish Tribe,” the Rehnquist Court looked at the relationship between the Indians and the Federal Government under the U.S. Constitution and decided that the Constitution and those it protects count more than the arbitrary and unfounded whims of a local Indian tribe. They held that ”Indian tribal courts do not have inherent criminal jurisdiction to try and to punish non-Indians, and hence may not assume such jurisdiction unless specifically authorized to do so by Congress.” The court agreed with the respondents assertions that having sold such rights, under Article I, Sec 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Indian tribes are only “quasi-sovereign” entities. In numerous cases going back to the early 19th century, acknowledgment of the legal authority of America over Indian tribes is not a mere abstract recognition of the United States' sovereignty, but a substantial one.
THE SUQUAMISH LAW AND ORDER CODE SUQS
I would not be surprised if the ding-dongs in Olympia find against America and for the Colville tribes – they graduated from Acme Law School and Barber College, never read the U.S. Constitution, and practiced pretend law in the Washington State liberal vacuum. However, it is very doubtful that the Roberts Court will ignore the U.S. Constitution and rule as farcically as liberal nitwits would like in their effort to feeeel good about supposed injustice to Indians. Speaking of justice alone, any of these liberals would think twice about their mindless stupid and gratuitous generosity with the legal integrity they love to slaughter, if they were convicted in a tribal court where by the Suquamish Law and Order Code, non-Indians, are excluded from Suquamish tribal court juries.
Like Indian law? --14th Amendment Procedural due process denied.
WRIGHT V. COLVILLE
An employment discrimination dispute over a federal contract subject to federal discrimination rules should never be decided for a tribal authority and against the U.S. Federal Government, unless those who decide it are as idiotic as the Washington State Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Lunatics, drunken feminist louts and dirt-bag liberal morons. Who knows, maybe if they work at it, they can get Gregoire to appoint a Colville Indian Chief, an ex Al Quaida terrorist, and a convicted child molester to the court to complete the compliment.
Hold on, maybe this tribal court juries deal could be a good thing – Suquamish tribal court jury: “Hang that drunken liberal jack-a$$ Bobbie Bridges -- she sideswiped Chief Wampum’s Mercedes and believed we would be nice to her because she feeeels sorry for us.”
Wow . . . this here sovereign Indian tribe deal has possibilities.
You say, "It was on the concepts of Hobbes et call and Spainish concepts of interenational law that the US and the British recognized the sovereign status of the tribes." What? You have read nothing of history; this is simply foolish nonsense.
You probably don't realize how pathetic and foolish your comments are.
You say, "Sovereign is a derived word of Latin meaning above or superior and tribal governments or arrangement were clearly superior or above individuals." Duh.
"If you really believe that tribes were not capable governments before the enligthenment of the white man you compound ignorace with foolishness."
Right. Dog eating savages with no written language that murdered eachother so much that they lived like upright trogolodytes hobbling around from garbage heap to garbage heap are examples of the makers of capable governments. Since you are an example of an injun scholar, you won't be surprised that I am not impressed.
The Indian Tribal Tax Status Act of 1984 didn't covey or acknowledege sovereignty in any way idiot, and the right to operate gambling isn't indicative of sovereignty. Is Las Vegas or Atlantic City sovereign? How silly can you get?
THE REAL FUN OF SOVEREIGNTY
If America decided to tell one of their least formidable enemies that it's O.K. to murder Indians because you are -- as you believe -- "independant sovereign entities," you would change your a$$inine tune in a hurry or stop living. If left alone, any cheap third world country could easily wipe out all of the American Indian tribes combined and force them into slavery. American Indians are jokes about themselves. You are lucky for the safety and grace accorded you by the sweet arrangement you got from American settlers.
How.
Now we know you are full of it. If you had read any of the books you refer me to, you would know that most of those materials have nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion, and you would not write in such a ponderously illiterate fashion.
I will never change your so-called mind, but you take my land and I will see to it that you go another appropriate way.
Posted by: Amused by liberal injuns on May 19, 2006 09:28 AMI find it very interesting that you need to resort to ad honinum attacks on me which is of coures the method of liberals to quiet oppositon.
I will not defend my conservative credentials to you and I will not continue a discussion with someone who cannot engage in a reasoned discussion with a person of opposing position without personal, perfidous, hateful attacks.
One proof of the civilization of tribes is that I have been in some very heated and controversial situations with tribes and I have never been personnally attacked by them the way you feel a need to attack me for my opinion. Civilization does not conflate to white skin as you so perfectly demonstrate.
BTW I have read all the book I cited and I am a published author in four different genre. Since I also work for a living I do not have time to provide my best writing for a blog.
Posted by: Dennis on May 19, 2006 11:21 AMThey were under contract to you US government to provide a service (pipe laying).
Just like any other contractor that the government works with, they must be held accountable.
It doesn't matter if it's one of the tribes, a company from Mexico, or a whitebread American plumbing contractor.
Posted by: Subdoc on May 19, 2006 11:47 AMYou are a moron. Intelligent comments are completely lost on you . . . so why bother?
You are not worth the trouble of any effort.
I am somewhat curious as to what you mean when you discuss "ad honinum attacks." Also, "Civilization does not conflate to white skin . . . " As a simple matter of literal form, in the english language, civilization cannot possibly "conflate to" any group of people; what a dumb-a$$. If you are calling my comments uncivilized, that's one thing. If you are trying to impress everyone by using a "cool" sounding word the meaning of which you fail to comprehend, it didn't work.
Your most comical gem is, "BTW I have read all the book I cited and I am a published author in four different genre." WOWEEE! Given the prejudices, literacy, intellectual capacity, and absolute butchery of the english language you display here, I bet your stuff is a real hoot.
I would ask you for the titles, but I've already been treated to your encyclopedic mind and rapier-like wit.
You are full of crap and you know it.
Thanks for the laughs.
There you go again.....
Again, here is the interaction which occurred on 12 May:
I said:
Are the ballots going to counted at a different location than they have been? Will partisan and non-partisan observers no longer be able to observe the ballot counting process?
"...then they try to take away your right to choose how to vote, and to force all of us to have our votes counted in Backroom Alleys by member of the Teamsters Union."
How are the teamsters involved? I'm sure it would be a terrible thing if the ballots were counted by people with decent wages and health care benefits.
Will there be options for those who would rather not fill out their ballots at home or mail them in?
Wouldn't a more uniform voting system throughout the county make it easier to ensure accuracy?
Posted by: eric on May 12, 2006 12:17 PM
To which you replied:
'Hey eric.
I suppose now that you know that the elections staff are Teamsters Union members you are going to tell us that there is no reason anyone might ever think that having our votes counted by them in backrooms is questionable.
I'm sure you would also be very comfortable to have the Building Industry Association of Washington do the final tally and issue the final elections certification.
While the BIAW is not in the habit of creating spreadsheets without column summaries, and making false reports to the voters like the Teamsters en camp with petty criminals like Deanron, they can add, subtract, and discern the difference between right and wrong.
As a shameless blind liberal apologist for petty criminals and butt pirate liberal Democrats -- you don't seem to have much more to say here.
What other half-hearted and clueless attempts at corrections do you have for us?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 14, 2006 11:53 AM
Again, what is your excuse for your insults? Did I insult you or anyone you know? Is this how you address the many 'liberal' roommates of which you are so proud of besting in 'argument'?
The only question you attempted to answer was with an unproven assertion followed by insults for, what, daring to ask questions? Do this website and yourself embody the unquestionable authority for which it is blasphemous for me to ask questions of?
Why do I get the distinct impression that these are pop-up books?!
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 19, 2006 03:40 PMMy answer . . . eric is . . . if you comment like a moron . . . you may well be treated like one.
This is a website where people exchange comments about social, political, and cultural issues.
Taking it personally is just plain . . . stupid . . .
I imagine your mommy likes you well enough (with reservations) but . . . this web site is not your mommy.
Some left-wing kooks attempt to deny this. For example, wacky Seattle school district administrators deny that whites can be the victims of racism. In the web site for their "Equity and Race Relations" department, whose director is Caprice Hollins, they define racism as limited to acts against groups that have “little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites).”
By contrast, federal appeals courts routinely rule against institutions that fire or harass white employees, recognizing that whites can indeed be victims of racism. See, e.g., Bowen v. Missouri Department of Social Services (2002) (racial harassment of white employee by black co-worker); Taxman v. Board of Education (1996) (termination of white teacher instead of black teacher). And the Supreme Court held that racial discrimination against whites by local governments is generally illegal in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989). Affirmative action can’t be used to justify terminating or harassing an employee.
Institutions in Washington State need to start figuring this out.
Posted by: HFB on May 20, 2006 10:01 AMYou are absolutely correct.
However, facts don't faze liberals because they base their ideas upon emotions not facts. They are driven my obsession not reason.
Your comments are appreciated but as you probably already know, don’t expect liberals to be keen on them – they don’t care.
They don’t have to think or care, just vituperate, that’s the beauty of liberalism . . . it’s easy.
Watch what happens.
Thanks.
I have to say this case seems to be an exception. The Tribes seem to hire non-tribe members from within the surrounding community lots of time. Perhaps that is due to a labor shortage within the tribal community that makes them need to hire from the outside but still it is good for the surrounding area.
If the people don't like what the tribe is doing, then don't come on tribal land. In this case there was a simple answer for the worker. Leave. And then if the boss fired him for it he could sue the boss.
Posted by: Steve on May 23, 2006 05:04 PMThe worker left, and he is suing dipshit. What turnip wagon did you fall off, the one that Dennis was driving? Obviously,
you've been eating too much cocker spaniel with Dennis.