Kim Kalliber, Author at Tulalip News

Saving the Dance: Hopi/Winnebago Dancer Louis Mofsie Is Striving to Preserve Pow Wow Tradition

Photos by Robert MastrianniLouis Mofsie, second from right, with dancers from the group Thunderbird American Indian Dancers — Photos by Robert Mastrianni
Louis Mofsie, second from right, with dancers from the group Thunderbird American Indian Dancers

Tish Leizens, Indian Country Today Media Network

At the age of 76, Louis Mofsie, Hopi/Winnebago, an accomplished dancer, choreographer, educator and artistic director of the Thunderbird American Indian Dancers, which he founded 50 years ago, is as busy as ever.

Forget about retirement. From January 25 to February 3 he led his Native dance group to perform its Annual Dance Concert and Pow Wow at the Theater for the New City in New York City.

The concert was a theater presentation where the troupe performs dances from the Inuit of Alaska, the Iroquois of New York, the Hopi and Yaqui of the Southwest and the Plains Indians of the Great Plains. Plans are also underway for their annual Queens County Farm Museum Pow Wow at the end of July and their 50th anniversary pow wow at the National Museum of the American Indian in New York on April 20. There are also a number of school workshops and appearances lined up around the metropolitan area throughout the year.

Brooklyn-born Mofise is well loved in his home state. In 1984, he was awarded the New York City Indian of the Year. His leadership was recognized with a New York City Leadership Award by the Law Department and Mayors Office in 1991.

His choreography credits in New York include One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Mercer Arts Center; Operation Sidewinders, Lincoln Center Repertory Company; Three Masked Dances, La Mama ETC.; and The Only Good Indian, Theater for the New City.

At a time when pow wows are evolving to be mega events with huge prize money, Mofsie looks back to the time when it was all about bringing people together and enjoying each other’s company through song and dance. He still believes in the pow wow tradition and has made it part of his mission to preserve Native dances that are no longer performed.

ICTMN caught up with Mofsie before his big concert at the Theater for the New City as he reflected on his 50th year of entertaining and educating the audience about Native culture.

What are your thoughts on the 50th year of the founding of your dance troupe, Thunderbird American Indian Dancers?

Celebrating the 50th anniversary of our dance company is overwhelming. I guess 50 years ago when we first organized our group no one would have thought we would last that many years, least of all me. It’s a credit to all those who have worked so hard over the years to help make it a reality.

Why did you start it? What is your recollection of when you started to form the group?

Before we became the Thunderbird American Indian Dancers we were called the Little Eagles. The Little Eagles were made up of a group of teenagers who grew up in Brooklyn. We had learned a great deal from our parents about their tribal backgrounds including dance and music. I think most of us grew up dancing and singing. So it only seemed natural that we would form a small group to continue our interests. We also branched out to learn the music and dance from other tribes.

Photo by Robert Mastianni

You are an MC, choreographer, dancer . . . what is it you enjoy doing most?

The most enjoyment I get out of what I do is to make contact with the people in the audience and the people I’m working with. I try to make the experience an enjoyable one, as well as an educational one. I find that most people want to learn more about something they thought they knew something about and I think people learn far better when the experience is enjoyable rather than a chore.

Why is educating non-Natives about Native culture important to you?

Educating non-Natives about our culture has been a primary part of the mission statement of our group. Addressing stereotypes and explaining the disrespect they reflect on native people, as well as, other misunderstood cultures is vitally important. We do many school residencies here in the metropolitan area and reaching children at a young age is the best time to influence their perceptions.

What else is in your mission statement?

Part of our mission statement is also to preserve and perpetuate the songs and dances of various tribes. In some instances some of the dances we do are no longer performed. If we can preserve these dances and songs we feel we are helping to keep the culture alive. All of our material is social music and dance. We do not do any dances or songs that have any ceremonial or religious significance.

What do you think is your major accomplishment in life?

I think my major accomplishment in life has been to feel proud of my Native heritage and to able to share what I have learned with both Native and non-Native people. Since I have been a classroom teacher for 35 years my emphasis has been on education. Helping people get a greater understanding of the richness and beauty of the Native people through music and dance.

What was the biggest obstacle in your life?

Like most people the general run of obstacles have affected me—lack of sufficient time and money to do what you would like to do at the time you feel it is most important. Living here in New York also presents it’s own set of problems. I think keeping calm and being patient have been a blessing for me since it seems, given enough time, most problems will solve themselves.

What else do you want to accomplish at this stage in your life?

I would like to stay as healthy as I can and continue to do the work we are doing. Between fulfilling the obligations we have here and traveling—we are on the go most of the year. I’m hopeful there will be someone who will carry on the work we have begun. There are so many people yet to meet and teach about our culture and it is our responsibility to get the work done.

Photo by Robert Mastianni

Looking Back to the Future of VAWA: Suzan Shown Harjo: “Congress, Make the Streets Safe for Indian Women, Too”

Prior to President Obama signing the Tribal Law and Order Act into law in 2010, Lisa Marie Iyotte delivered an emotional introduction, describing how she had been raped and assaulted on the Rosebud Reservation while her two small children hid. When she broke down, Obama stepped over to comfort her. Now, Obama can move to Stop the Violence Against Women by signing the VAWA reauthorization into law.

Indian Country Today Media Network Staff

In one of her columns for Indian Country Today, Suzan Shown Harjo wrote: “Only the reinstatement of tribal jurisdiction and remedies has a chance of reversing the epidemic levels of violence against Native women.” That commentary was published April 29, 2005.

Today, after years of struggle, tribal advocates are celebrating Congress passing the VAWA reauthorization, with tribal provisions. The act is now heading to President Obama for his signature.

Harjo, Cheyenne and & Hodulgee Muscogee, is an award-winning columnist and a poet, writer, curator and policy advocate, who has helped Native Peoples to protect sacred places and recover more than one million acres of land, is president of the Morning Star Institute in Washington, D.C. She’s also still regularly contributing to this publication.

The spotlight on the VAWA reauthorization, with tribal provisions, was magnified by Harjo’s 2005 ICT column, and it roused both regional and national mainstream media from their collective slumber concerning this crucial matter. There is something to the old saying “the pen is mightier than the sword.”

In light of the recent action on VAWA, and the impending action by Obama, it seems like an ideal time to revisit Harjo’s column, titled “Congress Make the Streets Safe for Indian Women, too.” Here is that work, in full.

Congress, Make the Streets Safe for Indian Women, Too, April 29, 2005

The streets of Indian country aren’t safe for American Indian and Alaska Native women.

Nearly 90 percent of the perpetrators of violent crimes against Native women are non-Indians—60 percent are white men—and Native nations can’t touch them.

Congress created this haven for non-Indian criminals on reservations and it’s up to Congress to fix it. The 109th Congress has a chance to do that very thing this year, when it considers reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.

VAWA 2005 is being drafted now to address the deplorable situation of women in American, where physical abuse is a feature of one-quarter of all marriages and where one-third of women who are treated in emergency rooms are victims of domestic violence.

While Native women also sustain injuries in abusive relationships, most of the men who assault Native women are strangers or acquaintances (80 percent), rather than intimate partners or family members (20 percent), according to a U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics report, American Indians and Crime (1992-2002), issued in December 2004.

This statistical profile and a raft of other studies, including the 2000 National Violence Against Women Survey, report that:

● American Indian and Alaska Native women are more than twice as likely to be victims of violent crime than other women in America.

● American Indian and Alaska Native women suffer sexual assaults at a rate of more than three times that of women of other races.

● more than one in three American Indian and Alaska Native women will be raped during her lifetime.

● the rate of violent crime experienced by American Indian women is nearly 50 percent higher than that reported by black males, the second highest gender/race category victimized by violent crime.

Most violent crimes are committed intra-racially, as with white-on-white crime. This is not the pattern in Indian country, where 88 percent of the perpetrators of violent crime against Indians are non-Indians.

Why can’t Indian governments punish these violent non-Indians and why should Congress step in? It’s a long, complex history, but the short answer is that the federal government made this jurisdictional mess and should take every opportunity to clean it up.

Over a century ago in the name of “Indian civilization,” the federal government criminalized tribal traditions and took control of the reservations. When the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government did not have jurisdiction over Indian murders of Indians, Congress enacted the Major Crimes Act, authorizing federal jurisdiction over murder and other serious offenses involving Indian people.

Congress expanded federal jurisdiction, effectively restricting tribal authorities, under the Assimilative Crimes Act and myriad gaming, environmental, repatriation, arts and other laws.

Tribal jurisdiction and remedies were limited under the federal tribal termination policy. Starting in the 1940s, Congress gave selected states certain criminal and civil authorities over Indian offenses. In the 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act, Congress restricted the sentencing authority of tribal courts to one-year imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. The Supreme Court ruled in 1978 that Indian tribes cannot prosecute non-Indians in criminal matters.

That brings us to the present situation where Native nations cannot punish non-Indians who harm Indian women in Indian territory, or can only give them a slap on the wrist.

There are many reasons that the federal and state governments aren’t doing a better job at bringing these bad men to justice. Basically, it comes down to geography and connectedness. The federal and state agents don’t live where the crimes are being committed and the victims aren’t their neighbors.

Only the reinstatement of tribal jurisdiction and remedies has a chance of reversing the epidemic levels of violence against Native women.

In VAWA 2005, Congress can address the jurisdictional void that prevents Indian tribes from prosecuting non-Indians perpetrating these crimes.

VAWA was signed into law in 1994 and reauthorized in 2000. VAWA 2000 mandates that protection orders from one tribe or state be afforded full faith and credit in outside jurisdictions. It also clarifies that Indian tribes have full civil jurisdiction to enforce protection orders, including authority to enforce any orders through civil contempt proceedings, exclusion of violators from Indian lands and other “appropriate mechanisms.”

Some states do not comply with the federal mandate and exhibit hostility toward affording full faith and credit to protection orders issued by tribal courts. Alaska’s executive branch has challenged a state judge’s decision allowing enforcement of a banishment order issued by the Native Village of Perryville. The Minnesota Supreme Court in 2003 rejected a proposed statewide court rule for the consistent enforcement of all tribal court orders.

Advocates are working with legislators and staffers on the reauthorization of VAWA, which is set to expire this September. Advocates in Indian country would do well to work (and work fast) with the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the Judiciary Committees to develop a bill that could stand alone or be folded into VAWA 2005.

A meaningful VAWA provision for Indian country would restore tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians in the area of violent crime against women. Proponents should be prepared for the inevitable discussion about review of tribal court decisions and opt-in/opt-out mechanisms.

At the very least, Congress should provide necessary funding to study full faith and credit implementation problems, in particular with regard to tribal domestic violence protection orders, and should withhold certain federal monies (unrelated to domestic violence prevention and response) from states that refuse to comply with VAWA’s full faith and credit mandate.

VAWA’s effect in Indian country would be strengthened by provisions ensuring tribal law enforcement officers’ access to national databases that track criminal history; a national database of tribal protection orders and tribal adult sex offenders to track serial offenders who travel between different Indian nations; an increase in funding for tribal governments and programs providing infrastructure and services to survivors of rape, stalking and domestic and dating violence; and a Tribal Division within the Office on Violence Against Women to act as the liaison to tribal governments on issues unique to Indian nations and Indian women.

Congress can continue with the same jurisdictional system that devalues Native women and handicaps Native nations, or it can fill the jurisdictional void with something that might just work.

If Congress fails to act, the reservation streets will remain safe for violent non-Indians and the Indian women and their children and grandchildren will suffer. How is that good for anyone but the bad people?

International Experts Gather in New York to Explore Access to Justice for Indigenous Peoples

International indigenous rights experts looks at the significance of the Idle No More movement, as indigenous peoples engage with nation-states, the UN, and international institutions specializing in transitional justice. (ICTJ)

Refik Hodzic, ICTJ Director of Communications

NEW YORK, February 28, 2013 — Leading indigenous rights activists and transitional justice experts from around the world are gathering at Columbia University, in New York, this week to discuss how best to use truth commissions, courtrooms, and other forums to strengthen indigenous peoples’ rights to truth and justice. The discussion is hosted by the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Program at Columbia University, the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the International Center for Transitional Justice.

The goal of the three-day gathering is to collect and share the experiences of indigenous peoples in designing, using, and advocating for truth and justice processes in countries as far apart as Australia, Canada, Colombia, Guatemala, Greenland, Malaysia, New Zealand, Russia, and the United States.

These calls for justice coincide with growing movements by indigenous rights groups, like Idle No More in Canada and the United States, which are drawing global attention.

“Indigenous peoples are among the most affected populations in times of violence,” explains Eduardo González, director of ICTJ’s Truth and Memory program. “Even in places that have not experienced dictatorship or internal conflict, indigenous peoples are affected by systemic, structural violations.”

Against this backdrop of both abuse and silence, some first nations and governments are charting new ground on ways to uncover the truth about the past, redress abuses suffered by indigenous peoples, and begin to heal as part of official truth-seeking policies.

“Around the world, great hopes are pinned on transitional justice measures,” said Pablo de Greiff, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence. “In practice, we are still trying to see how transitional justice measures actually work holistically.”

In North America, two recently established institutions stand out: the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC), and the Maine Wabanaki-state Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Both institutions examine violations committed by the state against indigenous peoples, and both were established by indigenous peoples themselves in coordination with government. This is an entirely new phenomenon.

Chief Wilton Littlechild, who helped open the expert seminar on Wednesday morning, is one of three commissioners of the Canada TRC and chair of the UN’s Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

He is also a survivor of Canada’s Indian residential schools, where, for more than 150 years, Aboriginal children were often forbidden to speak their own languages or practice their own faiths, in an attempt to assimilate them into mainstream Canadian society. Many children were separated from their families and communities and sometimes forcibly removed from their homes.

“Justice necessarily involves considering the role of truth and reconciliation,” said Chief Littlechild, “the right to truth for victims and the right to truth for states.”

Each country’s unique historical and social circumstances will shape how groups and government can work together to address and redress historic injustices against native populations.

In Guatemala, the Historical Clarification Commission completed its work in 1999, finding that over 200,000 people had been killed in Guatemala’s civil war from 1960 to 1996. Approximately 83% of victims were Mayan.

Through its investigations, the commission laid the groundwork for today’s landmark case against former Guatemalan General Efraín Ríos Montt, who will now stand trial on charges of genocide.

Alvaro Pop, one of the international attendees and a Mayan activist who assisted with preparations of the Guatemalan Peace Accords, knows how hard it can be for indigenous peoples to raise their concerns. Although Mayans represent nearly 50 percent of Guatemalans and are a stronghold of the economy, they still live “like strangers in their own land,” remarked Pop.

As the UN reports, “The free expression of Mayan religion, language and other factors continues to be hampered by a shortage of resources and a lack of political will to enforce laws.”

Looking ahead, fundamental questions will need to be answered, including how truth commissions can address violations against indigenous peoples when they are still ongoing. While the expert seminar ends on March 1, discussions will continue, resulting in an unprecedented report to the UN Human Rights Council exploring these issues.

“Because indigenous peoples have experienced violence in several areas of the world, under conflict, dictatorship, or as a result of structural injustice,” said ICTJ Vice President Paul Seils, “we anticipate that there will be a need to adapt the instruments of transitional justice to these situations.”

About ICTJ

The International Center for Transitional Justice works to redress and prevent the most severe violations of human rights by confronting legacies of mass abuse. ICTJ seeks holistic solutions to promote accountability and create just and peaceful societies. For more information, visit www.ictj.org

Senator Murray’s Statement on VAWA Victory

500+ days after VAWA authorization expired, Senator Murray helps push House Leadership to finally pass the Senate’s bipartisan, inclusive bill

Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray released the following statement after House Republican leadership finally allowed the Senate’s bipartisan, inclusive Violence Against Women Act to be voted on in the House. The bill, which Murray cosponsored, passed by a vote of 286-138. Passage comes over 500 days after the bill’s authorization expired in late 2011. Since that time Murray has helped lead efforts in Congress to reauthorize an inclusive bill that expands VAWA’s protections to cover more women in at-risk communities.

“This is a long delayed, hard won, and badly needed victory for millions of women, especially those who were told that they weren’t worthy of VAWA’s protections. It means that finally, after over 16 months of struggle, tribal women, the LGBT community, immigrants, and women on college campuses will have the tools and resources this life-saving bill provides.

“There is absolutely no reason that it should have taken this long for the House leadership to come around on a bill that had overwhelming bipartisan support. But passage today is a validation of what we’ve been saying since this bill expired in 2011 – VAWA has never been, and should never be, a partisan bill. That is why I applaud moderate Republican voices in the House who stood up to their leadership to demand a vote on the Senate bill.

“Throughout this process – often through tears – countless women had the courage to come forward and tell painful stories about why this bill was so vital to them. By stepping out of the shadows, they reinforced that they were more than statistics, and they forced those who stood in opposition to this bill to face up to the reality that who a person loves, where they live, or their immigration status should never determine whether they are protected from violence.

“I want to especially thank Deborah Parker of the Tulalip Tribe in my home state. Deborah has been by my side time and again in this effort and repeatedly told her deeply personal story of the violence and abuse women face on tribal lands to illustrate a tremendous unmet need. Along with Deborah, I know that advocates across the country are breathing a sigh of relief today knowing that we finally got this done.

“I’m proud to join the President, the Vice President, Senator Leahy, and the coalition of women’s groups, law enforcement, clergy members, educators, and concerned citizens who’ve repeatedly stood strong to make this moment possible. For nearly two decades VAWA has allowed women to escape lives afflicted by violence and abuse. It’s been one of the privileges of my career to stand strong over the past year and a half to ensure that VAWA’s protections are expanded to include more women.”

Health Insurance Program Now Covers More Kids and Teens

Apple Health for Kids offers Native American families a quality, free or low-cost insurance option

More kids and teens in Washington State qualify for health insurance through Apple Health for Kids than ever before. Apple Health for Kids, a free or low-cost health insurance program for kids and teens in Washington State, seeks to provide an affordable health insurance option to families across the state. Today marks the launch of a statewide campaign to enroll uninsured kids and teens in the Apple Health for Kids program.

With Apple Health for Kids, kids and teens under the age of 19 receive quality medical, dental, vision and prescription coverage. In addition to having access to a network of doctors, hospitals and clinics, families will have no copays or deductibles. New federal guidelines mean most families that make up to 300% of the federal poverty level qualify. Premiums range from free to $30 per child, depending upon a family’s household income. No family will pay more than two premiums. For example, a family of four that makes $5,700 per month likely qualifies for $30 per child, per month health insurance premiums.

About one third of the 83,000 uninsured children in Washington live in Pierce, King, Yakima, and Clark counties. While the Apple Health for Kids campaign will include statewide outreach, specifically reaching target audiences in those four counties will be a priority. Special attention will be given to American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic/Latino populations that currently have lower levels of enrollment. Several partners are assisting with outreach efforts, including Community-Minded Enterprises, Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Yakima, Kauffman and Associates, Inc. and Desautel Hege Communications.

“More families than ever are looking for ways to save money, but still provide quality health care to their children, and Apple Health for Kids is the perfect solution,” said Jo Ann Kauffman, MPH, President and CEO of Kauffman and Associates, Inc. “Families, including those who use Indian Health Services, can easily enroll to have access to things like x-rays, immunizations, well-child checks and maternity care.”

The campaign is using an innovative, research-based model to promote easy enrollment and offer one-to-one support for people going through the enrollment process. A new website,myapplehealth.org, has been developed which simplifies the application and links enrollees with representatives who can help them fill out the forms and answer questions they may have. Phone interpreting is available in 240 languages.

Now through June, Apple Health for Kids will be promoted at special enrollment events as well as existing community events like Hoopfest. Employers and childcare providers will also receive information and materials to educate employees and parents about the program. It is important that all families in Washington State know about this quality, free or low-cost health insurance option, so advertising is part of the outreach plan as well.

Families with kids and teens should visit myapplehealth.org or call 1-855-900-3066 to learn more and see if they qualify.

About Apple Health for Kids

Apple Health for Kids (AHFK) was created in 2007 as part of the Cover All Kids law signed by Governor Gregoire in order to expand existing health care programs for children by making it affordable to all families. Since its creation, the program has made innovative changes to application and renewal processes to offer families a single, streamlined enrollment process and comprehensive benefits to all eligible applicants. AHFK has also undergone changes to expand eligibility to more of Washington State’s 83,000 uninsured children, now covering families making up to 300% of the federal poverty limit, regardless of immigration status.

House Passes Violence Against Women Act

NCAI Praises Passage of Protections for All Women; Tribal Courts Gain Jurisdiction over Non-Indian Domestic Violence Perpetrators

Bill represents major advance for public safety in Indian Country; Legislation headed to President for Signature

By Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Washington, DC – Today, in a historic vote the House of Representatives passed S.47, the Senate reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), sending the legislation with the tribal provisions supported by the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) to President Obama’s desk to be signed into law. NCAI is praising the efforts of the House and the Senate to reauthorize VAWA and the bipartisan support of the Senate version of the legislation in both chambers with resounding votes of 286 – 138 in the House and 78-22 vote in the Senate earlier this month.

“It is with a glad heart and soaring spirit that I celebrate the passage of VAWA. Today the drum of justice beats loud in Indian Country in celebration of the reauthorization of VAWA and we stand in unity with all of our partners and leaders who were unrelenting in support of protections for all women, including Native women,” said Juana Majel Dixon, First Vice President of NCAI, and co-chair of NCAI’s Task Force on Violence Against Women. Juana Majel serves as a Traditional Councilwoman Pauma Band of Mission Indians located within the state of California. “500 plus days is too long to not have a bill for all women in America. For an unimaginable length of time those who have terrorized our women in our most sacred places, in our relationships, in our homes, and on our land, have gone unprosecuted. Now that time has come to an end and justice and security will flourish in these specific instances. We celebrate the protections for all women included in VAWA, including those for Immigrant and LGBT women,” added Juana Majel.

“With this authority, comes a serious responsibility and tribal courts will administer justice with the same level of impartiality that any defendant is afforded in state and federal courts,” said Jefferson Keel, the President of NCAI and Lt. Governor of the Chickasaw Nation, speaking about implementation of the new law. “We have strong tribal courts systems that protect public safety. The law respects tribal sovereignty, and also requires that our courts respect the due process rights of all defendants. My hope is that this new law is rarely used. Our goal isn’t to put people in jail. It is to create an effective deterrent so that our people can lead safe lives in our communities and nations.”

The constitutionally sound tribal jurisdiction provisions in VAWA authorize tribal governments to prosecute non-Indian defendants involved in intimate relationships with Native women and who assault these victims on tribal land. Current federal laws do not authorize tribal law enforcement or tribal courts to pursue any form of prosecution or justice against these perpetrators.

“There were at least five things that came together: an enormous grassroots effort from Indian country; the coalition of the National Task Force to End Domestic Violence; statistics so we could finally show the problem; steadfast leadership from the Department of Justice; and incredible support from so many Members of Congress both Republicans and Democrats,” said Terri Henry, Council Member at Eastern Cherokee and Co-Chair of the NCAI Task Force on Violence Against Women spoke of the large collective effort that led to the passage of the Senate version of VAWA. “We really want to thank everyone for their hard work. Now we are going to use this tool to protect Native women from violence.”

“Women and men – Native and non-Native, Senators and Representatives from all backgrounds, and tribal leaders from across Indian Country have all spoken that these injustices must not continue. We intend to keep speaking from our heart and with the law by our side,” added NCAI’s First Vice President Juana Majel Dixon. “We are thankful that there are strong leaders in both the House and Senate that have stood for the protections of Native women, regardless of party politics.”

“Today marks not the end of our efforts at NCAI to combat domestic violence issues that Indian Country faces but an important step along the way. We will remain as dedicated as we have been since we began addressing this issue as an organization. There have been many members of Congress who have stood with tribal nations throughout this effort and they have stayed true to the constitution, to the trust responsibility, and to the truth that tribal nations are the best to address our situations at the local level. Today we advance the protections tribal nations can provide all people, Native and non-Native,” said Jacqueline Pata, Executive Director of NCAI.

Findings show that 34% of American Indian and Alaska Native women will be raped in their lifetimes* and 39% of American Indian and Alaska Native women will be subjected to violence by an intimate partner in their lifetimes**. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 46% of people living on reservations in 2010 were non-Natives (single race) and 59% of American Indian women in 2010 were married to non-Native men***.

The NCAI Task Force on Violence Against Women was established in 2000 and has been working for thirteen years to protect the lives of Native American women and create more secure tribal communities

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey.

** Centers for Disease Control. (2008). Adverse health conditions and health risk behaviors associated with intimate partner violence.

***US Census Bureau, Census 2010.

About The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI):

Founded in 1944, the National Congress of American Indians is the oldest, largest and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization in the country. NCAI advocates on behalf of tribal governments and communities, promoting strong tribal-federal government-to-government policies, and promoting a better understanding among the general public regarding American Indian and Alaska Native governments, people and rights. For more information visit www.ncai.org

Paul Allen gives $7.5 million to young scientists with big ideas

Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen awarded $7.5 million to early-career scientists engaged in cutting-edge research at the cellular level. The grants are aimed at research projects that are too risky to get funding elsewhere.

By Sandi Doughton, Seattle Times

Suckjoon Jun was talking with students when the phone rang, so he cut off the call. The phone rang again. On the third try, Jun, a molecular biologist at the University of California, San Diego, picked up the receiver and found Paul Allen’s Seattle foundation on the line.

“I was absolutely astonished,” said Jun, who discovered he would be receiving a $1.6 million grant from the billionaire Microsoft co-founder.

When he applied for funding under the Allen Distinguished Investigators program, Jun figured he was a longshot. The previous winners were mostly seasoned veterans in biomedical research, and he was just starting his career.

But Allen and his foundation have revamped the initiative this year to focus on young scientists with big ideas. Of the five new research projects announced Thursday that will share in a total of $7.5 million, not one is led by tenured professors.

The goal is to provide a career boost for scientists with the potential to make major discoveries, Allen said in a statement.

“I’ve always been drawn to the big open questions of science,” he said. “But the pioneering scientists working to answer them can’t promise quick discoveries and often find it difficult to get funding from traditional sources.”

In addition to Jun, the grant winners are from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, UC-San Francisco, Stanford and Yale.

Jun will use his grant to study the way cells sense their own size and decide when to divide. “It sounds pretty simple, but we have no clue,” he said.

The research is still at a basic stage, but eventually may help explain the runaway cell replication that leads to cancer, Jun added.

Allen launched his distinguished-investigator program in 2010, the same year he pledged to give away the bulk of his estimated $15 billion fortune.

The program is small compared with Allen’s $500 million investment in the Seattle-based Allen Institute for Brain Science, his biggest philanthropic endeavor. Allen also has helped fund a telescope to search for extraterrestrial life and backed the development of a private spaceship.

The distinguished-investigator grants for 2013 all focus on fundamental explorations of cells and their properties, said Susan Coliton, the foundation’s vice president. “Breakthrough science was the key thing for us.”

Markus Covert, of Stanford University, will get $1.5 million over three years to build on his pioneering computer model that replicates the inner workings of a cell.

The main reason cures for cancer and many other diseases remain so elusive is their complexity, Covert said. “Cancer is not a one-gene problem, it’s hundreds of genes, it’s the environment and all kinds of other factors.”

Working with cells in silica, researchers may be able to tease apart those interactions and design new drugs or even engineer bacteria to do useful things, like produce biofuels.

The Allen grant will allow Covert and his colleagues to expand their model from the simplest bacteria to more complicated cells.

And there’s a good chance it won’t come out the way he envisions.

“What I work on tends to be high-risk, high-reward stuff,” Covert said. So it’s particularly gratifying to be recognized by Allen, whose early computer work fit the same mold.

“Here’s somebody who knows what it’s like to be right at the cutting edge and change the world,” Covert said. “So if he thinks it’s worth a shot, that makes me feel great.”

‘Green’ strategists hired by coal companies to push train proposals

A coal train moves through Seattle en route to Vancouver, B.C. Efforts to bring coal terminals to Washington and Oregon have enlisted some lobbyists and public-relations firms long connected with environmental causes. Photo: Greg Gilbert / The Seattle Times

Several prominent local strategists with “green” reputations are now pushing a set of controversial proposals to make the Pacific Northwest the continent’s biggest coal exporter.

By Brian M. Rosenthal, Seattle Times

As executive director of Washington Conservation Voters, Bruce Gryniewski helped shape the organization into one of the state’s most influential environmental groups.

Five years after leaving for a consulting firm, Gryniewski has resurfaced as a player in one of the biggest environmental battles in the Pacific Northwest in decades.

Only now he’s working for the other side.

“Our firm has a passion for growing the Northwest economy,” said Gryniewski, explaining his work in support of a proposed new coal port in Longview. He added, “I don’t believe in this eco-McCarthyism view that if you work for coal, you can’t do anything good in the world.”

Gryniewski is among a group of local strategists with “green” reputations hired by coal companies to build support for the Longview facility and four other proposed ports in Washington and Oregon that would ship Rocky Mountain coal to Asia.

The proposals — which would bring hundreds of union-wage jobs and, at least temporarily, hundreds of millions of tons of coal to the Pacific Northwest — have cheered job-hungry workers but enraged environmentalists who are now hoping to use the debate to highlight the harmful effects of global warming.

As the proposals begin a yearslong approval process, the strategists are crafting advertisements, handling media relations, lobbying public officials and getting people to come to hearings or write letters to the editor.

Their firms were described in a recent report by the Sightline Institute, a prominent coal opponent. They include several that are well-known in Democratic circles in Seattle and Portland: Nyhus Communications, Edelman, Berk, ECONorthwest and Smith & Stark Strategic Solutions.

The unusual dynamic has caused a few awkward interactions between traditional allies now turned adversaries, some state lawmakers say. Others argue that the situation illustrates a divide between the union and environmental wings of the Democratic Party.

In interviews, representatives from several of the firms argued the new jobs for the region would outweigh negative consequences from the coal, which they said Asian countries would get from somewhere anyway.

“I think it’s an oversimplification to say that if you don’t meet that demand, it will disappear,” said Lauri Hennessey, a vice president at Edelman who has worked at the Environmental Protection Agency. “The more you dig into the whole complicated issue, I feel very, very proud about being involved.”

As for personal relationships, Hennessey said she believes “it’s very possible to disagree with someone and still respect them.”

But some environmental leaders said reconciliation will be difficult this time simply because of the stakes of the fight.

“This isn’t like being on different sides of a primary or something like that,” said Brendon Cechovic, who now serves in Gryniewski’s old role at Washington Conservation Voters. “This is a completely unprecedented proposal in our state’s history. This is a big deal.”

Port proposals

The “unprecedented proposal” is actually five separate proposals of coal-shipping plans. Each involves different companies and is operating on different timelines.

In Washington, Peabody Energy and SSA Marine want to build the Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point near Ferndale to ship 48 million tons each year, and Ambre Energy and Arch Coal are hoping to construct the Millennium Bulk Terminal in Longview to ship 44 million tons.

The other three, all smaller, would be in Oregon.

If all five are built, they would ship nearly 150 million tons of coal to China and other Asian countries — making the Pacific Northwest the largest exporter of the fossil fuel in North America.

There now are only two coal berths on the West Coast: in Alaska and southern British Columbia.

The scramble to increase exports stems from rising demand in Asia and declining American reliance on coal power.

But before construction, each proposal must pass a review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the state Department of Ecology and county governments.

Those agencies haven’t even decided the scope of the reviews.

Supporters hope to limit the reviews to the economic and environmental effects on the immediate areas. Opponents want to include factors such as how mile-long trains hauling the coal westward would affect life in towns along the route and how burning coal affects the Earth — which would offer a platform to call attention to harmful effects of climate change.

Public input is part of the process. So supporters are focused on getting as many people on board as possible.

Public relations

That’s the job of the communications firms.

Gryniewski’s firm, Gallatin Public Affairs, is doing public relations for the Longview project. The firm’s point person is Aaron Toso, a former spokesman for then-Gov. Chris Gregoire.

Hennessey’s firm, Edelman, is the voice behind the Alliance for Northwest Jobs and Exports, a coalition of pro-export unions.

Nyhus is involved with another coalition, Move Forward Washington.

“We’re proud of our environmental commitment — the work we’ve done for a variety of sustainable enterprises, from clean technology to green buildings,” said Roger Nyhus, who served as a spokesman for then-Gov. Gary Locke. “I don’t see that being inconsistent with the work that we’re doing here.”

Smith & Stark has done public relations for the project near Ferndale in Whatcom County. Gary Smith said he is personally involved with several environmental groups but doesn’t often represent them professionally.

And ECONorthwest and Berk, which traditionally analyze projects on behalf of environmental groups and municipal governments, each did an analysis of an export proposal paid for by the coal companies.

Strategic hiring

Opponents, who themselves are well-funded and organized, speculated that the coal companies intentionally hired strategists with green reputations.

“If you’ve fought shoulder to shoulder with someone for years on similar causes, it might make your voice carry more weight,” said state Rep. Jeff Morris, a Mount Vernon Democrat whose district is near Ferndale.

Indeed, Gryniewski’s bio on Gallatin’s website highlights his tenure at Washington Conservation Voters and notes that he brings “practical relationships and public policy knowledge to help business interests navigate the often-challenging political and regulatory environment in the Pacific Northwest.”

The coal companies disputed the opponents’ theory.

In a statement, Millennium CEO Ken Miller said his firm chose Gallatin because it is “a bipartisan firm with a successful track record working with brownfield-redevelopment sites and experience permitting large infrastructure projects.”

Regardless of the reason for the hires, state Rep. Reuven Carlyle said he is “deeply disappointed” in the traditionally green strategists now working for the coal companies.

But then the Seattle Democrat paused and said he doesn’t take it personally.

“It’s just one of those realities when hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake,” he said. “This is the gig, and the game we’re in.”

Wait, That’s GMO, Too?

An Initiative Heading to the Fall Ballot Would Require Labeling Genetically Modified Foods

By Anna Minard, Seattle Stranger

I’m wandering the aisles of Central Co-op, a natural foods market on Capitol Hill, checking its shelves for genetically engineered foods. Once you know what to look for, it turns out those ingredients are everywhere—even here, among the fake meats and packages covered in leafy art, smiling animals, and hand-lettering. They’re in the whole-grain bread, in the veggie burgers, in the peanut-free soy nut butter. You can’t always tell from friendly labels—”100% natural,” “multi-grain,” “fair trade.” But you may be able to tell soon.

Washington State will be voting in November on Initiative 522, which would require food made with genetically engineered ingredients (also known as genetically modified organisms, or GMOs) to be labeled as such at the retail level.

When I set out to research the initiative, I thought I’d end up with a clear and obvious answer about how I felt about it—and what the science says. I was wrong.

I was raised on organic produce, bulk-bin grains, and peanut butter you had to crank by hand; these food-labeling people are my people. But I still wanted to see hard science that backs up the squick factor of vegetables birthed in a petri dish. I wanted studies I could point to, something I could wave around and say, “Here! Here is incontrovertible proof that GMOs are evil! Their curse will last for generations and our grandkids will have four noses, and here, have some organic hummus.” But the smoking gun just isn’t there. Not that the anti-labeling side is all that convincing, either.

Genetically engineered food crops have been around since the 1990s, and they took off rapidly across the United States. Now certain American crops are almost universally GMO: more than 90 percent of soy and sugar beets, and 88 percent of corn, according to the US Department of Agriculture. Modifications are done at the genetic level (mainly by corporations that don’t exactly inspire trust, like Monsanto and Dow Chemical), often to make a crop resistant to a particular pest or herbicide. The FDA regularly approves new GMO plants—and soon, an animal: GMO salmon are on their way.

GMOs aren’t just in the processed food you grab in a stoned midnight run to Safeway. And while a 100 percent organic product can’t contain GMOs, lots of foods we think of as “natural” can and do.

For example, Gardenburger’s package is stamped with a cartoon cow and chicken embracing, and the message “There are no unimportant ingredients. If it’s in here, then it’s got a role to play.” That includes corn- and soy-based ingredients (and remember that nearly all US corn and soy is GMO), and when we e-mailed their parent company, the automated response we got back said that some of their products “do contain biotech ingredients.” In a form letter, the company explained: “It has become increasingly difficult to maintain non-biotech sourcing of the soy proteins.”

Franz Family Bakeries offers a “100% Natural, 100% Whole Grain” loaf of bread, touting its “premium Northwest grown & milled ingredients” and lack of high-fructose corn syrup. We asked Franz about GMOs in their bread, and they “do use cornmeal, soybean oil and canola oil in our products, and most of the corn, soybeans, and sources of canola oil are GMO, so most certainly these ingredients would be genetically modified.”

Even the crazily named I.M. Healthy Chunky SoyNut Butter, which announces on the label that it contains non-GMO soybeans, doesn’t guarantee that other ingredients in the same jar, such as corn-derived maltodextrin, aren’t genetically engineered. And the boxed gluten-free cake mix from Cherrybrook Kitchen contains some ingredients that “are not GMO-free,” the company says.

This isn’t to pick on these companies at all, or the groovy grocers that carry them; it’s just to point out how ubiquitous GMO ingredients are. And if I-522 passes this fall, we’ll be reminded wherever we shop how common they’ve become. Or, on the other hand, the measure could prompt more food producers to eradicate GMOs from their ingredients to avoid the GMO label altogether.

A vast majority of the American public supports labeling foods with GMO ingredients. A 2010 NPR/Thomson Reuters poll found that 93 percent of Americans were on board. Worldwide, more than 60 countries already label foods with GMO ingredients, including members of the European Union, China, Japan, and India.

Still, the opposition to labeling is fierce. In November, Proposition 37, which would’ve mandated labeling of GMO foods, lost on the California ballot after the opposition dumped more than $45 million into a campaign arguing that labeling GMOs would be deceptive, pointless, and expensive. The donor list looked like exactly what you’d expect: Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, BASF Plant Science, Kraft Foods Global, Nestlé USA, ConAgra Foods.

Here in Washington, there’s already opposition to I-522. The Seattle Times came out strongly against it, saying that “there is no reliable evidence crops containing genetically modified organisms… pose any risks.” The Washington Association of Wheat Growers is opposed as well, saying that mandatory labeling of GMO foods “that are indistinguishable from foods produced through traditional methods would mislead consumers by falsely implying differences where none exist.”

When it comes to the science, people on each side promise they can debunk anything the other side claims to prove. Biotech researcher Dr. Martina Newell-McGloughlin gave compelling testimony at an I-522 hearing in Olympia, saying, “There is practically no domesticated plant or animal today that has not been genetically engineered over the last 10,000 years,” since we’ve been selectively breeding, grafting, and even irradiating foods forever. Today’s precise genetic engineering has been found by all major science and health organizations to be “as safe or safer than” conventional methods, she said. Further, she argued, GMO foods are actually “more thoroughly tested than any in the history of food,” subjected to years of research before they make it to market.

But George Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety, who helped draft I-522, says, “We’re essentially taking the science from the industry for safety,” because the FDA doesn’t do its own pre-market testing, instead signing off on testing done by Monsanto and other companies developing the biotech foods. Dr. Michael Hansen testified in favor of I-522 in Olympia; he works for Consumers Union, the public policy arm of Consumer Reports, and he points to his organization’s long-standing position in favor of mandatory pre-market testing as opposed to the current system of “voluntary safety consultations,” as Consumers Union describes it. In place of that, Hansen says, they support labeling so consumers can at least make informed choices.

Another commonly heard argument is that labeling would burden manufacturers and grocery stores. But initiative spokeswoman Trudy Bialic, who works for PCC Natural Markets, which is running the I-522 campaign, says that’s bogus. GMO labeling would be “no different from any of the other things we keep track of already,” she says. “It did not cost us to add country of origin labeling, it did not make food unaffordable when we added nutrition panels, [and] it did not create a lot of extra costs when we started labeling trans fats.”

I-522 is also written differently than Prop 37. It specifies who’s required to do the labeling—the manufacturers—whereas Prop 37 didn’t. And Prop 37 was roundly criticized as being catnip for tort lawyers, who could claim damages from companies that didn’t properly label. In Washington, I-522 doesn’t allow awards for damages, just a reimbursement of attorney’s fees. Kimbrell says it was “deliberately drafted narrowly” to disincentivize costly lawsuits.

In the end, a lot of this comes down to how hard the food-industry opposition is willing to fight I-522. And weirdly, it turns out that buying some of the hippie products at the co-op may still be supporting the GMO industry. In California, big food companies poured money into the anti-labeling campaign, leaving labeling supporters furious. Angry green websites called for boycotts of GMO-free Silk soy milk (owned by Dean Foods), Kashi cereals (owned by Kellogg’s), Odwalla juice (owned by Coca-Cola), and tons more, since all those larger parent companies wrote checks to fight labeling. Here, as of yet, no counter-campaign to I-522 has filed with the state.

Additional reporting by Ben Steiner.

A Place at the Table: This Is What Hunger in America Looks Like

Krishanu Ray, The Seattle Stranger

Perhaps the most fascinating and unsettling thing about hunger in America, the subject of this new documentary from the makers of Food, Inc., is how invisible it has made itself. The social stigma around admitting an inability to provide for your family, about accepting government assistance (if it’s even available), creates a certain silence that muffles the issue. And to an ignorant viewer like myself, the hungry children featured in this film certainly don’t look very hungry. They are well-clothed, live in houses with pets, go to school, and seem like they’re getting by just fine. Some of them are even fat little kids, the kind more likely to be pegged as a bit overfed. But it takes only a bit of digging below the surface for the film to completely realign that perspective.

What the documentary exposes are the systems that perpetuate malnourishment and food insecurity while maintaining the trappings of abundance. The massive grain subsidies (which make nutrient-poor foods so accessible and affordable), the urban and rural “food deserts” that isolate people from fully stocked grocery stores, the limitations of economic safety nets: These are structural reasons why obesity, hunger, and poverty are so intertwined. A Place at the Table is not an incendiary or angry film; it presents a tangible problem that doesn’t lend itself to procrastination and equivocation the way more abstract issues like climate change seem to. Despite emphasizing the forces working to maintain the status quo, the film never makes the issue seem unsolvable or inevitable, as many cause documentaries inadvertently do, and that’s why it may well be an effective call to action.

Showtimes.