Thursday, March 25, 2010

Pechanga Banishment of Original Temecula People. Blood Ties to Original Pechanga Don't Matter

The Tosobol Family members in this video are related to the Munoa and Vasquez clans. Those families are currently building on TOSOBOL land and the wife of one of them had called the Tribal Rangers to get them off THEIR OWN PROPERTY. Is this what we though self reliance meant? Please view the video often


Anonymous said...

goliath has done this let us keep the fight for justice,all must unite our ancesters are showing the way let us complete the circle

Allen L. Lee said...

“…The condition of landlessness threatens the enjoyment of a number of fundamental human rights. Access to land is important for development and poverty reduction, but also often necessary for access to numerous economic, social and cultural rights, and as a gateway for many civil and political rights. However, there is no right to land codified in international human rights law….”


“…Indigenous rights and women’s rights
Explicit rights to land have been developed in two key areas of international human rights law, the rights of indigenous people and the rights of women. Land access and use is frequently tied to the spiritual, cultural and social identities of peoples. As such, land rights have been more fully developed in the sphere of indigenous rights.
Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, which was adopted by the International Labour Organization in 1989,13 is legally binding on States Parties and the only binding international instrument related to the rights of indigenous peoples. The Convention establishes the right of indigenous peoples in independent countries to “exercise control, to the extent possible, over their own economic, social and cultural development,” in a number of areas.14 The Convention includes a section on land, and requires States Parties to identify lands traditionally occupied by indigenous peoples and guarantee ownership and protection rights.15 In essence, the “measures shall be taken in appropriate cases to safeguard the right of the peoples concerned to use lands not exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional activities.”16 The Convention also requires the provision of legal procedures to resolve land claims,17 establishes rights over natural resources,18 protects against forced removal,19 and establishes a right of return and compensation for lost land through either land (of at least equal quality and quantity) or money.20
In 2007, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states that “indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.”21 The Declaration, while not binding, states that indigenous people have a right to own and develop resources on their land, a right to legal recognition of indigenous lands by states, and a “right to redress . . . for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged.”22 Both the Convention and the Declaration emphasize participatory dialogue and the need for free, prior, and informed consent with respect to decision-making about lands occupied by indigenous peoples,23 especially where the relocation of peoples from land is under consideration.24 …”

White Buffalo said...

Mr. Lee are the codicils you mentioned applicable to a concurred people, who have been granted citizenship? I do understand that the government has a fiduciary obligation to the recognized tribes, but is it not true that it was the goal to assimilate in the 40-50s. What appears to be happening is the legislators of policy are using inactivity to resolve and further the subjugation of the Indian culture. Last, what is most troubling is that although well intended there is still no remedy with in this declaration because of lack of enforcement, but then that is a completely new can of worms is it not?

Allen L. Lee said...

Hello White Buffalo,
I will use some interpretive tools to answer your first question since a few of the terms seem foggy to me. Feel free to explain further if you wish.
My first answer regarding people who have been granted citizenship is "I believe, Yes"
I'm not quite sure whether you are referring to Convention and Declaration agreements or past amendments/ and whether you are referring to dual citizenship between tribe and U.S. citizen, or a people who have a proven joined political history and culture. i.e., tribal?
Answer to second question regarding termination in the 40's and 50's is again "Yes"
I agree with the statement that legislator inaction is deliberate and contributing to further terminate Indian sovereignty in a singular rather than collective manner and finaslly that there is no international laws to enforce the Declaration.
However, the fact that there is no international law binding states to said declaration, does not mean that there is no international agreement. Non-binding would mean to me that in lieu of states facing international sanctions for binding treaties, they have agreed to use their "state" laws at their discretion and rates of action to embrace and enforce the principles of the agreement, the agreement still exists. This is where U.S. polticians who have said, "it is none of the U.S.'s business" with regards to Indian tribes under federal jurisdiction have dropped the ball.
I think the most damning Human Rights statement with regards to both loss of tribal citizenship recognition and tribal citizen land rights from certain tribes is the one which says: "We have the sovereign right to do it and the dis-enrolled so go on and continue their lives as Americans."
That to me is a clear intent to terminate a persons indigenous right of self-determination.

White Buffalo said...

Thank Mr. Lee it seems that we are on the same page. The reason I mention tribal an US citizenship is that at one time those on the reservation had to have a card just to get off the rez so that they could go to town to shop in interact with others. Now it is common practice, for tribes with casinos in CA, to have visitors pass through a checkpoint just to go to the clinic or family members. More and more it appears that some of our tribes are acting like exclusive clubs who choose membership in an arbitrary manor. To me this behavior is cowardly. I know that this is not endemic of all Indian peoples and tribes yet the trend is there never the less.

Allen L. Lee said...

The "checkpoint" issue would probabaly fall under a federal "commerce clause" discussion. It is that clause which defines how quasi-sovereigns under federal control, which tribes and states are, may move and trade among each other.