Opinion: No such thing as an 'urban Indian'

Friday, June 22, 2007  

" Bush's people need to understand there is no such thing as an urban Indian. There are tribal members living off the reservation who may live in the county of Los Angeles. Many of the Indians were brought to the city/county by the federal government and now you just can't say ''lets forget them, they should have stayed where they belonged.'' The people on the reservation don't speak of the urban Indians as strangers. They know them as their cousins, siblings or relations in the off-reservation area. When tribal conferences come to the cities the leaders will often ask for the local Indian groups to help with cultural or pow wow events. They know there is no separation between the tribal and off-reservation people. When cultural and tribal discussions occur, it only occurs when people like those in the White House try to create a division. Unfortunately, they sometimes will find a person who may claim to be an Indian leader who will agree.

And tribal and off-reservation people never speak of a ''difference'' between tribal and off-reservation, just as we don't ponder the difference between ''Anglo'' and ''Saxon''; we recognize the off-reservation people are separate only by distance and that is all.

Which then leads to the other mistake of the White House: using the phrase ''on or near'' in order to restrict services.

Each Indian resident in Los Angeles lives ''on or near a reservation,'' according to the government. In 1988 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission stated ''In defining 'on or near an Indian reservation' in identifying employers that may lawfully exercise the Indian preference exception, EEOC says it will adopt an OFCCP [Office of Federal Contract Compliance] definition stating that the use of the word near will 'include all that area where a person seeking employment could reasonably be expected to commute to and from in the course of a work day.'' The EEOC then indicated that the reasonable commute distance was 100 miles one way. There is no other federal agency that has defined ''on or near'' as did the EEOC. Each of the ''urban'' clinics is within 100 miles of a reservation so the White House needs to learn its own policies regarding ''on or near.''"

Get the Story:
Ron Andrade: The education of President Bush (Indian Country Today 6/22)

Relevant Links:
National Council of Urban Indian Health - http://www.ncuih.org
Indian Health Service - http://www.ihs.gov

Related Stories:
Cover Story: Urban Indians invisible in Portland (06/20)
Rep. Wilson opposes urban Indian health cut (05/10)
Urban Indians under attack over health care (3/12)
Fireworks at Indian health care hearing (3/9)
Senate hearing on Indian Health reauthorization (3/8)
Urban Indians in New Mexico feel left out on health (3/8)
Some urban Indians denied care at request of IHS (3/8)
IHS to force urban Indians to travel for prescriptions (2/16)
Bush cuts funding for urban Indian clinics again (2/8)
Study: Health disparities among urban Indians (08/24)
Senate panel restores urban Indian health program (06/28)
House restores funds to critical Indian programs (05/22)
Urban Indian clinics threatened by Bush budget cut (5/2)
Urban Indian health centers fight Bush budget cut (4/28)
Urban Indians file class action health care lawsuit (4/11)
Law school to file class action Indian health care suit (4/6)
Budget cut affects 34 urban Indian health clinics (03/27)
Senate Indian Affairs Committee seeks better budget (03/06)
Gorton blocked Reagan's cut to urban Indian health (03/03)
Urban Indian clinics in Oklahoma safe from cut (2/28)
Montana urban Indian clinics oppose Bush cut (2/23)
Opinion: Republican presidents pick on urban Indians (2/22)
Editorial: Save urban Indian health program (2/21)
Urban Indian health cut to affect 6,500 in Montana (2/20)
Elimination of urban Indian health care opposed (2/14)
Bush budget details Indian program cuts (2/10)
IHS gets another boost under Bush budget (2/7)