'Upstate Citizens' labeled 'hate group' (for opposing Indian land grabs)

The largest national group of Indian governments has declared Upstate Citizens for Equality a "hate group."

The National Congress of American Indians adopted a resolution last week that says UCE, based in Verona, and two similar groups in other parts of the country want to "eliminate Indian governments, societies and culture."

UCE also has a Cayuga-Seneca chapter that opposes the Cayuga land claim. The Verona group opposes the Oneida land claim.

The resolution was sponsored by Alma Ransom, a Mohawk chief and treasurer of the Indian congress. It also labeled as hate groups the Citizens Equal Rights Alliance in Montana and United Property Owners in Washington.

"I know how it is to be treated badly," Ransom said of her reasons for sponsoring the resolution. "Every Indian nation identified with a similar situation near their reservation."

Members of UCE, which was formed in 1994, say they simply want tax laws enforced on Indian land and a settlement to the Oneida Indian land claim.

"We don't hate," said member Jim Opperman of Oneida. "Is it hateful to want the law enforced? Is it hateful to want a settlement to the land claim issues? Is it hateful to have a casino compact ratified by the state legislature?"

"This is nothing new," said Connie Tallcot of Union Springs, UCE chairwoman for the Cayuga-Seneca chapter. "The Indians make these claims to divert attention from the real issues."

"Our message is simple: No group should have special privileges and live under separate law than another group in the United States," Tallcot added. "Saying we are a hate group doesn't make it so."

Clint Halftown of Gowanda, spokesman for the Cayuga Nation, agreed with the designation of UCE as a hate group.

He said the Cayugas 64,027-acre claim to former reservation land in Cayuga and Seneca counties, has generated a dislike of the Cayugas.

"They hate the fact that we have a right, by treaty and federal court rulings, to have treaties honored, our land returned and to be a sovereign nation," he said. "They ignore that and focus on their desire to have everyone be assimilated and be part of one country."

Halftown said the comments of a Seneca County Board of Supervisors member, Richard L. Ricci of Seneca Falls, attest to the hate the Cayugas have experienced.

Ricci said at a UCE rally last year that "the Cayugas may out-money us, but they don't out-gun us."

"What is that saying when an elected official can say that and still get re-elected?" Halftown asked. "I feel they should be investigated as a hate group."

In a statement issued Tuesday by the Oneida Indian Nation, clan mother Marilyn John said: "The Oneida nation is gratified that NCAI (National Congress of American Indians) has formally recognized the truly hateful and harmful nature of so-called 'property rights' groups, such as UCE."

The statement said that UCE publishes "a list of local merchants and individuals who patronize the Sav-On gas stations and convenience stores, and targets those on the list for its members to boycott. It also encourages 'spying' on those who frequent the stores and stations."

Members of UCE have compiled boycott lists with names of people and companies UCE members have seen doing business at the nation's Sav-On gas stations. UCE's leadership says it does not encourage these lists, but they are made available at UCE meetings.

"We don't spy on people," Opperman said. "There is documentation that the Oneida Indian Nation does spy. Remember that the Oneida Indian Nation lost its deputization agreement (with Madison and Oneida counties) because (the counties) found out they had been doing spying."

Internal nation reports obtained by The Post-Standard in 1997 showed that nation police conducted a widespread spying operation on and off nation land, compiling dossiers on political opponents and their non-Indian associates.

In Tuesday's statement, the Oneida nation linked UCE to the KKK, which the nation said was active in Oneida and Verona back in the 1920s.

"I think all this name-calling is a bunch of childish nonsense," said Scott Peterman, president of UCE. "They label everybody that disagrees with them as a hate group."

The problem here is NOT really the monetary compensation. Most members of UCE could easily live with a large cash settlement. The problem is soverignity, the idea that one group of citizens can (or needs to, in order to practice their beliefs) taken US land "soverign," remove it from the tax rolls and thumb their noses at State criminal and civil law.

Well, that would depend on what you mean by "U.S." land... considering most of this issue is, IIRC, about "N.Y. land"... that being said, if the land was aquirred ILLEGALLY by the state, then the land should be returned to it's rightful owners...

That being said, I'm of two minds about the sovereignty issue - if the treaties between the tribes and the government says they are sovereign, then that's the law. If it doesn't, then that's the law, too... I mean, we ARE still a nation of laws, right? Or did the last 8 years of Clintonism change all that???

This is happening all over the US, not just NY.

And as for the common cry of "it was taken illegally," while perhaps technically true, the term does not mean what the Indians and their proponents would have the general public believe.

The "illegal" taking of the land occurred when NYS purchased the land from the Indians, compensated them, and entered into a treaty. Almost two hundred years later, the tribe declared that the treaty was not binding because it had never been ratified by Congress ( in addition, there is some likelihood that, at the time of the purchase, there was no clear authority showing that congressional ratification was required). So the tribe sued.

Rather than apply the standard doctrines of "statute of limitations" or "laches" (doctrines that limit the amount of time under which an allegedly aggreived party can bring suit,due to the recognition of the injustice that can arise from reviving long dormant issues) that a court would apply to a non-binding contract if one of parties weren't an Indian tribe, the court held that the suit could go forward against the state, the local municipalities and the thousands of property owners who live in the land claim area.

This case is as ridiculous as if somebody sued you today because 200 years ago one of his ancestors sold the land your house sits on and forgot to have the deed notarized.

So if the land is given back can we expect to get back items due the US? If Indian terriories are soviergn then why do we not have import taxes on goods crossing the boundry lines? If I cross the US/Canadian border I may have to pay taxes on items purchaced there and vice versa. Why is this not the same? You can't have it both ways.

Do you know what 'Trust' Land is? The State was not authrized to purchase the land, and the indians wo sold it were not authorized to sell it... the land was actually owned and adminstered by the feds, who told the state 'No!' (which, oddly enough, was one of the few times the feds have actually tried to honor treaty commitments), but for some reason they (the State of New York) didn't listen, and so now this is happening...

And now, once again, the indians are bad guys... go figure..

Whether the Federal Government told the state "no" at the time of or after the purchase is more disputed that the tribe would have us believe.

In any event, that argument again fails to explain why the doctrines of laches, collateral estoppel or statute of limitations should not apply 200 years later in the case of the tribes, just as it would for any OTHER legal matter. The only reason it wasn't applied from the beginning was "PC," and the hopes that we (the United States) could buy off the Indians with a state park in a rural community and some cash.

We can agree on some of that... 200 years IS a long time (of course, not all of the land theft occurred that lng ago) Yet, when the state will not even admit any wrong-doing, and will not negotiate, this is what happens...

The theft of the land, and it WAS theft, should be admitted to. Period. Maybe the state should give up some of it's own land, but instead the state makes the taxpayers the ones who will lose out. I think that the indians AND the taxpayers should band together, and let the state know that it screwed up, and should work together to fix this issue.

It doesn't appear that either side is 100%'right', but either way the situation MUST be resolved. The longer the state ignores the problem, the worse it gets...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.