» WORDS AND MUSIC WITH LIAO YIWU

I’m pleased to share that two versions of my profile of Chinese writer and people’s historian Liao Yiwu have been published this month, in the print edition of The Progressive (also featuring contributions from David Sedaris, Jim Hightower and Dave Zirin), and in expanded online form on Counterpunch.

Liao’s first book to be translated into English, The Corpse Walker, was a collection of 27 startlingly raw and unexpected literary interviews with mostly older people on the margins of Chinese society, who were directly impacted by the horrors of life under Mao Zedong. Several of his other books, including Earthquake Insane Asylumchronicling the invisible and uncounted following the disastrous 2008 Sichuan earthquake, have been published in Taiwan and Hong Kong. His next book in English, For a Song and a Hundred Songs, will be published in January 2013.

Please do check out my expanded profile of Liao, on LOUDCANARY, here ».

» ART & FREEDOMS: Half a Day with Chinese People’s Historian Liao Yiwu (廖亦武)

[This is a continuation of my post, "The Corpse Walker: Liao Yiwu's Notes from China's Underclass" To read my long-form profile of Liao, “Drift to Live,” click here. To read recent (July 2011) updates about Liao’s departure from China and his subsequent asylum in Germany, click here.]

Excerpts from “Massacre” (by Liao Yiwu, translated by Wen Huang)

Dedicated to those who were killed on June 4, 1989 in and around Tiananmen Square in Beijing.

A massacre is happening
In this nation of Utopia
Where the Prime Minister catches a cold
The masses have to sneeze to follow
Martial law is declared and enforced
The aging toothless state machine is rolling over
Those who dare to resist and refuse to sneeze
Fallen by the thousands are the barehanded and unarmed
Armored assassins are swimming in blood
Setting fire to houses with windows and doors locked
Polish your military boots with the skirt of a slain girl
Boot owners don’t even tremble
Robots without hearts never tremble
Their brain is programmed with one process
A flawed command
Represent the nation to dismember the constitution
Represent the constitution to slaughter justice…

Liao Yiwu, 2010. Photo by Brian Awehali

[Earlier this year] we joined Liao and two writer friends he’d shared imprisonment with for tea. Liao was sturdy and bald, his skin ruddy with black rimmed glasses, wore flowing linen pants and navy flip flops which displayed several blackened toenails, and he walked with a limp. I’ll call the other two PB and RG: PB, who said he had eaten much more bitterness in his life than Liao and suffered much more greatly than him, had a typical black bowl cut, glasses, pasty white skin and a shirt tucked into a belt that said “Playboy” on it over the bunny icon. He said that he wrote about his stories of being in prison every day, and that altogether he had been in for seven years. The other one, RG, who said that it was hard to describe what he writes about, had longer hair down to his ears, was pudgy with rimless glasses and wore a plaid shirt. Of the three, RG smiled the most and spoke the least.

We talked about things like Twitter in China. You can say a lot more in 120 Chinese characters than you can in 120 English characters, and Twitter is used for more overtly political purposes in China, to get around the Great Firewall, and less for inane things about where someone’s eating or what someone’s wearing. We also talked about the difficulties of publishing in China. PB had written many stories about his prison experiences, but was resigned to just sharing them with friends and family because he didn’t think he would ever find a publisher; Liao is only published by overseas presses.

At one point Liao said that Chinese view the government as the police. When I asked about Chinese anarchists, Liao replied that all smart Chinese were anarchists (“no government people”) because the government just took their money and land and enforced rules and laws. They were just the police, and didn’t care if the people were hungry or not. I asked about this because I was just then reading Yale Agrarian Studies professor James C. Scott’s excellent book, The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland East Asia, which details how between 80 and 100 million people in East Asia fled the Han Chinese state and took to the hills (“shatter zones”) to be self-determining over the past few centuries. This includes Tibetans, the Wa, the Kachin, the Lahu and a staggering range of other East Asian “hill peoples.” I’m not positive, but given our linguistic challenges, Liao was probably characterizing “smart Chinese” as more anti-authoritarian than anarchist, but was nonetheless making a deeper point about power than can be got at by conceiving of things in terms of so-called “capitalism” or “communism.”

Continue reading

» UNDER THE ETERNAL SKY: Mongolia’s Wilderness and People Threatened by Mining Boom

I just wrote an article partially based on my travels last year in Mongolia. It was first published in Earth Island Journal, then picked up by the Guardian (UK, online), and I cordially invite you, dear reader, to check it out.

Mongolia today is the least densely populated country in the world (Antarctica doesn’t count; it’s “just” a continent). It is home to a staggering array of largely untouched natural splendors, as well as some of the last traditional nomadic peoples and wild horses on earth. It’s also home to the largest mining boom in history, and despite projections that the boom is expected to triple or quadruple the size of Mongolia’s economy in the next five years, times are tough for most Mongolians, and the relationship between the country’s great natural resources and the wealth of its people is still to be determined. What’s clear is that the actual land and 3 million people of Mongolia will never be the same.

READ ON >>

» INVENTING THANKSGIVING: The construction of a fictive holiday

by Brian Awehali (originally published on Britannica.com)

On Thanksgiving Day all over America, families sit down to dinner at the same moment—halftime.

—Unknown

Every year, as Thanksgiving approaches, I am filled with profound ambivalence. Even as a child, the standard Thanksgiving story always seemed too simple, too wholesome, and too peaceful to be true or truly American. Finally, past the faux-historicism of school textbook-styled Pilgrims and Indians, I was able to delve into the actual construction of the story of Thanksgiving. And, in this way, I learned just how fabricated and utterly bizarre this American “holiday” really is.

In 1621, at Plymouth Plantation on Massachusetts Bay, 50 Pilgrim settlers joined with at least 90 Native guests in a three-day feast which is now traditionally cited as the “First Thanksgiving.” In reality, this seasonal, quasi-secular New England harvest celebration was not repeated in Plymouth and was in fact forgotten until a reference to it was discovered almost 200 years later, in a contemporary book known as Mourt’s Relation. Contrary to the widely accepted, idyllic account of two cultures sitting down to share a meal in harmony, most 17th-century colonial images relating to Native Americans depict violent confrontation. It was only around 1900, when the western Indian wars had largely subsided due to a shortage of Indians left to kill—and when it was safe for Euroamericans to supplant fear with nostalgia—that the romantic Thanksgiving narrative most Americans today are familiar with took hold.

Thanksgiving Day provides an ideal opportunity to consider the formation of national identity and the concept of a civil religion. It’s also a living metaphor of the prevailing American model for immigrant assimilation and the ways in which history can be reinterpreted, and indeed wholly reinvented, to serve competing ethnic, patriotic, religious, and commercial ends. Continue reading

» TRICKIER DICK DEPARTS: An Obituary for Dick Cheney

The obituaries of most famous public figures are written well before the figure’s actual death, and there are surely hundreds or thousands of Richard Bruce “Dick” Cheney folders in the files of obituarists around the world, just waiting for their appointed hour. Upon hearing about Cheney’s most recent heart attack, and the news that Halliburton is at least partially responsible for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and will also likely profit from clean-up operations, I just grew impatient…

Richard Bruce “Dick” Cheney
January 30, 1941- 2010

“Principle is OK up to a certain point, but principle doesn’t do you any good if you lose,” Richard Bruce “Dick” Cheney, first appointed to office by Richard Nixon, told journalist Tim Russert in 1976. And it could be argued that until his final heart attack late yesterday afternoon at his Wyoming ranch, Cheney never did truly lose, despite bringing scandal, ethics investigations, and eventual doom to every administration he worked for. By demonstrating his loyalty to an aggressive and frequently extra-legal realpolitik intentionally divorced from the realm of ethics–and getting away with it–this avid chili lover, “stump” of a high school football player from Wyoming, who dropped out of Yale, was twice nabbed for drunk driving, and who shot rabbits, birds, a hunting partner, and other animals in his free time, became a grimacingly enduring icon of American business and politics.

Continue reading

» LOVE IS THE WATER UNDER THE WATER

The fact that political ideologies are tangible realities is not a proof of their vitally necessary character. The bubonic plague was an extraordinarily powerful social reality, but no one would have regarded it as vitally necessary.

Wilhelm Reich

Here is a girl, standing at the end of an alleyway in Chengdu, in the Sichuan province in southwestern China, in the early days of the Gregorian year 2010. The longer I look at these photos the more love I feel for her.

What will she become, and what will life in the place and time she was born into allow her?

When we first made eye contact, she made a grim face, turned abruptly, and marched with purpose the other way. Then she stopped, executed a surprisingly martial turn, and stood surveying me for a pregnant moment. I waved, and she seemed not to respond at all; just stood there stone-faced, or so I thought at the time. After a moment of standing there like an absurd soldier, she vanished into the doorway of what I assume was her home.

In this moment, so many things went through my mind: My god the Chinese are rigid; even this little girl in pink and turquoise walks like an expressionless soldier! What a dirty alleyway; aren’t they loathe to hang their clothes outside in this grime after they just washed them? What is she thinking about me?

When I got the chance to look at these pictures in more detail, I saw that there was a glimmer of a smile on her face, mostly around her eyes. I have very poor vision, and my camera, with its optical zoom, sees far better than I do.

Yes, the Chinese are, for the most part, quite rigid. But you would be too if you lived in an authoritarian state (it’s not communism, it’s a dictatorial form of coordinatorism) where creativity and dissent are often punished, and you knew almost from the start that you were going to have to compete against billions of other people if you hope for any control over the terms of your life. Authoritarianism and a crushing of people’s ability to dream and define the terms of their own lives is mutilation and psychic murder. The Chinese people make the best of the lives their government allows them, and this little girl is a great example of why it’s important to oppose governments and corporations, not peoples. The Chinese people are not to be feared or damned for the vehicle they’ve been shoved into. Their spirit in trying to advance and overcome is to be respected and admired.

This little girl’s alleyway holds several things of interest and relevance. To touch on the simplest one first, the grime is a byproduct of industry and sheer population density, and industry is, in our globally metasticized consumer culture, how people raise their standards of living. And maybe the U.S. didn’t invent it, but we sure did refine it, give it some steroids, and begin exporting it to the world on a massive scale. There are great and obvious distinctions to be made between the U.S. And China of course, but perhaps the largest and most important, as cartoonist, author and occasional New York Times essayist Timothy Kreider observed recently, is that in China, the government owns its corporations, while American corporations own our government.

Second among the things that interest me in this alley is the red and gold tracksuit, probably an older brother or cousin’s national team uniform. It takes passion and determination and focus to excel in the athletic arena. That’s why governments and businesses spend so much money and time on their sports teams. It creates a strong emotional bond between the athletes and those who admire them. It’s an entirely natural thing, the same way one might admire a swift or elegant bird. Then those natural human feelings are appropriated and welded to artificial jingoism. This little girl’s likely older brother or cousin (the one-child policy, while powerful, is not as rigid as is commonly reported) probably takes order and discipline very seriously, and if he’s on a national team, it means he’s achieved some level of recognition for his efforts in a highly competitive society. Even before politics and ideology, this little girl is surely absorbing these things like a sponge: How does one make sense of the world, how does one find one’s way through it? You learn from what’s closest to you. You don’t have to understand ideology to be shaped by it.

As a counterpoint, consider the blue jeans. What do blue jeans mean to the Chinese? Although it’s a glib generalization to talk about “the Chinese,” in much the same way talking about “Americans” is somewhat foolish, asking what blue jeans means is not a silly question to ask in an age of mass-produced culture and mediated conceptions of identity. We live, after all, in an age when people see nothing weird or immediately sad about expressing aspects of themselves through the choice of which mass-produced item they selected for purchase.

And “America,” among many other things, is a brand, embedded with all manner of code that is exported aggressively to the world. “Freedom,” “happiness” and “opportunity” are its dominant brand values. Consider how identified with “America” blue jeans are, and then further consider that the Chinese word for America is meiguo or “beautiful country.” (To be fair, the Chinese mostly see it as just a word, not as a word with literal meaning, much like people in the U.S. rarely think of Chicago, Manhattan or Seattle as Indian words with actual, you know, meaning.)

That said, I have been called meiguoren (美国的, literally, “beautiful country person”), probably several dozen times in my short time here, and it always makes me feel a stab of pain that’s related to the pain I feel when I look around at the ubiquitous Western beauty ideals on display here. Really?, I think, a 5000-year old culture of several billion people with a staggering amount of cultural achievements and it’s own beautiful people and land can’t think of anything better to aspire to now than material wealth and the trappings of hyper consumer culture? They want to be like…. us?


Even a cursory study of China makes it obvious how much yearning and rage course through the people, much like an underground waterway. One of my all-time favorite songs, “Once in a Lifetime,” by the Talking Heads, has a line about there being “water under the water, carrying the water,” and I think it describes the humanity and dogged spirit of the people laboring under the yoke of Chinese government and ascending commerce quite well. They yearn, they long, and, when it boils over, they can exhibit shocking rage. The surface is not the reality.

At the beginning of this, I quoted Wilhelm Reich, Sigmund Freud’s cohort and fellow psychoanalytic theorist, who was the victim of the only U.S. government-ordered book burning in history, and who died in prison, a mad man, after being imprisoned for what he dared to think and write. (Sound familiar?) Freud thought people were violent sadistic animals, who had to be controlled and taught to “civilize” themselves for the good of society and stability. You can fairly say that Freud’s ideas were status quo – he never asked whether conforming to a sick society was natural or not; it was just assumed that being “well-regulated” and conforming was desirable and healthy. This makes me think of the deeply moving and staggeringly far-reaching speech Martin Luther King gave (presented in 1963, at WMU, and well-worth reading if you aren’t already familiar with it), where he attacks the concept of being “maladjusted” in a society to which he did not want to “adjust”:

Reich thought people were loving and good, and that it was the mutilations of society and government, the imposition of unnatural order, that caused neuroses and dysfunction. It was the systematic and unnatural control of people, in other words, that caused them to be violent, and to behave irrationally. Think of a house cat going slowly loopy, eating houseplants that make it sick and playing manically with a toy mouse when all it really wants to do is be outside, eating real mice, rutting at the appointed time, and following its nature. Reich thought eros was the highest expression of human health and actualization, and that it should be given free reign and support if we were to link hands with our higher selves. There are a great many things to take from Reich’s theory and story, but the one I think of most often, and which springs most readily to mind looking at this little Chinese girl caught between repulsion and friendliness is this: Love is both dangerous and beautiful, and sometimes you have to zoom in and pay attention before you can see it looking back at you.

» PROFIT, CONTROL & THE MYTH OF TOTAL SECURITY

by Brian Awehali and Ariane Conrad

Arguments for comprehensive surveillance society comprise a litany of fear-addled threats and fantastic promises of security that are grossly exaggerated by the very government and corporate serial offenders who pose the greatest threat to our health and safety. The breathless marketing of a false sense of security is perhaps the single biggest cash cow of the moment, and the profit to be made from assembling a surveillance society is enormous.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE (PDF)

» NATIVE ENERGY FUTURES: Renewable Energy & the New Rush on Indian Lands

by Brian Awehali  

(2006 Project Censored Award winner)

“Huge investments in electrical power grids, highways, and telecommunications would help Colombia open up its vast gas and oil resources and its largely undeveloped Amazonian territories; the projects, in turn, would generate the income necessary to pay off the loans, plus interest. That was the theory. However, the reality, consistent with our true intent around the world, was to subjugate Bogota, to further the global empire. My job…was to present the case for exceedingly large loans.”

— John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

“The ability for tribes to obtain bonds in the hundred-million-dollar range to finance energy projects is now a reality. And the $20 million a year for an Indian energy office at the Department of Energy is something that we started working on years ago under Energy Secretary Bill Richardson.”

— Chris Stearns, former Indian Affairs Director at the US DOE

It all started with a single 750kW wind turbine built by the Rosebud Sioux in South Dakota in 2003. At the time, the Business Journal called the turbine “a four-way transcontinental deal in which everyone makes money while fighting global warming, generating clean electricity and helping Native Americans.” In other words, the Journal gushed, the wind project was “a ‘green capitalist’s’ dream.”

The editors at the Business Journal might have been a tad hyperbolic in their assessment, but energy on Indian land is certainly big business. In 2004, some $400 million was split between 41 tribes for the sale of oil, gas, and coal on their lands. According to the Indigenous Environmental Network, 35% of the fossil fuel resources in the US are within Indian country; The Department of the Interior estimates that Indian lands hold undiscovered reserves of almost 54 billion tons of coal, 38 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 5.4 billion barrels of oil. Indian lands also contain enormous amounts of alternative energy: “Wind blowing through Indian reservations in just four northern Great Plains states could support almost 200,000 megawatts of wind power,” Winona LaDuke told Indian Country Today in March 2005. “[And] tribal landholdings in the southwestern US…could generate enough power to eradicate all fossil fuel burning power plants in the US.”

Now imagine, if you can, that you run a US-based energy company at a time when increasing resistance to US imperialism, coupled with rising business costs related to political instability, has made getting the oil, coal, and gas from foreign sources more difficult. Imagine that you’re savvy enough to know that your fossil fuel-based business model is about to get dramatically less lucrative. If you didn’t already have them, you’d probably want to start setting up operations in the more business-friendly, less regulated Wild West of Indian Country. If you were really devious—or maybe just smart—you might want to have your cake and eat it too, by getting tax subsidies and favorable terms for developing your next business model while greenwashing your ongoing fossil fuel operations. Wouldn’t you?

“Consistent with the President’s National Energy Policy to secure America’s energy future,” testified Theresa Rosier, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, “increased energy development in Indian and Alaska Native communities could help the Nation have more reliable home-grown energy supplies. [The Native American Energy Development and Self-Determination Act of 2003] promotes increased and efficient energy development and production in an environmentally sound manner.”

The bill did not ultimately pass, but the idea that “America’s energy future” should be linked to having “more reliable home-grown energy supplies” can be found in other native energy-specific legislation that has passed into law. What this line of thinking fails to take into consideration is that Native America is not actually USAmerica, and that the “supplies” in question belong to sovereign nations, not to the United States or its energy sector.

Rosier’s statement conveys quite a lot about how the government and the energy sector intend to market the growing shift away from dependence on foreign energy, and how they plan to deregulate (by using “efficiency” as a selling point) and step up their exploitation (“development”) of “domestic” native energy resources: by spinning it as a way to produce clean energy while helping Native Americans gain greater economic and tribal sovereignty.

Of course, if large companies can establish lucrative partnerships with tribes, largely free of regulation and federal oversight, then so much the better. In this regard, a look at the Alaska Native “communities” Rosier mentioned is instructive.

In 1971, Alaskan tribal companies were set up by Congress with roughly $1 billion and 44 million acres of land to divide. Although the real reason for establishing these companies had to do with breaking down largely unified tribal opposition to the construction of an oil pipeline, they were pitched at the time as a way to help stimulate tribal economies and mitigate the scale of poverty on tribal lands. “Tribal companies [can] be considered small businesses even after winning billions of dollars in contracts, and there is no limit to the size of the no-bid awards they can win,” reported Michael Scherer in an excellent 2005 Mother Jones article entitled “US: Little Big Companies.”

The Alaska tribal companies have, according to Scherer, “become a way for large corporations with no Native American ownership to receive no-bid contracts, an avenue for federal officials to steer work to favored companies, and a device for speeding privatization.” Evidence for this assertion abounds. From 2002 through the end of 2004, the Olgoonik Corporation, owned by the Inupiat Eskimo tribe, garnered revenues in excess of $225 million for construction work on US military bases around the world. Because of its tribal status, Olgoonik procured this work without having to bid against others for it. It then subcontracted most of the work to the infamous multinational corporation Halliburton.

A November 2004 article in The News & Observer (UK) further reported that “Procurement rules allow native American-owned company, Alutiiq, to provide favored entrée to government contracts and then outsource them to British-owned multinational, Wackenhut.” The article also went on to note that the Chugach Alaska Corp., owned by 1,900 Alaska natives, “was ranked ahead of IBM, Motorola, Goodrich, Goodyear and AT&T in total value of defense contracts in 2003.”

Apologists and professional flak catchers, of course, claim that this state of affairs is nothing more than an unfortunate, and unforeseen accident. But Michael Brown, a major player in the formation of Alaskan tribal companies and the so-called “godfather of tribal contracting,” told Mother Jones that this explosion in federal work was “exactly what he hoped for” when he went to work as the chief executive for a subsidiary of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation in 1982 and pioneered such practices. Arctic Slope is the state’s largest tribal corporation, and the single largest company in Alaska.

Now jump forward with me, to April 2003, and the completion of the first large-scale native-owned wind turbine in history—the aforementioned Rosebud Sioux project, built in partnership with NativeEnergy, LLC. During the preceding 21 years, reports ranging from the cautionary to the apocalyptic about carbon emissions and global warming have piled up, and all but the most pig-headed of carbon-emitting industrialists now concede that a fossil fuel-based business model is soon going to be a lot less lucrative.

NativeEnergy, which wants to help consumers “enjoy a climate neutral lifestyle,” was founded in 2000 with a mission “to get more wind turbines and other renewable energy systems built.” There were no Native Americans present in the management of NativeEnergy at the time of its founding. The multiphase wind development initiative, which began in earnest with the completion of the first wind turbine in 2003, was billed as a way to bring renewable energy–related jobs and training opportunities to the citizens of this sovereign nation, who are among the poorest in all of North America.

NativeEnergy’s President and CEO Tom Boucher is an energy industry vet who formerly worked at Green Mountain Energy, a subsidiary of a company now controlled by oil industry giant BP and Nuon, a Netherlands-based energy company. Boucher was convinced there was profit to be made in alternative energy, and the Rosebud project was his test case. Boucher financed the project by selling, of all things, air. More specifically, he took advantage of the new “flexible emissions standards” created by the Kyoto Protocol. Essentially, the standards created tax-deductible pollution credits (or “green tags”) for ecologically responsible companies, which can then be sold to polluters wishing to “offset” their carbon dioxide generation without actually reducing their emissions.

As you might expect from a company staffed largely by energy industry vets, NativeEnergy was fiscally crafty. In a novel accounting move, they bought from the Rosebud Sioux, at deep discount, all the green tag pollution credits that they speculated would be accrued over the lifespan of the Rosebud wind project—a total of 50,000 tons of carbon dioxide—then made a lump-sum, one-time funding commitment to the construction of the project. In an April 2003 interview with the Business Journal, Boucher would not divulge how deep the discount he got was, nor would he divulge the terms of subsequent sales of green tags.

Since their first test case proved successful, NativeEnergy has moved forward with plans to develop a larger “distributed wind project,” located on eight different reservations. NativeEnergy also became a majority Indian-owned company in August 2005, when the pro-development Intertribal Council on Utility Policy (yes, Intertribal COUP), purchased a majority stake in the company on behalf of its member tribes.

Pat Spears, the President of COUP and a member of the lower Brule Sioux tribe, described the purchase as “a great day for Native American people everywhere, because we are demonstrating that living in harmony with our Mother Earth is not only good for the environment, it is also good business. We look forward,” he added, “to bringing in more tribes as equity participants and taking NativeEnergy to the next level.”

It’s probably no coincidence that this purchase coincided with that month’s passage of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which contains native energy–specific provisions in its Title V. Supporters like Tex Hall, president of the National Congress of American Indians, touted the act as “one of the most important tribal pieces of legislation to hit Indian country in the past 20 years. [It] provides real incentives for energy companies to partner with Indian tribes in developing tribal resources.” Keeping in mind that tribal-owned companies are exempt from a great deal of the regulation, oversight, and competitive bidding stipulations that apply to other businesses, and that the legislation increases subsidies for wind energy in particular, the act leaves NativeEnergy ideally situated to exploit its tribal status.

But there are a host of alarming provisions in the act. For starters, Section 1813 of Title V gives the US the obviously dangerous power to grant rights of way through Indian lands without permission from Indian tribes, if deemed to be in the strategic interests of an energy-related project. Other critics have derided the act as a fire sale on Indian energy, characterizing various incentives as a broad collection of subsidies for US energy companies, particularly those in Texas. And, according to a 2005 Democracy Now! interview with Clayton Thomas-Muller, Native Energy Organizer for the Indigenous Environmental Network, the act “rolls back the protections of the National Environmental Policy Act and the protections of the National Historic Preservation Act, both of which are critical pieces of legislation that grassroots indigenous peoples utilize to protect our sacred sites.”

Most importantly, under the guise of promoting tribal sovereignty (leaving out those aspects of sovereignty that have little or nothing to do with economics), the act also releases the federal government from its traditional trust responsibility to tribes where resource development is concerned.

The trust relationship between the US and native tribes has been a crucial way for Native Americans to hold the government legally accountable, as evidenced by the many recent court losses suffered by the Department of the Interior and Treasury during the years-long Indian Trust Case filed by Eloise Cobell on behalf of more than 500,000 Native American landholders. The trust relationship was originally imposed on Native Americans in 1887, after the passage of the Dawes Allotment Act. This act was a fairly straightforward (and successful) attempt to break down tribal unity by dispersing parcels of land to individual Indian “heads of household” who signed on to the government’s “tribal rolls.” The land was not to be managed by Native Americans, however: It was held “in trust,” and the government was supposed to disburse to Native landholders the royalties generated by the leasing of their lands to timber, mining, livestock, and energy interests. But for the most part, the government didn’t disburse the money, and now admits that at least $137 billion of it is simply missing. Without the trust relationship, which among other things makes the government legally responsible for the money it manages, Cobell and her coplaintiffs could not have sued.

The Energy Policy Act also shifts responsibility for environmental review and regulation from the federal to tribal governments. This, too, was promoted under the auspices of increasing tribal sovereignty, but it doesn’t take a genius to know that Native Americans won’t be any more successful in regulating the energy industry than the US government, a host of well-funded environmental groups, and the UN have been. In fact, it probably only takes a village-variety idiot to comprehend the predictably disastrous outcome of this shift for Native Americans.

It’s hard to believe, in light of the relevant history, that an ever-avaricious energy industry—which has been all too willing to play a game of planetary ecological brinksmanship in the name of profit—places any value on tribal sovereignty unless there’s a way to exploit it. It’s hard to believe, after hundreds of years of plunder and unaccountability, that further deregulation, coupled with economic incentives, and even with the participation of some well-meaning “green” players on the field, is going to deliver anything but the predictable domination of Native Americans by white European economic powers.

In fact, I’ll go out on a limb and say that the emerging Native American energy infrastructure looks more like the beginnings of a new rush on Indian lands than it does the advent of any kind of brave new sovereign era.

But don’t take my word for it. Take it from Billy Connelly, the senior advisor on marketing and communications for NativeEnergy, the company, you’ll recall, that helped usher in the dawn of this renewable energy rush. When asked during a March 2006 phone interview why the demonstration of a potentially viable renewable energy economy on Native American lands wasn’t simply an example of small businesses laying the groundwork for the eventual control and megaprofits of major corporations, Connelly sighed and said simply, “I’d be pleasantly surprised if this didn’t follow that age-old pattern.”

Perhaps, at a minimum, tribes can attain a modicum of energy independence from the development of wind, solar, and other renewable energy infrastructure on their lands. And there may well be a way to ride Native American renewable energy resources to a future of true tribal sovereignty. But it won’t come from getting into bed with, and becoming indebted to, the very industry currently driving the planet to its doom.

» TRUST US, WE’RE THE GOVERNMENT: How to Make $137 Billion of Indian Money Disappear

Governmeant Malfeasance Continues in Indian Trust Case

by Brian Awehali

“I’ve never seen more egregious conduct by the federal government,” said Royce C. Lamberth, the federal judge overseeing the Individual Indian Trust (IIT) reform case, which stands as the largest class action lawsuit ever filed against the U.S. federal government. His comments were elicited in 1999 when the Department of the Interior and Treasury Department announced they had “inadvertently” destroyed 162 boxes of vital trust records during the course of the trial, then waited months to notify the court of the “accident.”

“You tell me if that’s fair,” lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell told Mike Wallace in a 60 Minutes interview in 1999. “When they have to manage other people’s money according to standards, why aren’t they managing our money to standards? Is it because you manage brown people’s money differently?”

Filed more than seven years ago by Cobell, a member of the Blackfoot tribe, and her legal team, and representing more than 500,000 individual Native American landholders, the Indian Trust case—also known as Cobell vs. Norton—is easily one of the biggest stories of government criminality in modern U.S. history. The case has turned into such a nightmare for the Department of the Interior (DOI) and Treasury that the government now has more than 100 lawyers assigned to the case, more than they employed in the Microsoft antitrust litigation.

And perhaps most significantly, the government is losing. Badly.
At stake—over $100 billion rightfully belonging to the nation’s most impoverished people. The Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Treasury say they have simply “lost” the money and claim they cannot now provide an accurate accounting of how much is owed to whom. In the course of the lawsuit, the government has repeatedly destroyed vital accounting documents, deliberately filed false reports to the court, and generally conducted itself in such bad faith that a stunning total of 37 past and present government officials, including current Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton and former Secretary Bruce Babbitt, have been held in contempt of court for their misconduct.

During the first of two trial phases, the government attempted to limit its liability, but suffered a resounding defeat when Judge Lamberth ordered the Interior Department to conduct a full accounting of Indian trust assets – dating all the way back to 1887 — and imposed strict liability on government trustees.

“This is a landmark victory,” Cobell said of Judge Lamberth’s Phase One decision. “It is now clear that trust law and trust standards fully govern the management of the Individual Indian Trust and that Secretary Norton can no longer ignore the trust duties that she owes to 500,000 individual Indian trust beneficiaries.”

Most recently, however, the White House and “top lawmakers” have pushed through an arguably unconstitutional “midnight rider” on an appropriations bill that would delay the accounting of Indian trust funds still further. It simply could not be clearer that the government is completely aware of its misconduct and insists on responding with ill will, betting on the U.S. public’s lack of awareness of, interest in, and solidarity with Indian trust beneficiaries.

An Unlikely Warrior

Cobell lives in Browning, Mont., where she founded and helps run the first tribal-owned bank in the country. She also served as treasurer of the Blackfeet tribe from 1970 through 1983.

While she was growing up, Cobell’s family had no plumbing, no electricity and no running water. She remembers they would often complain about sporadic or suspiciously small checks from the government for the land given to Cobell’s grandmother during “allotment” at the turn of the century, land that is now leased out by the Dept. of Interior and the BIA to ranchers and timber companies.

Allotment was the policy ushered in by the Dawes Act in 1887 in an attempt to break down tribal structures and reduce Native American land holdings. The heads of tribal households were given up to 320 acres of land, but were forbidden actual ownership; instead, the government forced a trust relationship, where the Interior and the BIA would oversee the land and disburse all revenue from its use to the individual landholders. The Act also allowed for the sale of “surplus” land, a provision white settlers exploited fully in their purchase of around 90 million acres — almost 65 percent of all Native American lands — by 1932. The government openly stated during this period that this trust relationship was necessary because it did not believe Indians were capable of managing their own affairs.
Yet it’s difficult to conceive of how anyone could have done a worse job managing the trust.

After discovering a number of anomalies in the Blackfeet tribe’s trust, including an account drawing negative interest, as well as a host of unauthorized transactions, Cobell began asking questions. She claims that her initial questions to the BIA were met with derision. “They said, ‘Oh! you don’t know how to read the reports,’” Cobell recalls. “I think they were trying to embarrass me, but it did the opposite — it made me mad.”

Steadily more resolved, Cobell caught a break when a deputy commissioner for Indian Affairs in the first Bush administration, David Matheson, arranged for her to meet with several well-connected, influential government officials and banking experts. Among this group was Dennis Gingold, eventual lead prosecuting attorney for the case, who was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying of his first meeting with Cobell, “From my experience, American Indians were not involved in banking. I was looking for a bunch of people with turbans.”

What Gingold came to learn about the case astonished and enlightened him however. Each year more than $500 million comes into the Individual Indian Trust from companies leasing Native American land for grazing, oil, timber, coal, and other natural resources. The money is collected by the Interior and sent to the Treasury, where it’s then theoretically deposited into individual trust accounts.

The problem is, the Interior and BIA are widely regarded as the worst-run agencies in the entire federal government. 50,000 trust accounts don’t have names or proper addresses. One such account has $1 million in it.

A House Committee on Government Operations in 1992 issued a damning report entitled “Misplaced Trust: The Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Mismanagement of the Indian Trust Fund.” Two years later, Congress passed the Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act, appointing a trustee to oversee the process. This was Paul Homan, who brought with him to the job a reputation for cleaning up problems at financial institutions. Before being appointed the first trustee, Homan had been CEO of four problem banks and the executive vice president of another. No shrinking violet, Homan eventually quit in disgust, claiming he received no cooperation from the Interior or the BIA, or particularly, then Interior Secretary Babbitt of the Clinton administration.

Before he left, Homan reported bluntly that it was impossible to ascertain how many people were owed money. Of the 238,000 individual trusts Homan’s crew located, 118,000 were missing crucial papers, 50,000 had no addresses, and 16,000 accounts had no documents at all. Homan further reported that one could assume money had been skimmed extensively from the trust: “It’s akin to leaving the vault door open.”

Forced to Sue

Faced with the prospect of a wide open vault door the government seemed to have no interest in closing, Cobell was eventually compelled to file a lawsuit on June 10, 1996, demanding a full accounting of all IIT monies. It’s doubtful that anyone at the Interior or BIA expected Cobell and her team to have as much success as they’ve had.

In the intervening seven years, Cobell’s team has piled up an impressive series of victories. On February 22, 1999 Babbitt, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and Asst. Interior Secretary Kevin Gover were held in contempt of court by Judge Lamberth. On August 10, 1999, Lamberth ordered the Treasury to pay $600,000 in fines for misconduct.

And on Dec. 21 of that same year, the judge issued his Trial One opinion (the case is divided into two phases), wherein he found that the government had breached its trust responsibilities to Native Americans and ordered the government to file quarterly reports detailing its reform efforts. Lamberth also retained jurisdiction over the reform for a period of five years.

During the first phase, the Interior seems to have bungled things in every conceivable way. The Senate Government Affairs Committee cited the Interior’s handling of the Indian trust as one of its “Ten Worst” examples of federal government mismanagement. It came to light through a report filed by court-appointed Special Master, Alan Balaran, that Interior and Justice Department lawyers were destroying e-mails at the same time they were assuring the court the emails were being preserved.

The second phase of the trial, to ascertain the amount of money owed to Indian trustees, is now underway. As the suit nears its conclusion, desperation on the part of the government has led them to try every means available to them, ethical or otherwise, to derail or minimize the imminent settlement.

On September 29, 2003, Special Master Balaran filed a site visit report after being ordered to vacate the premises of the Dallas office of the Minerals Management Service. In the report, Balaran cited “chaotic document management, an inability to locate audit files…and the unexplained presence of an industrial shredder.”

The destruction of vital documents has continued and has been cited repeatedly in reports to the court. Numerous experts have testified that a true accounting of the trust based on existing records is impossible. As a result the plaintiffs have submitted an accounting plan employing a satellite mapping technology known as Geographic Information Systems, or GIS, to estimate how much money individual Native Americans should have received from oil leases on their lands. “This methodology is necessary where the trustee has destroyed the records necessary for an accounting of all funds,” explains Gingold.

Using detailed production records from every well drilled in the West, the plaintiffs can determine how many of those wells are on Indian reservations. With this information, the amount of revenue those wells managed through government leases would have produced can be estimated. The mapping technology also includes ways of calculating for timber, grazing and mineral leases on Native American lands in the West.

Divide and Conquer?

Trust reform is taking a heavy toll on the national treasury. The administration has requested $554 million in the 2004 budget to reform the trust fund, an increase of $183.3 million above the $370.2 million that was set aside in 2003. In a recent letter from the Indian Affairs Committee, Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.), urged a speedy settlement and predicted that Congress would intervene soon and negotiate a settlement if the suit was not resolved.

To illustrate how costly the government’s evasions are and why pressure is mounting for a settlement, in a January 2001 interview with Harlan McKosato on the national radio show “Native America Calling,” Cobell noted that “just by not settling the case, it’s costing the government and taxpayers $160,000 an hour, $7 million a day, $2.5 billion a year.”

Support for Cobell’s efforts in the Native American community is far from universal, however, and this may prove the greatest remaining obstacle to a fair and final settlement. Because part of her team’s efforts involve removing trust responsibilities from the BIA and Interior, some worry that this would be to their detriment because it could provide grounds for terminating the government’s trust relationship with tribes that depend on funding.

In March, five tribal chairmen published an article in Indian Country Today, the country’s leading Native American newspaper, alleging that the Cobell suit was employing “scorched-earth” tactics, and that “an attorney for the plaintiffs has publicly stated that the Cobell suit has the potential to destroy tribal governments.”

Alarmist rhetoric aside (the Cobell team flatly denies ever commenting on the suit’s “potential to destroy tribal governments”), the concerns of the chairmen seem to hinge on three main assertions; that the tactics of the Cobell legal team are akin to “warfare;” that the Cobell team has not utilized opportunities for diplomacy and negotiation to the fullest extent; and that in requesting a third-party receiver to resolve the trust’s problems (taking it away from the Interior and BIA) without first consulting tribes, Cobell and Co. demonstrated a disregard for tribal governments.

A reply written a week later by Cobell and John Echohawk, the executive director of the Native American Rights Fund, pointed out that the “consultation, communication and cooperation” urged by the chairmen in their letter are doomed to failure because of the Interior’s manifest, well-documented bad faith. In defending the “warlike” decision to bring the authority of a federal court to bear on the Interior, the letter reasoned, “Our approach is to ensure accountability when people mismanage Indian assets and that can no more be described as ‘scorched earth’ than holding Enron and Arthur Anderson executives accountable for their misdeeds.”

“It is curious that now, when a multi-billion dollar judgment and accountability seems inevitable, officials within the Interior are pushing the notion that there is ‘no end’ and that a congressionally forced ‘settlement’ is the only solution. Tribal leaders and Indian people must not fall for this ploy” the letter closed, “and must see these actions for what they are — an attempt to get Congress to step in at the eleventh hour and bail out the government. …We cannot allow the Interior Department, their proxies, or anyone to ‘divide and conquer us.’ The government is losing and they are desperate. They are banking on being able to make us war against one another.

[But] what’s wrong with the Indians winning for once instead of the cavalry?”

As the suit draws slowly to a close, this unlikely scenario seems closer and closer to being a reality, despite underhanded government efforts to block accountability through the use of a “midnight rider” in a senate appropriations bill. The rider, now before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, would delay the accounting of at least $13 billion in trust funds.

“I’ve heard from friends that the government thinks I’m tired and that they’ll wear me down, so that I’ll just go away,” says Cobell.

Just outside of her hometown is a marker that tells the story of the winter of 1884, when 500 Blackfeet died of starvation and exposure while awaiting government-promised supplies. They were buried in a mass grave now referred to as Ghost Ridge. During the more difficult stages of the lawsuit, Cobell said she visits Ghost Ridge and thinks of her ancestors who perished in the cold almost 120 years ago, while waiting for the government’s good will.

With that lesson from history firmly in mind, it seems unwise for the government to bet on Cobell or her team going away any time soon.

» LIFE AFTER CORPORATE DEATH CARE

by Brian Awehali

It has been a bad few years for the corporate death care or “after-death” industry, and people aren’t dying fast enough or expensively enough to fix the problem. As traditional religious death rituals have given way to more secular alternatives, a consumer revolt against the high cost of dying in America is well underway.

After more than a decade in which corporate death care providers aggressively sought to expand their market share, particularly in communities of color, run funeral homes and crematoriums like stealth franchises, and introduce concepts like “branding” into the death care mix, they’re now clearly on the retreat. Several major providers have filed for bankruptcy, while others have faced serious legal troubles related to their business practices.

The dramatic contrast between the present and the recent past is evident in a March 1998 U.S. News and World Report article. The article reported that the price of funerals in the preceding five years had risen three times faster than the cost of living, that the “Big Three” death care businesses — Service Corporation International (SCI), The Loewen Group and Stewart Enterprises — owned 15 percent of the country’s 23,000 funeral homes, handled one in every five funerals, and enjoyed average profit margins approaching 25 percent. The article reported that the average cost of a funeral in 1998 in the United States was $8,000.

Houston-based industry leader SCI saw its revenues drop from $3.3 billion in 1999 to $2.2 billion in 2002, and lost more than $1 billion during that time period. In 2000, SCI owned 3,382 funeral homes. As of April of this year, that number had dropped to 2,393. The San Antonio Business Journal reports that SCI “faces stiff competition from a growing number of independent funeral homes,” most of which, the article continues, were once owned by SCI. “In the past few years, many of those independents were able to repurchase their autonomy… Now these independents are aggressively bleeding revenues from [SCI].”

Canada-based Loewen Group, which deliberately targeted black-owned funeral homes for acquisitions, bought up more than 340 properties between 1996 and 1998, and reported an operating profit of nearly 58% in 1997. After studying federal census and crime statistics, the Loewen Group apparently concluded that higher mortality rates — coupled with a cultural preference for high-markup burials — made funeral homes in black communities attractive properties. In addition to buying up large numbers of funeral homes in black and Latino communities, The Loewen Group went still further, making a deal with the National Baptist Convention USA — the largest black organization of churches in the U.S. — to appoint two Loewen-trained “funeral counselors” to every congregation. These “counselors” sold graves, tombstones, vaults and other Loewen Group services to congregants for a 10 percent commission.

Loewen declared bankruptcy in May of 1999, but has since restructured and now operates as The Alderwoods Group, albeit on a far smaller scale. The decline of the Loewen Group was precipitated in part by two judgments against the company — one for $150 million and the other for $50 million — for unfair pricing.

SCI and the Loewen Group represent two of the more dramatic examples of the corporate death care industry’s decline, but across the board, corporations attempting to turn a profit on death have seen their incomes and market shares dwindle.

So what happened to an industry once considered recession- and inflation-proof?

What Went Right

The best answer is that the death care industry, long one of the most ethnically diverse and economically stable sectors of the economy, simply proved to be incompatible with corporate values and business practices.

Despite the best efforts of companies like SCI to provide “value to families at their time of need or on a prearrangement basis” while “blazing new trails through corporate innovations and revolutionary services in quality, value and care,” a clear shift is taking place in the way Americans deal with — and pay for — death and grieving.

“Funeral service is very personal and doesn’t lend itself to a standardized cookie-cutter approach,” says Bill Isokait, Director of Advocacy for the National Funeral Director’s Association (NFDA). “Most funeral home owners have been in business for over 60 years as family-owned businesses. They know most of the people in their communities… There are different cultures, ethnicities, different customs, which these owners are more responsive to.”

According to Isokait, the corporate consolidation of the death care industry has stopped. “[Death care] corporations like SCI, Stewart Enterprises and the Loewen Group were anticipating, with the aging of the baby boomers, an increase in the death rate. They saw a market opportunity which didn’t materialize… death rates have been steady over the past ten years, and that consolidation has begun to reverse itself… it’s down now to about 9 or 10 percent.”

“Consolidation has reached a point of saturation,” agrees Ron Hast, publisher of the industry publications Mortuary Management Monthly and Funeral Monitor. “None of [the corporate providers] have brought anything better to the community. In fact, they’re generally known for higher prices and certainly nothing of any higher standard than has been delivered by private ownership. One would think that the economics of scale would bring lower prices, but it has done just the opposite. In order to carry the burden of the price they paid to acquire a business, plus the cost of middle and corporate management, they’ve had a difficult time.”

Simplicity and cremation are the two most significant trends in death care today, according to Hast. “Those two factors have a strong influence on what people choose. In the past, it was taken for granted that there would be a visitation of the body, typically a religious ceremony, and a procession to the grave. This has changed noticeably, particularly in the coastal regions. Many funeral directors now are serving people for simplicity instead of tradition.”

“There are more personalized funeral services,” says Bill Isokait, “with an emphasis on the celebration of the life of the deceased, their interests, their hobbies. The rise in the cremation rate, as opposed to traditional burials, is anywhere as high as 55 or 60 percent out west and 30 percent nationally, creeping up every year.”

When asked about the economic and religious implications of this trend, Isokait says he sees less and less religious and cultural reluctance to cremate. “Many people these days don’t have a religious affiliation at all. You have Catholics who at one time did not approve [of cremation] and that’s changed. It’s an increasingly viable alternative — the scattering of ashes to reflect the life and interests of the deceased.”

Still Dearly Beloved

One interesting aspect of the rise and decline of the corporate death care industry is how people came to entrust the final care and disposition of their loved ones to businesses in the first place. Certainly, it wasn’t always this way.

Jerry Lyons, the founding director of Final Passages, a non-profit program in Sonoma County that educates people about their rights to home funeral arrangements, has some insights on the subject.

“It’s similar to births. We’ve institutionalized many things in this country — we used to do home schooling, home births, and home weddings. Service businesses have grown up in this country and we’ve turned things over to other people to handle. We started taking less time to really celebrate the passages in our lives. We hire people to help us do it all and they’ve kind of gotten bigger — that’s what happened here — weddings got bigger, people fly now from place to place to attend things and made it harder for people to handle all of their own arrangements. Eventually it evolved to where we got more and more help.

“But then at a certain point,” she continues, “greed took over and people being in that emotional state at that time makes them all the more vulnerable to people wanting to make more money off of the situation.”

Lyons is one of three women interviewed in “A Family Undertaking,” an upcoming PBS documentary that profiles several families who made the decision to forego the typical mortuary funeral and instead care for their loved ones at home. She says the stealth practices of corporations are something she talks to people about.

“I do my best to educate people at my workshops and presentations, making them aware that corporations are buying up independent funeral homes all over the place, and that they don’t change the name. Most people aren’t even aware of it. One of the easiest examples to give is the Neptune Society, because most everyone has associated them with low-cost funerals and cremation — they were one of the first crematoriums. People don’t realize that they’ve been bought out by Stewart Enterprises, and are one of the highest cost crematoriums. Their starting cost is around $1500 for direct cremation. When people learn this, they seem completely unaware that there are other services in the area besides Neptune Societies.”

When asked for estimates on low-cost, alternative cremation arrangements, Lyons says they can run as low as $300. (She adds that this is the cost for cremation alone and does not include fees associated with filing paperwork or any additional services.)

Compared to the average cost of a traditional burial in the United States — roughly $6000 in 2001 — it’s not hard to see why the rising popularity of cremation and simple ceremonies honoring the life of the deceased have corporations dying to get out of the business.

ALTERNATE LINK