A CLASS DISCUSSION

Editor’s note: The following letters were written by seventh-grade students at the Oracle Charter School on Delaware Avenue, in the social studies class of Courtney Ingham.

I disagree with Mr. Jackson in his article, “Greed” (Artvoice v5n24), because the Native Americans do have a right to that land because of the treaties that our government made with them. But I don’t like the fact that dust and rubble are getting into the air. Kids play around the H-O Grain building all the time and if they get sick their families could sue. I think the Seneca Gaming Corporation should choose wisely when they demolish the H-O Oats building.

Danielle Jezioro

Bruce Jackson has some very good points in his article, “Greed,” but the way he presents them makes me lose respect, even though I agree with lot of his ideas. When he takes an imaginary Seneca Gaming Corporation point of view and writes “It’s a done deal…You got a problem with that you can kiss our ass. It’s a done deal. Fuck you,” I think he’s exaggerating and using swear words to try to offend and scare people. Obviously they didn’t really say those things, and I think he takes his point way too far. If a point is good, it should prove itself, and a writer shouldn’t have to exaggerate. As wrong as some people think this casino idea is, they have little or no control over the land. They can protest all they want, but our government has to stay true to its word.

Noel O’Day

I totally oppose a casino in Buffalo and I am glad that people who are more likely to be heard and taken seriously are publicly voicing an opinion on this matter. As I read Bruce Jackson’s article, I learned many things that I didn’t know. One of them is that Mayor Brown is supporting the casino for the rewards he thinks his administration will get, like $5 million a year in city income. Even though that money would help our city, a casino would overpower the money’s good with its own negative effects. In his article he asks “why do wrongs that happened 200 years ago justify wrongs about to happen here now?” I also think the Senecas are wronging our community and are doing it to prove their power.

Ashley Wagstaff

I disagree with Bruce Jackson because I think the Seneca Nation has a right to have the treaties observed. The United States took their land and now they want to reinforce the treaty by tearing down the H-O Oats building. I am happy that Mayor Brown is supporting them. I think we should let them do what they have to do.

Keara Martin

Bruce Jackson’s article, “Greed,” was sure filled with a lot of anger and frustration aimed toward the City of Buffalo, specifically toward Mayor Brown and the Seneca Indians, using words like “aided” and “abetted” to make their actions seem criminal. I do agree that they need to be environmentally responsible for the demolition but I do not agree that the silos should not be demolished. They are vacant, useless, rat-infested and an eyesore. It seems the city can’t make up its mind about the casino. The last couple of years people were fighting to bring it here and now that it’s coming but not the way they wanted, they’re calling the whole thing a bad idea. I don’t believe a casino will save Buffalo but it won’t tear it apart either.

Andrew Potwora

The press paints a picture of people and a company, the Seneca Gaming Corporation, who are showing greed and disregard for the waterfront and the environment. H-O Oats and a host of other companies polluted the air and water on the waterfront for more than 50 years. When no more profits could be made there, they abandoned the properties for our almost bankrupt city to deal with. Who else is knocking down these structures? Who else is going to create new buildings and jobs along the waterfront? Other companies tear down buildings and there are no television cameras at the sites and no newspaper articles about them. Basically I think this is just another attempt to single out minorities. When everyone is held to the same standard then I might listen to these claims.

Gabriella Rodriguez

Six Nations, Tuscarora

LESS CLASSY

Michael Niman’s recent opinion piece titled “Anti-Casino or Anti-Indian” (Artvoice v5n25) successfully demonstrated that it is he who hasn’t been paying attention to his own backyard. His ignorance of early American Indian history, Indian gambling, tribal sovereignty, the citizens group Upstate Citizens for Equality (UCE), Indian land claims and especially federal Indian law are astounding.

Niman claims that UCE is using US courts to challenge Haudenosaunee sovereignty and that the UCE’s court victory against the Cayuga and Oneida land claims does not stand up to the muster of international law. The fact is, the UCE is not challenging Haudenosaunee sovereignty in any court and has never been a party in either the Cayuga or Oneida land claim litigation. Both of those land claims are against counties and the state.

Niman claims that UCE hides behind words like “equality.” The UCE doesn’t hide behind anything. It’s meetings are open to the public and there are no secrets. Anyone wanting to know where UCE stands need only visit its Web site at upstate-citizens.org. In a nutshell, UCE supports equality under the law and the consistent application of that law.

Unlike Niman, UCE understands that Indian tribes are not sovereign nations, and they are not a third sovereign within our constitutional framework. All Indians are American citizens and pay federal income taxes. A full three quarters of American citizens with Indian ancestry do not live on reservations or under tribal governments. Ironically, it is the quarter who do that are the worst off.

Like UCE, anti-casino groups will come to realize that what they are fighting isn’t Indian tribes or gambling, but is profoundly flawed federal Indian policy as manufactured by “out-of-control” federal courts. Federal Indian law is predominantly court-made law which is outdated and unconstitutional. The courts have ruled that Indian tribes can’t be sued and that Congress has “plenary” power over the tribes, but have overlooked the blatant fact that neither the courts nor Congress can legally legislate Indian policy which violates the constitutional rights of American citizens.

I would also point out that federal Indian policy promotes the destruction of free enterprise and that that, in and of itself, is a violation of our constitutional rights. Free enterprise to tribes means freedom from the law, freedom from taxation and freedom from competition.

Amazingly, the courts have ruled that while certain federal laws, i.e. the Copyright Act, may apply to tribes, you cannot sue them for copyright infringement. While tribes advertise “career opportunities” in the classifieds section of newspapers and state that they are an “Equal Opportunity Employer,” they aren’t, because they aren’t subject to laws that prohibit discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, disabilities or anything else. Current federal Indian policy is a huge mess that needs to be either dramatically changed or totally eliminated; it isn’t legal or necessary and it certainly isn’t helping anyone.

The next time you go to an Indian casino or patronize a tribal business, just remember that if you are hurt, cheated or discriminated against you have no legal recourse—compliments of your federal courts and Congress. It shouldn’t be that way, but for now it is.

Scott E. Peterman

Upstate Citizens for Equality

Canastota

Michael I. Niman responds: Upstate Citizens for Equality Inc. has been party to four motions and appeal decisions issued in New York State Courts in 2004 and 2005 challenging the Oneida nation’s right to act as a sovereign government. Scott Peterman, the author of this letter, along with the UCE, was the lead plaintiff on all the court documents, which sought to bar New York State from recognizing Oneida sovereignty, thus challenging their right to operate as a sovereign state adjacent to New York.