From transcripts produced of a March 28, 2006 California Senate Governmental Organization Committee hearing on the Big Lagoon Rancheria Gaming Compact; this dialogue was between the committee's chairman State Senator Dean Florez and Dan Kolkey, then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's chief negotiator for Compacts...
SENATOR FLOREZ: So, Los Coyotes without Big Lagoon wouldn’t be a valid use of State policy then.
MR. KOLKEY: No.
SENATOR FLOREZ: So, there lies one issue. So, you have Big Lagoon that normally wouldn’t be eligible is eligible now—excuse me, Los Coyotes—because of Big Lagoon. Is that correct?
MR. KOLKEY: The project is eligible under the Governor’s policy because it facilitates Big Lagoon’s relocation.
SENATOR FLOREZ: So, in essence, what came first then—Big Lagoon or Los Coyotes? Why would Los Coyotes even be on the topic if the Governor’s policy itself wouldn’t allow for that?
MR. KOLKEY: Well, number one, the only way for us to facilitate the relocation of Big Lagoon was to find a site in Barstow. Barstow had already identified this site near outlet malls as part of its plan for renovation of the city. And they had an exclusive agreement with Los Coyotes. So, the only way that we could facilitate the Big Lagoon relocation was through the site identified by the City of Barstow with Los Coyotes. And these were the facts that the State was dealing with then...
SENATOR FLOREZ: So, Los Coyotes without Big Lagoon wouldn’t be a valid use of State policy then.
MR. KOLKEY: No.
SENATOR FLOREZ: So, there lies one issue. So, you have Big Lagoon that normally wouldn’t be eligible is eligible now—excuse me, Los Coyotes—because of Big Lagoon. Is that correct?
MR. KOLKEY: The project is eligible under the Governor’s policy because it facilitates Big Lagoon’s relocation.
SENATOR FLOREZ: So, in essence, what came first then—Big Lagoon or Los Coyotes? Why would Los Coyotes even be on the topic if the Governor’s policy itself wouldn’t allow for that?
MR. KOLKEY: Well, number one, the only way for us to facilitate the relocation of Big Lagoon was to find a site in Barstow. Barstow had already identified this site near outlet malls as part of its plan for renovation of the city. And they had an exclusive agreement with Los Coyotes. So, the only way that we could facilitate the Big Lagoon relocation was through the site identified by the City of Barstow with Los Coyotes. And these were the facts that the State was dealing with then...
Los Coyotes Gaming Compact requires partnership with Big Lagoon. Without Big Lagoon, Los Coyotes has no valid gaming Compact with Govenor Schwarzenegger.
Without Big Lagoon, Los Coyotes land-into-trust effort would have to be restarted as the Enviornmental Impact Statement is for a joint project and examines alternatives that would no longer be applicable.
8 comments:
So very interesting. I read the transcripts a good while back and just like then I am amazed still now how Barstow, Barwest and the Tribes went in and lied through their teeth. The best part was when they were being questioned on any other tribes that might have any claims on Barstow and they danced around the subject and more to the point failed to mention the Shoshone even though all sides knew that the Shoshone have a very strong claim to the High Desert area. How can the citizens of Barstow have any faith or trust in their elected officials.
So Splixx, why is it that you are the only advocate for the Shoshone? why haven't representatives appeared at public meetings, Barwest EIS Scoping meeting; Barstow City Council, Sacramento Hearings? Why haven't the Shoshone written comments or letters to local, state or federal officials on this matter?
If what you have written various times is true, why have the Shoshone let BarWest representatives run free and why have the Shoshone sat back and let those whom you would rob of ancestral ties to the greater Barstow area do the heavy lifting?
If the Shoshone have claims to the greater Barstow area, the Shoshone should be exercising such claims and there is little public record of such.
By all accouonts the Paiute and Shoshone peoples are closely related.
The Chemehuevi are descended of the Southern Paiute. Their cousins the Kawaiisu and Koso also share Paiute and Shoshone heritage.
It is understood each of these groups speak Uto-Aztecan related languages.
Given the vast and under-resourced nature of the Great Mojave Desert; scholars over the last century have concluded that these groups along with the Mojave and Serrano (and Vanyume -- also known as Desert Serrano) were present at various points historic and pre-historic.
Certainly the sinks of the Mojave and the Mojave River were attractive to these peoples who have survived in the Mojave since time immemorial.
Anonymous- Shoshone have spoken out, it is on record and in fact in the local paper. Do some research.
The two compacts for Barstow were not even a credible threat. The Barstow casino died and was revived so many times, it was almost comical to watch Barwest dump money into the scheme. So why speak out? No real point, nothing needed to be added to the argument. Seems the state legislature saw through the lies rather quickly and easily.
Your entire post was basically pointless. Nothing you said takes away from the fact that the Shoshone have a legitimate Treaty with the United States Government that recognized the Western Shoshone homeland. The truth does sting a bit huh? If Barstow goes with another tribe, one that cannot prove a legitimate claim to the land its going to be more of the same. Fighting over Ancestral Ties, and if it comes to that, as usual the Shoshone would be the ones that seem to be in a stronger position. Don't ya think.
In the end I could care less. I make my posts based on the facts at hand. If I thought, based on the facts, that the Los Coyotes or Big Lagoon had a right to Barstow I would be on the other side of the fence. However going by a federal treaty all I saw was a blatant attempt at infringing on another tribes homeland.
Isn't it interesting that the only tribes speaking out are the ones that are trying to build casino's? Maybe if the Shoshone were trying to build a casino in Barstow they would be speaking out, however they are not.
Splixx, with all due respect, I don't think anyone here is trying to deny the Shoshone anything. Your position however seems to be exclusive rather than inclusive.
There are a variety of other matters -- beyond a casino -- by which those who claim ancestral ties to the Barstow area would be vigilant -- especially CEQA related matters. The state of California has tasked the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) with identifying tribes with ancestral claims to areas in which various land use projects are proposed or planned. In fact in 2004 the Governor signed SB 18 which mandates that local jurisdictions must make early consultations with those tribes which the NAHC identifies as having ancestral ties or cultural significance to a respective project area. [note: it appears now that the City of Barstow may not be in compliance with that mandate; and raising many questions].
Further, when the Indian Claims Commission undertook its work in the middle of the 20th Century, scholars made it clear that native peoples had overlapping territories throughout the ages -- although the ICC did not generally consider those lands that were "shared" in negotiating its various compromise settlements -- the concept of borders and boundaries as we know them today were foreign to Native Americans; concepts that were imported to America by Europeans.
To deny the various ancestral claims of tribes whom at one time made their homelands in the greater Barstow area would be akin to denying either Jews or Arabs have ancestral ties to Palestine.
Finally, just to be clear ... there is no suggestion by TVT that the members of the Big Lagoon Rancheria or the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians have any substantive ancestral claims to the greater Barstow area. At a June 2006 Hearing in Sacramento, leaders of other tribes composed primarily of Cahuilla people made that very clear. And the Cupeno people made their homelands at the ancient Cupa Village in modern day San Diego County near Warner Springs.
It is exclusive. You have the United States Government signing a document that says "WE" recognize this area as yours. Now this is the same government that "ALLOWS" all tribes to even be considered tribes. Lets be honest without the government stamp of approval a group is simply not considered Indian. So there really is no argument, what we have is each side that wants a casino having their people out speaking out against the other side trying to deny what is truth.
As far as the ICC goes. It was a quasi-judicial body, it sole purpose was to pay for loss of use of land claims brought by native americans. It was not a body created to define what area's belonged to whom. I am not saying that there are no areas that may have been used by more than one tribe, going by the "Shoshonean Wedge" the shoshone spread a lot farther than what they got from Ruby Valley. I am saying that when it comes to Indian Affairs the ultimate authority rests at the "FEDERAL" level. And unfortunately for everyone involved in the Barstow scheme, and I mean both sides, the evidence points to the U.S. Govt. saying that in their eyes Barstow is the homeland for the Shoshone.
You are supposedly the verifiable truth, get to work. Verify the truth so we can all know, if I am wrong about anything I will freely admit it. If I have some facts mixed up I will come out and say so. What still amazes me is that on TvT you come out with all these facts and figures to shoot down the Barstow Casino's. You dig deep and find all kinds of evidence and arguments against these two tribes. Yet right in front of you, you potentially have the most damning evidence of these two tribes infringing on anothers land. And you say nothing. By now I expected TvT to dig deep into this and pull out all the relevant information.
I must admit this is one of the more intelligent debates that I have read/heard on the BarWest/Los Coyotes/Big Lagoon invasion into the ancestral, historical lands of those tribes specifically mentioned in the Barstow General Plan.
This is NOT a gaming issue; this IS a sovereignty issue. TASIN, a 15 California tribes alliance, does not oppose BarWest/Los Coyotes/Big Lagoon because they want to open a casino but because they want to take land into trust which they have no ancestral, historical nexus to. Period. It wouldn't matter if it was a casino or a gas station; they oppose a tribe coming from 700 miles away to take land into trust and exorcise sovereign power over it in another tribes recognized ancestral, hitorical homeland.
As for history, splixx, please research the Las Flores Ranch, Chimney Rock massacre, the Camp Cady campaign and the life of Maria Chapula (1856 to 1960). These events took place in Hesperia, Lucerne, Victorville and the Ord Mountains and all involved the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe.
It is well documented by modern scholars, as well as our oral histories, that the Chemehuevi, Kawaiisu, Serrano, Vanyume and Mohave can legitimatly call the greater Barstow area our ancestral, historical homelands.
I have researched all I can find about the local history of the high desert. And I am not unaware that there have been many tribes that have been in the high desert. My point is simply this, all tribes within the borders of the United States are only considered tribes because the U.S. Government allows them too. In other words you are only considered a tribe or even indian if the federal government says you are.
One could argue that other tribes in the high desert were trespassers. Saying that oral histories and scholars prove ancestral rights is flawed. Lets not forget that oral histories and scholars also claimed the world was flat, or that earth was the center of the universe. With your logic one can argue that future generations of americans that had ancestors living or fighting in the middle east will have some form of ancestral claims to the area. I came across a theory called the "Shoshonean Wedge", cannot remember the exact wording but it basically said that the Shoshone made it all the way down to the LA basin or something along those lines. Does that give Shoshone ancestral claims to that area? Going by the "they have been there or done something there" argument they do. However the government doesn't recognize anything past the San Bernardino mountains as shoshone.
When it comes to proving ancestral claims I will defer to the "ultimate" authority. That authority is the federal government. A signed and ratified treaty carries the same weight and meaning as a law does. You cannot get any higher than federal law. What the Shoshone have is a ratified treaty stating that the government of the United States recognizes their homeland. The Shoshone have been fighting with the US government over the treaty and have even gone before the United Nations claiming violations of their indigenous rights.
I won't say that any argument relating to other tribes and claims to the high desert are without merit. However until I am proven wrong I will stick to my claims that Barstow and most of the High Desert is within the sphere belonging to the Shoshone. The Shoshone have been fighting for their land for over 100 years. The other tribes interest in the area probably began around the time that they became interested in gaming. If that is true who's motives are more pure?
In the end it probably will not matter, it doesn't seem that Barstow will get a casino. The dual compacts are languishing away. And the Los Coyotes were denied a solo casino because there is no reason other than economic for them to build one. The Chemehuevi will end up the same way, they have no reason other than economic to try and build in Barstow.
Post a Comment