Friday, May 7, 2010

BOYCOTT OVER CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS! Arizona? NO, Tribal Casinos of Tribes that ACTUALLY HAVE VIOLATED the Civil Rights of Their People


There has been so much in the news of a California politician-led boycott of Arizona that we must bring it to their attention that the real civil rights violations have already happened here in CA and in other gaming tribes out of state. The much maligned Arizona law is not even in effect and it has been fixed so that the potential for civil rights violations of illegal immigrants is greatly reduced.

A boycott is a form of consumer activism involving the act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for political reasons
California Indian Tribes like: Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (Temecula), Redding Rancheria (Redding) Picayune Rancheria (Coarsegold, near Fresno) and the Snoqualmie Tribe in Washington state are just a few of the tribes that do not deserve your patronage.

Here is what the gaming tribes mentioned, as well as others told within this blog or at have done to members of their tribes:

•Stripped tribal members of their citizenship
•Denied voting rights to members
•Taken away rightful healthcare to seniors
•Blocked access to land on the reservation
•Denied members due process of law, including legal representation, even writing tools.
•Prohibition of practicing religion, including the right to pray at their ancestor's graves.
•Threatened others if they speak out
•Subjected some to ex post facto laws.

Many will say that "well, they are sovereign nations, they can do what they want". Of course they are, and Arizona is a sovereign state that passed its laws through the democratic process too. Remember, South Africa was a sovereign nation too, they had the right to pronounce Apartheid as a policy. But in the tribe's case, many or most have acted OUTSIDE their own constitutions. Just as the boycott of South Africa worked to eliminate apartheid, so can boycotts work to show these casino tribes that "violations of civil rights don't pay".

Important in a boycott is to let the tribes know you will no longer patronized their business, until they do the right thing and restore rightful membership to those they took it from and to halt all moratoriums. They only understand the loss of income and you should make it clear that you would come if they we no longer in violation, but until then, you won't. There are many things to do, including : Telling your friends and family to join you, No anniversary dinners, No Class reunions at the offending locations. Quite a few letters saying you "went to Vegas instead' would have an effect.

Many have said, "why should we care? It's just a small tribe". These money making tribes are using money stolen from tribal members to influence politicians. And tribes like Pechanga tried to keep Californians from exercising their RIGHT TO VOTE on their expanded gaming propositions, with the Feds help. And to put it in perspective, the sovereign nation of the Picayune Rancheria eliminated almost 50% of the tribe. That's equal to eliminating 16 MILLION in California's population. Pechanga eliminated the equivalent of 8 million citizens in order to increase per capita payments and to control votes.

They deserve your scorn, they don't deserve your patronage and a boycott might just open their eyes, especially if you keep their wallets from fattening.

BOYCOTT: Pechanga, Picayune Rancheria, Redding Rancheria, Snoqualmie, Table Mountain Rancheria, San Pascual Reservation, Cherokee Nations Casino, Mooretown Rancheria, Guidiville Rancheria, Oneida Nation, Robinson Rancheria, Enterprise Rancheria


Anonymous said...

I've quit going to both Table Mountain and Chukchansi gold. What they've done to their own people is shameful.

OPechanga said...

Hey, I hope people not only quit gaming at the offending casinos but also quit going to their nightclubs or restaurants too.

It's important to TELL them WHY you aren't coming anymore.

joe liska said...

please attend my banishment hearing monday may 10th courtroom one 880 front st 1030am san diego federal courthouse,,,,,possible 10 news and channel 8 news will be there to cover story,,,,,

Anonymous said...

Please consider, Dear Reader, that the disenrollees as non-members have no standing as tribal members. These non-members lost their standing for their failure to support their claim to tribal enrollment. One set of disenrollees effectively disenrolled itself by declaring its descent from an individual, Pablo Apis, who never had a connection to or an association with Pechanga. After all, he died circa 1852, three decades before the establishment of the Pechanga Indian Reservation. Another set of disenrollees, the Hunter clan, descends from an individual, Paulina Walla Hunter, who has no birth record. Her parents have no documented Indian ancestry. The Bureau of Indian Affairs never tracked PWH as an Indian. These non-members should never have been enrolled in the first place. Their removal corrected an error in the tribal roll. Please also know, Dear Reader, that the removal of these non-members took place in accord with a written disenrollment procedure containing a simple due process. This procedure allowed plenty of time and opportunity for the non-members to submit facts and information validating their membership claim. They failed to do so. In turn, under its delegated authority, the enrollment committee terminated the enrollment of these non-members. Yet, the non-members have never accepted their fate, and continue to present their plight as a cosmic injustice. The non-members shut their mind to the controlling doctrine that tribes determine their own membership in their own forum. Finally, please understand, Dear Reader, that the non-members never had their civil rights or their human rights violated in any way during the procedure removing them from the tribal roll. One must assume the false assertion otherwise means to mislead the public and to cover up the factual basis for removing these non-members.

The Truth said...

Dear readers:

The facts this above poster refers to were submitted to the Pechanga enrollment committee by a faction of Pechanga for starting the disenrollment process against these two families. What the poster forgets is these facts were successfully disputed and these two families were disenrolled under false cause and these issues he/she brings up were not part of the disenrollments record of decision. The Miranda family was said to have been disenrolled because their commen ancestor Manuela Miranda supposedly left the reservation after the Allotment era. However her sister has several family lines who are still enrolled.

The Hunters record of decision said that Paulina Hunters grandson listed her as being from the San Luis Rey tribe on his 1928 application. This some how allows the family line to be disenrolled as not being the original subset of Temecula indians that moved to Pechanga. The Temecula Band of Mission Indians or Pechanga all have similar backgrounds. The Pechanga enrollment committee hired an anthropologist to study Paulina Hunter and he found the man most likely to be her father was born at Pechanga and is the only Indian listed in the San Luis Rey Mission padrones as being from there.

An independent audit of these two actions will always reveal the real truth. It's unfortunate that it will possibly come to this. The real Pechanga people have been lied to by the CPP people, and the lies will be brought out for everyone to see. Congress has plenary power and some judges have ruled they believe there is violations of rights but not sure how to interpret the 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act. Some representatives of congress have initiated the process for hearings. Pechanga leadership could do the right thing at any time, but most likely will jeopardize all tribal sovereignty over this issue.

Outlander said...

How can any of you be Pechanga? I've studied CA Indian history for years and all I ever saw was Mission Indians. What is a Pechanga, what is a Pala, what is a Redding Rancheria? What is a Temecula? On it goes. CA Indians were made up from families.. period. There are few (if any) true blood Indians in CA. Their recognition come from the area they were removed (or killed) from.
The Spanish came in and colonized those that could be caught and named them for the Missions they were forced to serve, they called them neophites.. the outlaws were the Indians that could not be caught. What about the blood relations? Well, that was a mute subject. As far as the Missions was concerned.

The Hunters are legitmate, the Foremans are legitimate, but time marchs on and pretty soon the real truth will become the great lie, as that is how history works.

So very sad, the legitimate peoples are being kicked out by the imposters or better known as the johnny come lately's. The book smart fellows, not the real people. The book smarts destroy their real heritage, but boy do they enjoy the money! Pitaful, I say. Judas sold his Savior for 30 pieces of silver, so guess history tells us that history does not teach us very much! Greed lives today.


Anonymous said...

Outlander sees it right. A few people who know the History of the California Indians know how it works. Families formed tribes or triblets and tried to preserve the culture and traditions. It is the current greed that will destroy it, not preserve it. All california Indians today, are Mission Indians who survived termination. Pechanga is a place not a tribe. The Pechanga people are all from the Lusieno Missions, period!

Anonymous said...

no the moratorium people are johny come latelys,,and their children given up for adoption are not coming home children they are just bastards from the bastard nation,,,,


Allen L. Lee said...

"Dear Reader" Anonymous said:
"... One set of disenrollees effectively disenrolled itself by declaring its descent from an individual, Pablo Apis, who never had a connection to or an association with Pechanga. After all, he died circa 1852, three decades before the establishment of the Pechanga Indian Reservation. "

Never had a connection or association?

"...Even though the Anglos and Californios acknowledged Pablo Apis as the leader of the Luiseño Indians, he did not sign the Treaty of Temecula. This is notable since the treaty was signed at his house. Manuelito Cota, who was appointed Capitan General of the Luiseño in September, 1853, also did not sign the treaty. However, the actual capitans or headmen of the villages signed it, among whom was Pablino 'Coo-hac-ish' of Pala. Both Pablito and Pablino are diminutive terms for Pablo, and Apis has been written elsewhere as Hapish so this appears to be Pablito Apis, step-son of Pablo Apis, who lived at Pala. The 1850 U.S. Census includes Pablito Apis, listing him as Pablo Apis, and showing him as literate38. The signer for Temecula was Lauriano "Cah-par-ah-pish" and again the family name Apis is seen within the Indian name. Lauriano was Capitan of Temecula for many years, since he is found in the 1860 Census39 as 'Lorian, Capt. Tribe' and in Schedule 4 (Productions of Agriculture) of that census, he is listed as Loriano with produce and number of livestock of the village for the year..."

Anonymous said...

Mr. Lee thanks you for sharing.

As mentioned before, there are several families who share the Apish lineage as recorded in the 1979 enrollment handbook of Pechanga. Many remain enrolled.

The Manuela desendants were targeted, and removed unfairly.

Luiseno said...

Apparently its not "ONLY the Tribe that knows it own history" . And it seems even several of our visiting current members seem to be somewhat ignorant of there own history also.

Anonymous said...

Lauriano is who my great grandmother signed on her 28 application as being head chief.


Anonymous said...

I'm confussed by one thing in the above post by Allen; he states that Pablito Apis was the headman of the Luisenos and that he was the step son of Pablo Apis. Not to questions the connection because my lineage includes coming from Manuela Miranda, but if he's the step son then there would be no blood connection, so how would that prove Pablo's connection.

The other thing to mention is that other families who are still members are the decendants of Pablo Apis.

Anonymous said...

Bravo !!!

'aamokat said...

What do the Picos, Magees, Lukers, Barrientos, the Mirandas still in the tribe, and some other families as well have in common?

They are all descendants of Pablo Apis (Apish) and they are still in the tribe.

Pablo used to be noted on, the tribe's official Web site, as Headman of the Temeculas and as an asset to his tribal community because he was a literate man.

That referrence to his contributions to his tribe was removed from the Web site prior to the disenrollment of the Manuela Miranda family, by the way supposedly because she left the tribe after her mother died when she was a young girl, not because she was a descendant of Pablo.

I believe the CPP faction's plans were to go after the rest of Pablo's descendants so that is why our critics who come here try to discredit Pablo's contributions to the tribe.

Side note: in the Hunter family disenrollment Record of Decision, who were disenrolled after the M. Mirandas were disenrolled, Pablo Apish is acknowledged as being the Headman of the Temeculas.

'aamokat said...

"The signer for Temecula was Lauriano "Cah-par-ah-pish" and again the family name Apis is seen within the Indian name."

While I am not sure what this name means in the Luiseno dialect, I do know the language has a lot of prefixes and subfixes added on to root words that are used for pronoun and other grammar uses.

So just because Apish is part of the name doesn't mean it has anything to do with them being the same person or even from the same family.

Lauriano and Pablo were two different people.

White Buffalo said...

The web-site was changed 6 months after our disenrollment. People don't forget that the casino is built on his prop[erty

Allen L. Lee said...

Family and kinship ties that make up clans and tribes don't have to reflect a biological, genetic link.
Families are recognized associations that often don't have, nor were they required to have a "By blood" link. If the person was a "Step son of Pablo Apis, that person would still have a family connection.
The history establishes that Lariano and Pablo were two different people. One signed the treaty, the other did not

Anonymous said...

You have not studied California history enough; nor are you familiar with U.S. policies and the inception of reservations. You continue to make illogical statements to suit your purposes.