UNIONS, NATIVES, TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY   [HUNTER GRAY  FEBRUARY 16 2002]  UPDATED JUNE 24 2005

 

"The 10-1 ruling said the pueblo's right-to-work measure was "clearly an
exercise of sovereign authority over economic transactions on the
reservation."  From the AP story of January 16, 2002.


Note by Hunter Bear:

This is a very complex -- and sensitive -- situation.  I write as a Native
activist who consistently and vigorously supports labor unionism.  I
presently belong to three unions.

Very recently, the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a ruling
which upholds -- in the context of tribal sovereignty -- the right of a Native
nation [San Juan Pueblo of New Mexico] to enact and maintain a right-to-work
law.  This relates specifically to workers at a sawmill on a reservation but
has, many of us feel, very wide ramifications in Indian Country generally --
and a key economic dimension  involved in all of this could well be workers
in tribally-owned casino operations. 

This is a ruling -- in an obviously sad situation -- which virtually all
Native people will support as well as informed and issues-sensitive
non-Native people.The possible motives of the leadership of San Juan Pueblo
in this matter quite aside, this general support for the ruling has nothing
to do with unions. It does involve the absolutely critical importance for Native Americans in maintaining what tribal/national sovereignty remains.

Unions -- effective unions sensitive and committed to Native concerns -- are
increasingly critical in the Native American worker context:  both on and
off the reservations. The Tenth Circuit ruling and the collateral
implications pose a substantial challenge to unionism.

I strongly believe that unions can and must meet the challenge of effective
organization and vigorous representation of Native American workers.  I
believe that unions will -- but it's going to require much awareness and
sensitivity on their part with respect to Native people and societies and
cultures and concerns.  Among other things, unions are going to have learn a
great deal about Native Americans.  And the unions are going to have to hire
Native organizers -- and certainly Native staff from the respective tribal
setting involved. And more.

First, a little quick background on the matter of Native tribal sovereignty.
Then, several excerpts from a long letter on Natives and unions that I've just written to a friend much involved on behalf of Native rights. Then, I have a section dealing with a labor union's reaction to a situation at a North Dakota tribally-owned manufacturing unit.  Finally, a newspaper article on the background and specific nature of the San Juan Pueblo ruling.

TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY:

 A Native  tribal nation, like all nations, has inherent
 sovereignty.  Full sovereignty is the full and ultimate control by  the
 tribal nation of its land, its people, and its affairs.  Much sovereignty
 has been lost -- however temporarily -- by the tribal nations in both the
 U.S. and Canada  but some functional sovereignty does remain.

 Native sovereignty has been badly eroded.  In the United States, the
current situation is referred to as "residual" or "limited sovereignty" -- a
tribal nation has control over some dimensions but not over others. The
fight is always to preserve and to expand sovereignty.  Sovereignty, obviously, is power -- and protection and security -- and critical to individual and
societal well-being.

A Federally recognized tribe today in the U.S. has these powers in the
context of "limited" or "residual" sovereignty:

1] Tribes can govern themselves administratively  and judicially -- under
the regulations of the Indian Reorganization Act   [1934] and subject to the
Major Crimes Act  [1885], Public Law 280 [1953] and the Indian Civil Rights
Act [1968.]

2]  Tribes can tax their members and tax outside business enterprises
functioning on the reservation.

3]  Tribes can handle domestic relations.

4]  Tribes can apportion tribal property [e.g., homesites.]

5]  Tribes can regulate inheritance.

6]  Tribes can determine tribal membership.

 Obviously this excludes much from "the full and ultimate control by  the
tribal nation of its land, its people, and its affairs."

As just an example, let's look at the criminal justice situation on a
Federal Indian reservation today:

A tribe CAN arrest and prosecute an Indian who commits misdemeanor-type crimes
within the boundaries of the reservation.

A tribe CANNOT arrest and prosecute anyone who commits felony crimes on its
reservation.  In the greatest majority of cases, this power is held by the
Federal government under the Major Crimes Act of 1885  -- although a
non-Indian to non-Indian felony on a reservation is turned over to state
officials.  In a small minority of cases, however, Public Law 280 [1953]
gives  all felony jurisdiction to the state.

[PL-280, BTW, was part of the infamous "Termination Package" of the
reactionary 1950s and beyond which included, in addition to 280, formal
efforts to terminate treaty rights -- and although this was kept at arm's
length by most tribes and eventually ended and reversed as policy, played
hell with the Menominee and Klamath and a number of other affected nations.
Termination efforts included, too, the urban relocation scheme which
maneuvered tens of thousands of Native people into the cities with  both
"the stick" and  "pie in the sky" promises and dumped them there sans
Federal Indian benefits.]

In 1978, the US Supreme Court issued the Oliphant decision which prevents
tribes from prosecuting non-Indian offenders on its reservation.
Immediately following this, I had the interesting experience of spending a
day discussing OIiphant and its implications at a  special
workshop for Navajo tribal police at Window Rock. [I handled the Criminal
Justice curriculum at Navajo Community College.] It was clear that massive
confusion was fast developing and that the only immediate solution was
cross-deputization of tribal police by state authorities. [The Navajo Nation
is bigger than the state of West Virginia and, in this case, Arizona, New
Mexico, Colorado, Utah are involved.]  Cross-deputization in Indian country
generally came to pass quickly, enabling a cross-deputized tribal police
officer to arrest a non-Indian on the reservation -- but the non-Indian
would have to be turned over to state or Federal officers. Further, only
rarely was a state cross-deputized tribal officer able to arrest someone on
state jurisdiction.

If this was not confusing enough, the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1990 Duro
decision sought to prevent  a tribe from arresting and prosecuting Indians
of other tribes on its reservation!  This fast-developing and completely
bizarre twist led Congress to forthwith pass special "blocking" legislation
which was made permanent in 1992.  Thus Duro has been effectively nullified.

This has led a great many of us to call for restoration of full Native civil
and criminal jurisdiction [ jurisdiction over everyone!] on the
reservations.

The completely tangled criminal justice jurisdictional situation on Federal
Indian reservations epitomizes the very complex mess in which most Native
people are caught up today.


EXCERPTS FROM HUNTER BEAR LETTER:


"Good to hear from you, Ed.  We certainly agree.  The
decision is both sad as hell -- but absolutely necessary to maintain tribal
sovereignty. . .

I heard of this San Juan Pueblo decision several weeks ago when it initially
came down.  I immediately felt the casino issue had to be in there
somewhere.  And I'm sure it is. Although it wasn't mentioned in the thing I
initially saw, the governor of the Pueblo mentions that specifically in this
attached article.

It's a small Pueblo and would be extremely cohesive.  We know people at
Laguna but no one at San Juan.  Unions haven't done too badly in Native
settings -- UMWA and the Navajo, for example -- but they've got to make [as
you certainly are aware] their approaches with sensitivity -- and usually
with Native organizers and very hopefully with some paid staff from the
tribal setting involved.  These dimensions are not absolutely critical -- but
almost so.

It  also usually takes a good deal of time -- time [and money] that I
know for sure some unions aren't willing to spend. [Efforts to interest one
AFL-CIO union in doing something on a North Dakota reservation in the
context of a tribally-owned factory never got off the ground because in the
end the union wouldn't make the time and money and staff commitment.] When they do get into things,  unions may simply rush matters too fast for many Native settings.

But there have certainly been many situations where unions and Indians have
gotten along well.  This is generally true in off-res settings -- and the
heavier challenge is on-res stuff.  But Navajo coal miners on Navajo Nation
turf have frequently unionized -- although these are not tribally owned
operations [Peabody on lease, etc.]
Tribally owned or quasi-tribally owned  industries are the toughest organizing challenge   -- caught up always in intricate politics.

You are very right in indicating we need to do
much more with the unions on these and related issues.

Anyway, just some quick thoughts from me.  It's a disturbing situation --
and a genuine challenge to organized labor.

 Let's stay in  very close contact.

Best - Hunter Bear  "

NOTE BY HUNTER BEAR:

In the just indicated North Dakota example, the small industrial manufacturing unit employing a few hundred workers is owned by the Spirit Lake Nation Sioux Tribe [formerly the Devils Lake Sioux Tribe] in the northeast/central part of the state. I had been privileged to coordinate the successful legal defense in a major Native religious freedom case involving the Native American Church on that reservation -- U.S. v. Warner [1984.] Then, for several years in the late 1980s, I played a leading role in the successful Indian civil rights campaigns at Devils Lake -- the racist Anglo bordertown adjoining the Devils Lake [Spirit Lake] reservation.  Several years after that, a number of worker issues [wages and especially working conditions -- and very much safety] began to surface within the tribally-owned manufacturing company.  Through a friend who is an official in the North Dakota AFL-CIO, I was approached by the Vice-President of the Minneapolis-based American Federation of Grain Millers who expressed very strong interest in organizing the manufacturing work force at the Devils Lake [Spirit Lake] Sioux reservation.  There was certainly definite interest in unionism on the part of several key Native workers.  But it was clear that a tangible and on-going commitment from a bona fide labor union would be necessary to get things rolling.

My role, as always, was purely volunteer in nature. I pursued matters with vigour. We had several meetings with the International Vice-President of the Grain Millers, leaders of that union from the Grand Forks/East Grand Forks local, and my friend from the North Dakota AFL-CIO.  Things seemed to be moving very well.   I did extensive research on the whole situation, made many contacts,  and prepared a detailed paper -- which also listed several very friendly tribal officials.

I indicated at a number of points that the Union would need [1] to hire as staff at least one or two Sioux people from the Devils Lake [Spirit Lake] Reservation; and, [2] in addition to some money, invest some time in the campaign. We certainly drew the impression that the Union would be moving in this fashion on all of this. 

It did not -- but, sadly, never clearly indicated that it wasn't.  Time passed with no action and it gradually became clear that the Grain Millers had backed out.  I learned later that the Union simply didn't want to expend the time and money on the Devils Lake [Spirit Lake] Sioux manufacturing situation. Other unions were completely disinterested. Although we were able to do some things in an advocate capacity that improved the working situation in that setting, the tribally-owned manufacturing unit has never been unionized.

 

NEWSPAPER ACCOUNT OF TENTH CIRCUIT RULING AND BACKGROUND:

Wednesday, January 16, 2002 (AP)
10th Circuit upholds tribal right-to-work law



(01-16) 09:27 PST SAN JUAN PUEBLO, N.M. (AP) --
The governor of the San Juan Pueblo says a federal appeals court ruling
upholding the pueblo's authority to enact a right-to-work law is a victory
for Indian sovereignty.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled Friday on a labor
dispute with a company operating on land leased from the pueblo north of
Espanola. The appeals court said the tribe can take steps to regulate pueblo
economy as long as those actions aren't banned by the federal government.

The case began in 1996 when a labor union demanded workers covered by the
union contract at the Rio Grande Forest Products sawmill on pueblo land be
required to pay union dues.

"The Tribal Council believes that it was unfair for a labor union to force
employees to choose between paying mandatory union dues or being fired from their jobs," said Pueblo Gov. Wilfred Garcia. "The pueblo's right-to-work
law allows all employees on our lands to voluntarily choose to join or
financially support unions."

The National Labor Relations Board sued the pueblo in support of the union,
arguing that the federal National Labor Relations Act removed the pueblo's
authority to ban compulsory union dues. U.S. District Judge Martha Vazquez
of Santa Fe ruled in favor of the pueblo in 1998, and the NLRB appealed.

A three-judge 10th Circuit panel upheld Vazquez, but the full appeals court
later reheard the case because it concerned issues of national importance,
Garcia said. The NLRB sought the rehearing in December 2000. Federal law
generally holds that if an employer has an agreement with a union, workers
cannot be forced to join but still must pay union dues. The tribal law
banned such agreements.

The 10-1 ruling said the pueblo's right-to-work measure was "clearly an
exercise of sovereign authority over economic transactions on the
reservation."

"Now that the full 10th Circuit has spoken and recognized that the pueblo of
San Juan has a status equivalent to state governments when it comes to labor
unions, I believe that this decision will have nationwide significance for
Indian tribes as labor unions attempt to unionize Indian casinos," Garcia
said.

Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation in
Washington, D.C., said the ruling would help foster businesses on tribal
land.

On the Net: 10th Circuit decision:
www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/99-2011.htm


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2002 AP


Hunter Gray  [ Hunter Bear ]
www.hunterbear.org  ( social justice )

 

DISCUSSION:

Hunterbear to Sam Friedman [whose post follows my reply]:

Unlike a formal component of the  United States [i.e., a state], this San
Juan situation involves national sovereignty -- the sovereignty of a
national entity: i.e., an Indian tribe. In a word, Sam, it's up to the
tribal members to get rid any  anti-union "right to work" tribal law --
through both formal and informal intra-tribal political means.  I strongly
suspect that that will happen -- sooner or later.

That may well take some time as things can do in Native settings. And
changing  any existent "right-to-work" tribal law will in all probability be
contingent on sensitive and effective unionism doing its grassroots
educational homework on and around the reservation.  Much of this -- and
very much in the initial stages -- is up to the unions themselves.

It's also critical of course, that these so-called "right to work" laws
never be enacted within a tribe to begin with.  But, again, that's up to the
tribal members -- and to sensitive and committed unions.


In Solidarity -- Hunter Bear



From Sam Friedman:


> While I agree that we should uphold tribal sovereignty, I would also posit
that no nation or tribe should have the power to limit workers'
organizations in this way.  It is just one more example of the contradiction
between governments in a capitalist world and the needs of workers.
>
> The practical politics are difficult at the immediate time; but the
contradiction needs to be kept in mind as a long-run thing.  If I am right
and Mandel is wrong, and mass workers' movements come to pass in the US and elsewhere and start challenging for power, this will involve conflicts and
change in tribal situations as well.
>
> best,
> sam  

NOTE BY HUNTER BEAR:  JUNE 24 2005

More than three years ago, I made this immediately attached post which
strongly -- as I have since I hatched -- supports   maximum sovereignty for
the Native American tribal nations.  At that time, a Federal appellate court
ruling supported -- in the framework of sovereignty -- a "right to work law"
implemented and maintained by a New Mexico pueblo nation.  Despite my own
commitment to unionism -- again, since virtually my hatch -- I support that
ruling in the interests of tribal sovereignty. [I also feel that unions
attempting to establish themselves in a tribal context don't need NLRB to do
so -- although they will have to work reasonably hard to sell themselves and
will have to, among other dimensions, hire Native organizers and other
Indian staff.]

About a year ago, NLRB, seeking to overrule the Federal appellate decision,
voted that it had labor jurisdiction in Indian Country.  Tribes quite
rightly find this NLRB reversal of decades of policy a distinct threat --
and heavy challenges to it are underway.

"Tribes found themselves in what National Congress of American Indians
President Tex Hall called a "rock and a hard place." NCAI, along with the
National Indian Gaming Association, threw support behind Hayworth -- much to
the chagrin of Democrats, who openly questioned the tribal stance -- from
the current Indianz news story.]

In a word, Natives do not want Federal incursions into respective national
tribal sovereignty.

Here, as backdrop, is my detailed post/link of more than three years ago.
It is followed by the current story/update on Indianz.


UNIONS, NATIVES, TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY   [HUNTER GRAY  FEBRUARY 16 2002]

"The 10-1 ruling said the pueblo's right-to-work measure was "clearly an
exercise of sovereign authority over economic transactions on the
reservation."  From the AP story of January 16, 2002.

Note by Hunter Bear:

This is a very complex -- and sensitive -- situation.  I write as a Native
activist who consistently and vigorously supports labor unionism.  I
presently belong to three unions.

Very recently, the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a ruling
which upholds -- in the context of tribal sovereignty -- the right of a
Native
nation [San Juan Pueblo of New Mexico] to enact and maintain a right-to-work
law.  This relates specifically to workers at a sawmill on a reservation but
has, many of us feel, very wide ramifications in Indian Country generally --
and a key economic dimension  involved in all of this could well be workers
in tribally-owned casino operations.

This is a ruling -- in an obviously sad situation -- which virtually all
Native people will support as well as informed and issues-sensitive
non-Native people.The possible motives of the leadership of San Juan Pueblo
in this matter quite aside, this general support for the ruling has nothing
to do with unions. It does involve the absolutely critical importance for
Native Americans in maintaining what tribal/national sovereignty remains.

For the rest of my long post, see:

http://www.hunterbear.org/Unions,%20Workers,%20Tribal%20Sovereignty.htm


Indianz.Com. In Print.
URL: http://www.indianz.com/News/2005/008965.asp

Partisan fight looms over tribal labor law rider
Friday, June 24, 2005

The normally bipartisan Congressional Native American Caucus is gearing up
for a major fight as Republicans and Democrats trade barbs over a tribal
labor union measure.

Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Arizona), the Republican co-chair of the caucus, plans
to introduce an appropriations rider that would put a controversial labor
law decision on hold for a year. He says the measure is necessary in order
to craft a permanent solution that would protect tribes from incursions on
their sovereignty by labor unions.

"Delaying enforcement for one year is the most we can do at this point and
is the best option for tribes," Hayworth wrote in a "Dear Colleague" letter
distributed to members of the House this month.

But Democrat members of the caucus, which is typically unified on tribal
matters, are crying foul. After defeating Hayworth when he brought forth a
similar measure last year, they say he is again trying to "force a wedge"
between tribes and labor unions, one of their strongest constituencies.

"All it will do is drag the process out one year longer -- keeping Indian
tribes, tribal workers, and labor unions from knowing how to proceed," Rep.
George Miller (D-California) and Rep. Nick Rahall (D-West Virginia), the top
Democrat on the House Resources Committee, said in their own "Dear
Colleague" letter.

The war of words sets the stage for a repeat of a bitter fight that emerged
on the House floor last September, when the Native caucus alliance broke
down over Hayworth's labor measure. Democrats who would normally vote with
tribes jumped ship and defeated the rider, which they said was anti-union.

Tribes found themselves in what National Congress of American Indians
President Tex Hall called a "rock and a hard place." NCAI, along with the
National Indian Gaming Association, threw support behind Hayworth -- much to
the chagrin of Democrats, who openly questioned the tribal stance.

Wary of another defeat, tribal leaders and their advocates are quietly
debating whether they should take a stand or stay out of the debate. Some
are adamantly opposed to the Hayworth rider for fear of losing support from
some of their strongest Democrat supporters. NIGA held a conference call
yesterday to discuss the dilemma.

At issue is a highly contentious National Labor Relations Board decision
from May 2004. Overruling 30 years of precedent, the board concluded that
tribal governments and their enterprises are subject to federal labor law.

The National Labor Relations Act doesn't mention tribes at all. But the
NLRB, in the 3-1 decision, said tribes opened themselves to the law by
employing non-Indians and affecting non-Indians.

"As tribal businesses prosper, they become significant employers of
non-Indians and serious competitors with non-Indian owned businesses," the
board stated. "When Indian tribes participate in the national economy in
commercial enterprises, when they employ substantial numbers of non-Indians,
and when their businesses cater to non-Indian clients and customers, the
tribes affect interstate commerce in a significant way."

The board was split along party lines as well. Its chairman, Republican
Robert J. Battista, signed onto the majority decision with two Democrats,
but a Republican former federal prosecutor filed a strongly worded dissent.

Equally strong sentiments are being voiced by Hayworth and his Democrat
critics. He said Miller and Rahall have done nothing to address tribal
concerns with the decision.

"They held sham negotiations with tribes that already had unions on their
reservations and even those negotiations ended after one meeting when the
tribes realized they had a loaded gun pointed to their head," Hayworth
wrote.

Miller and Rahall took issue with suggestions that they are bowing to
powerful labor union leads. "We will put our record of support for Indian
tribes up against anyone's in this House; a support and respect that goes
way back before the first Indian casino was built," they said.

The Hayworth amendment is due to be introduced to the 2006 Labor/Health and
Human Services/Education appropriations bill. The House resumed debate on
the measure this morning.
Separately, Hayworth has introduced H.R.16, a bill that would permanently
exempt tribes from labor law. The measure has 11 co-sponsors although all
but one are Republicans.

As for the NLRB decision, the case has not been fully adjudicated. The San
Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the tribe involved, is resisting efforts by
a labor union to organize casino employees. The tribe could take the case to
federal court once a final administrative decision is made.

Appropriations Bill:
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act (H.R.3010)
National Labor Relations Board Decisions:
San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino | Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation
Relevant Links:
National Labor Relations Board - http://www.nlrb.gov

Related Stories:
Republicans sign onto tribal labor law exemption bill (06/13)
California tribe's workers to negotiate union contract (05/05)
Unions turn on each other in tribal sovereignty clash (05/04)
Labor union challenges tribe's Indian preference (12/07)
Federal labor board to hold hearing involving tribe (12/6)
NCAI between 'rock and a hard place' on labor rider (09/13)
Tribal labor amendment fails in House vote (9/13)
Rep. J.D. Hayworth: I told you so! On tribal labor (06/25)
California tribe ponders next move in labor case (6/23)
Court ruling adds to debate over tribal-labor relations (06/14)
Editorial: Unions should be allowed at casinos (6/10)
Labor board ruling draws sharp barbs from tribes (6/9)
Labor board's tribal ruling a surprise to many (6/8)
Board rules tribes subject to labor law (6/4)
Arbiter allows pro-union flyers by tribal employees (03/26)
Pro-union hearing blasts Calif. tribe for sovereignty (03/17)
N.M. tribe seals winning case on labor laws (12/09)
Settlement pending in tribal labor dispute (08/07)
Court denies tribal exemption from labor laws (01/17)
Tribal labor bill draws complaints (04/18)
Pueblo wins sovereignty case (1/14)

Copyright © 2000-2005 Indianz.Com
 

FROM ED NAKAWATASE [MARCH 14 2008]:
 
 
Dear Hunter:
 
Good to know you're up and kicking.  You are a progressive coalition almost by yourself.  And I enjoy your dispatches from Idaho.  I  retired two and a half years ago, by the way, after 31 years as AFSC's National Representative for Native American Affairs. 
 
One concern I wanted to share with you, as some stories and ads in  Indian Country Today indicate, has been the effort by the National Indian Gaming Association and others to fight union organizing at Indian casinos.  I'm staring at a full page ad in the February 6 issue of ICT advertising a April 8 seminar at The Wynn in Las Vegas by the Jackson Lewis law firm entitled, "How to Stay Union Free."  The basic pitch to Native American leaders is that efforts to unionize under the National Labor Relations Act are attacks on Native sovereignty.  Of course, as far as I can tell, there does seem to be a basic obtuseness by union leaders about Native sovereignty, and the successful unionizing efforts, by drawing on preemptive US law, do in fact seem to undermine sovereignty . 
 
So how do those of us who support both Native sovereignty and unionized casinos (and other Native workplaces) deal with this?  Your thoughts would be most welcome.
 
Ed Nakawatase
 
HUNTER BEAR'S RESPONSE:
 
Dear Ed:
 
Certainly very good to hear from you.  You don't seem to be "eroding" via retirement!  I am holding on here.
 
Your kind words are much appreciated.  Although my tactical options are a bit physically limited these days, I do fight as vigorously as I can with those means that I do have.
 
I hold very strongly to the basic position I've always had:  i.e., Native sovereignty is sacrosanct, absolutely critical to Native survival and enhancement, and has to be fully maintained -- and certainly expanded whenever possible. 
 
And I continue to believe in and support unionism -- but, in any conflict between unions and tribal sovereighty, I am fully on the side of sovereignty.  If a union is able to genuinely respect the tribe and its culture and the people, willing to take plenty of time [which certainly includes much respectful listening], hire tribal members [locally and otherwise] as full union staff -- and forego presumed "quick fixes" such as trying to use NLRB against the tribe -- well, unions may be able to play a positive role in Indian Country.  If unions try quick, shortcut approaches in relating to the tribes, the unions, in the last analysis, will never make it. 
 
You quite accurately use the word "obtuse" regarding many union leadership attitudes toward  tribal sovereignty.  We totally agree!
 
While we may, on very rare occasions, disagree on a point or two, Ed, we are certainly on the same side.
 
Let's, by all means, stay in contact.  Occasionally, I'll send you things I write.  We lost your address when I changed computers some time ago and am delighted to have now regained it.
 
Take care, amigo.
 
In Solidarity,
 
Hunter [Hunter Bear]
 
 
HUNTER GRAY  [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR]   Mi'kmaq /St. Francis
Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk
Protected by Na´shdo´i´ba´i´
 and Ohkwari'
 
Check out our Hunterbear website Directory http://hunterbear.org/directory.htm
[The site is dedicated to our one-half Bobcat, Cloudy Gray:
http://hunterbear.org/cloudy_gray.htm
 
SEE MY COMBINED COMMUNITY ORGANIZING PIECES -- WITH MUCH NEW STUFF  HUNTER GRAY/JOHN R SALTER, JR [HUNTER BEAR]  SEPTEMBER 5 2004 -- AND WITH NEW INCLUSION:  THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER AS PRACTITIONER, TEACHER, WRITER AND STUDENT [HUNTER GRAY -- FEBRUARY 19 2008]  ALL OF THIS MUCH REPRINTED - PLUS MANY  NEW COMMENTS
http://hunterbear.org/my_combined_community_organizing.htm
 
Wobbly Mentor:  http://hunterbear.org/wobbly_mentor.htm
See Forces and Faces Along the Activist Trail:  http://hunterbear.org/forces_and_faces_along_the_trail.htm





previous

index

continue