By 1948, Mary G. Ross was on the ground floor of what would become the space race. In 1952 Lockheed asked her to be one of 40 engineers in what became known as the Lockheed Skunk Works, a super-secret think tank led by legendary aeronautics engineer Clarence “Kelly” Johnson. It was the start of Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., a major consultant to NASA based in Sunnyvale, Calif.

Ross was 45, the only woman and the only Native American. Most of the theories and papers that emerged from that Lockheed group, including those by Ross, are still classified.

Around the time of the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of Sputnik, Ross moved into the public eye. In 1958 she appeared on the television show “What’s My Line?” It took contestants many guesses before they realized that the smiling woman in a V-necked, sleeveless black dress in fact, as the caption read, “Designs Rocket Missiles and Satellites (Lockheed Aircraft).”

One San Francisco-area newspaper article from 1961 called Ross “possibly the most influential Indian maid since Pocahontas,” and noted that she was “making her mark in outer space.” She told the interviewer, “I think of myself as applying mathematics in a fascinating field.”Comment:  I wonder how often Indians appeared on What’s My Line? It would’ve been interesting to have a tribal chief who didn’t look like a (stereo)typical Indian as the mystery guest.

Sacajawea is undoubtedly the most famous Indian woman, and the most influential in terms of pop culture, since Pocahontas. But that raises the question of who really are the most important and influential indian women in history. Most people would put Pocahontas and Sacajawea on the list, but they actually didn’t do that much. They certainly didn’t do much to help Indians in general.

But if not them, then whom? There must be better candidates than these two, but I’m not sure whom I’d put on the list. Do we go with someone (relatively) obvious such as Wilma Mankiller or Winona LaDuke, or are there better candidates in the historical record?

Below:  ”Mary G. Ross, at 96, joins the 2004 opening procession for the Smithsonian’s new National Museum of the American Indian on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.” She’s accompanied by Suzette Brewer, the author of Sovereign: An Oral History of Indian Gaming. (Photo by Mary McCarthy)

This post is brought to you courtesy of the author and TribalBiz.com.

Finally, the department will set aside $60 million in a Fund for American Indians wishing to pursue post-secondary vocational education or a higher education.

At the Fund, we could not be more thrilled. This means a chance for many more American Indian people to earn a higher education and brings hope for them for a better future.

To read details of the settlement visit Cobell v. Salazar.

This post is brought to you courtesy of the author and TribalBiz.com.

The indian Committee of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends issued a Minute–analogous to a resolution–at its September meeting.

The committee “renounces the Doctrine of Discovery, the doctrine at the foundation of the colonization of Indigenous lands, including the lands of Pennsylvania. We find this doctrine to be fundamentally inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus, with our understanding of the inherent rights that individuals and peoples have received from God, and inconsistent with Quaker testimonies of Peace, Equality, and Integrity,” the Minute reads.

The Doctrine of Discovery was a principle of international law developed in a series of 15th century papal bulls and 16th century charters by European monarchs. It was a racist philosophy that gave white Christian Europeans the green light to go forth and claim the lands and resources of non-Christian peoples and kill or enslave them–if other Christian Europeans had not already done so.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Episcopal Church Repudiates Doctrine of Discovery and Those Evil Europeans.

This post is brought to you courtesy of the author and TribalBiz.com.

The team started using the Redskins name in 1933; and the trademark was first issued in 1967. The native american group filed its lawsuit in 1992.

The Supreme Court’s decision lets stand a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the activists waited too long to challenge the trademark.

This post is brought to you courtesy of the author and TribalBiz.com.

Of the most important information to me are the proposed changes in the Trust Administration processes.  The paternal government policy which simply says we must care for you because you can not care for yourself.  How about a plan to begin moving all of these contracts, agreements, funds, and resources back to their owners.

Now, don’t take this suggestion as a position to abandon tribes with a mountain of paperwork, outstanding notes payable, and unrealistic return of allocations from the Federal Bureaucracy.

Take this comment as an indication that many intelligent and professional NDNs are available to preform all of the necessary duties to administer there accounts.  Likewise, the accounts belong to individuals, maybe each of those individuals want to manage their own account.  They can buy a ShareBuilder, or eTrade account and manage their money, but the federal government says–implicitly and explicitly–by this policy the same individual is incapable of managing their funds.  

Now, I will be the first to say, that a fast dumping of this responsibility by the federal government will BRING the vultures to NDN country trying to pull a fast profit VIA a unfair trade.  These people are everywhere, doing the same to NDN country and all Americans given an opportunity to do so.  Much research about this is done by First Nations Development Institute  Although, this alone does not make the Feds a better keeper of NDN assets.

Just some food for thought about Trust Responsibility.

Speakers at the protest included Faith Gemmill of Arctic Village in Alaska—she works with the group Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands—and Clayton Thomas-Muller of the Canadian-based Indigenous Tar Sands Campaign.

FAITH GEMMILL: We’re here today to send a message to the US government that no longer can their energy policy and their unsustainable development practices threaten the future of indigenous peoples. This is what’s happening in America. All these indigenous communities are under threat by fossil fuel extraction and the fossil fuel issues that affect us, the energy issues.

Alaska is ground zero for US energy policy. Many of our indigenous homelands, our ancestral territories, are under threat, and it threatens the very existence of our communities. We live a subsistence way of life that’s very, very much connected to our homelands. And for us to live that way of life, our homelands have to be intact.

CLAYTON THOMAS-MULLER: You know, today President Obama accepts his Nobel Peace Prize, when we all know that it’s just representing such immense hypocrisy, with calling out 30,000 US troops to continue to go into Afghanistan and oppress peoples in the Middle East.

The administration continues to oppress indigenous peoples and racialize communities in the United States and in Canada through their energy and climate policies. So we’re here in Copenhagen at the United Nations international climate negotiations to call out the US government and their little bully brother, the Darth Vader of Copenhagen, the Canadian government, in their ridiculous and oppressive energy policies and to say we want a just and clean future, a new economic paradigm that doesn’t sacrifice our communities at the altar of irresponsible policies for the economic benefit of the select few who pull the political strings.

Comment:  For more on the subject, see Indigenous People Seek Climate Action and Gwich’in Elder at Klimaforum09.

In a city of transience, the Redskins may be the only continuous group to remain in favor. Unfortunately, as Senators, metro workers, contractors, and accountants all gather in one arena to support a team while Republicans and Democrats come together in the name of football, they think little of the actual team name. As Newsweek notes, even 90% of a particular group of American Indians are not bothered by the team name. This statistic is telling, not because it means the issue is moot, but because DC football fans have become desensitized to what the name means. The lack of respect towards the native peoples is so ingrained in American society that some native peoples may even be desensitized.

There is no dispute that Redskins is a derogatory term. One question is whether a term being derogatory is grounds for changing the team’s name. One argument is that the name has been Redskins for so long that people associate Redskins with football and not the native peoples. This is the status quo argument. Since something has been overlooked until acceptable, it therefore should not be construed as offensive. That is, because a derogatory word is associated often enough with something else that somehow forfeits its offensive nature. Along the lines of this argument is the question of legal standing. Since the team name has been Redskin for many years and the plaintiff did not make a complaint previously, then he may not have sufficient grounds to claim injury. In many ways, this claim misses the mark. As Newsweek mentions, several other cases are prepared with other plaintiffs that would satisfy the requirements. The fact that the six Native Americans did not previously allege injury through a lawsuit does not negate the injury has occured. If the law is written so that remedy to such claim has an expiration date and the case is not heard, the underlying merits do not disappear.

(On a side note: given that courts have a negative precedence for hearing American Indian matters, throwing this case out without solid legal justification could be seen as unequal judicial opportunity and discrimination. The other issue, of course, is because of the negative trend, tribal peoples have to present better cases without leaving room open for dismissal. Hopefully, the backup cases will be nearly flawless.)

The absurd issue that gets missed in the blatherings of the legal world is that the word is derogatory. Look, plain and simple, if a team were named the N word, cracker, or any other racial slur, a court case would probably not have to ensue to change it. No franchise would consider naming a team the N word and then try to claim the name honors African-Americans. The names are offensive and our society, business owners, and sports fans are not being consistent or equal amongst race issues. The mere fact that the Newsweek article and this very blog plaster Redskin throughout shows the lack of our insensitivity to the native peoples (note: replace the italicized Redskin with the N word and the level of offense may be more obvious).

While a bit of thickskin is a good policy to have, this case of the football team goes beyond just a little meanness. The inconsistency amongst how we treat racial slurs, the fact the case even has to go to court, and the fact that most football fans and DC residents are not even aware that the name is offensive are part of the bigger issue of Americans’ general ignorance about the native peoples. Sensitivity towards other races has been drilled into school children and yet the native peoples are fighting a battle that very few sympathize with. The prevalent attitude is “don’t mess with our football.” This case needs to be heard by the Supreme Court and the franchise and people of DC owe the native peoples an apology. The native peoples deserve to be treated with the same respect as every other group of people.

The Supreme Court of the United States has refused to hear a lawsuit on behalf of Native American activists who assert the Washington Redskins‘ football team name is so offensive that it does not deserve trademark protection. The decision lets stand a lower court ruling that under the legal doctrine of “laches”, the plaintiffs waited too long to bring the challenge. The Court issued its ruling without substantive comment.

American trademark law prohibits registration of a name that “may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, . . . or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” The team has been known as the Redskins since 1933. The lawsuit was filed in 1992, when seven activists challenged a Redskins trademark issued in 1967. The plaintiffs won an early victory in the 1970s when the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board said the name could be interpreted as offensive to Native Americans.

The team appealed that ruling, and judges at the federal District and Circuit levels held the activists’ trademark cancellation claim was barred by the doctrine of laches, which serves as a defense against stale legal claims. The activists argued that disparaging trademarks can be challenged at any time, citing a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. The decision was written by then-judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., who now sits on the Supreme Court.

In the wake of this legal setback, Tony Gonzales, Director of the American Indian Movement West in San Francisco, suggests that Presidential action is needed. Citing the many psychological studies and legal briefs that highlight cultural damage arising from derogatory human mascots, he asks “How much more has to come forward before the President takes action?” AIM West is planning a protest on 13 December 2009 at Oakland Coliseum to coincide with the Washington Redskins game against the Oakland Raiders.

Todays sharing is done with regard to the political climate in this country!

In all things political I always look first at what is happening to our People the Original People of this land.

Then I look at the Economic, Societal and Foreign issues in that order.

I would consider it a favor if each one of you were to look at the following websites as a learning tool to determine how you  will decide what is best for this land and all the people in it.

I am not afraid to admit that I am not liberal and not conservative (with the idea of maintaining the current status quo of our governmental policies)! I am in theory a conservative in the view of maintaining our cultural histories and following those lessons as a guide line in the process of changing what is necessary to change but not so radically changed that the end result has lost all of the energy of that which guided the change.

Today we are faced with the extension of the destructive power that has already begun to destabilize us as a nation. High home prices, high  heating prices, high food prices and high gas prices. All spiraling upward out of control.  I consider this a priority over everything else we as a nation have on our table.

Remember this year as predicted by the Mayan Culture – 2012 – It is now 2008 and one can readily see destruction trying to get a foot hold. It will – unless we stop it. That’s the reason for predictions, to give us an opportunity to change.

I don’t usually endorse a Liberal view point in my decision making process but because of what is happening and because of what your are about to see, I do not have a choice but to  support Barack Obama! McCain is not who I want to see in power. He is old school conservative who does not seem to support any Native American agenda and in fact in the past has been very destructive of it.

I never thought I would say this – but in order for this country to survive the Chaos that it is in we need radical change that won’t wait till after the election. NOW IS THE TIME…..

I am not in any way recommending to you who to vote for! That should be your choice alone but I am saying we cannot survive the Status Quo! We need Change now! I just heard someone say that in their home they use Oil heat to the tune of 992 gallons per year. They just got a qoute from their Oil company of $5.00 / Gallon. That’s $4960 per heating season. Who the HELL can afford that outside of high paid politicians?

The time to take back control of our Country is now and we cannot count on our politicians to come to our rescue.

I advocate a 1960′s protest environment that will shake the very walls of the White House.

Please look at these two sites as a small example of why I choose this way.

http://www.cain2008.org/

http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2008/06/08/ap/headlines/d915qsk01.txt

Waatowa Pistoto, Two Feathers – Kainaiwa – Blackfoot Nation

(Britannica.com)

November marks 40 years since Native American activists seized the former federal island penitentiary of Alcatraz and used it to raise the national consciousness on issues facing Native communities.

In November of 1969, Richard Oakes led a landing party named “Indians of All Tribes” onto boats and took up residence on Alcatraz. The prison had been closed six years earlier and was considered surplus property by the federal government. Citing treaty language from the 19th Century that indicated the US government’s intent to set aside such properties for Native peoples, the group occupied the island “to focus attention on broken treaties, broken promises and termination of tribal areas,” says Professor Troy Johnson, chairman of the American Indian studies program at California State University. The U.S. 16 years earlier had begun a policy of terminating Indian reservations and relocating the inhabitants to urban areas.

Adam Fortunate Eagle released a public declaration of the group’s intentions. To the amusement of local Bay Area residents and the chagrin of federal authorities, he recounted European exploitation over the centuries, and stated that the Native group claimed Alcatraz by “right of discovery” and that they would pay for the island with $24 worth of goods – equal to the amount paid by the Dutch to acquire Manhattan Island from Native peoples in 1626.

At the height of the occupation, 400 Native Americans were in residence on Alcatraz, receiving regular news coverage and logistical assistance from many quarters. In 1971, authorities peacefully ended the occupation after 19 months by going in when the group was at its smallest. President Nixon ended the U.S. tribal termination policy in June 1970, while they still were on the island. Fortunate Eagle says the occupation was the most significant event in Native American history since the 1876 Battle of the Little Bighorn: “It brought the Indian issues to the forefront of the public awareness.”