California governor apologizes to Native Americans, cites ‘genocide’

Gov. Gavin Newsom (4th from left) attends a meeting of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians at the future site of the California Indian Heritage Center in West Sacramento, California, on June 18, 2019. He took the occasion to formally apologize to tribal leaders from around California for the violence, mistreatment and neglect inflicted on Native Americans throughout the state's history. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)
Updated 19 June 2019
Follow

California governor apologizes to Native Americans, cites ‘genocide’

  • “Genocide. No other way to describe it, and that’s the way it needs to be described in the history books,”says governor
  • Yurok Tribe leader describes apology as "a step into healing"

SACRAMENTO, California: Gov. Gavin Newsom formally apologized Tuesday and pushed the state to reckon with California’s dark history of violence, mistreatment and neglect of Native Americans, saying it amounted to genocide.
The Democratic governor met with tribal leaders at the future site of the California Indian Heritage Center, where he also announced the creation of a council to examine the state’s role in campaigns of extermination and exploitation.
Throughout history, the California government was key to efforts to remove and kill Native Americans who lived on land that would become part of what is now the world’s fifth-largest economy.
“Genocide. No other way to describe it, and that’s the way it needs to be described in the history books,” Newsom said.
Mark Macarro, tribal chairman of the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, said the apology is significant.
“To hear an apology like that today from the head of this state sets a new tone. It does for me, on a personal level,” said Macarro.
Newsom did not propose any specific changes in policy toward Native American communities, though tribal leaders raised concerns about issues such as managing natural resources, preventing wildfires and addressing the historical trauma of the government’s campaigns to wipe out indigenous California residents as well as their culture.
“It was a step into healing,” said Joseph L. James, chairman of the Yurok Tribe, which has territory near the Northern California coast.
James said that he hopes the governor maintains a close relationship with tribes, adding: “Actions speak louder than words.”
Newsom is not the first to apologize for the treatment of Native Americans.
Congress tucked an apology into a 2009 military spending bill, acknowledging “years of official depredations, ill-conceived policies, and the breaking of covenants by the federal government regarding Indian tribes.”
Last year, then-Alaska Gov. Bill Walker issued an apology to the state’s indigenous people, listing a series of wrongs.
Other governors have apologized for specific episodes in history, from the killing of Arapaho and Cheyenne people in the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864 to the forced move of Potawatomi people from Indiana to Kansas in 1838 on what has become known as a “Potawatomi Trail of Death.”
Newsom pointed to California’s efforts to remove American Indians as people flooded the state searching for gold in the mid-19th century.
California’s first governor, Peter Burnett, declared to legislators in 1851 “that a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races until the Indian race becomes extinct must be expected.”
The Legislature subsequently approved $1.29 million to subsidize militia campaigns against American Indians, Newsom’s office said.
The state’s objections to several federal treaties with tribes left most American Indians in California landless, said Albert Hurtado, professor emeritus at the University of Oklahoma.
“The actions of the state 150 years ago have ongoing ramifications even today,” he said.
In using the word genocide to describe California’s treatment of Native Americans, Newsom threw the weight of the state government behind a term that is heavy with emotion and still stirs debate, from California to Canada.
“I think it’s really important to name it and if you don’t, you don’t do justice to what actually occurred,” Newsom said. “This was not just traditional pioneering spirit and we came into some conflict, as someone suggested. This was something completely organized and systemic.”
The governor’s office said the new Truth and Healing Council will more closely explore the historical relationship between the state of California and California Native Americans.
Newsom did not directly call for any changes to the state’s history curriculum or commemorations of colonialists and pioneers who have counties, schools and streets named for them across California. But the governor endorsed renaming Columbus Day as Indigenous Peoples Day, as a few states have in recent years.
Like other states in the US West, California has seen renewed debate about its treatment of indigenous people.
Stanford University announced last year it would remove the name of Spanish missionary and Catholic saint Junipero Serra from some parts of campus following criticism over his treatment of Native Americans.
And in recent years, some schools have abandoned what was once a common project in elementary classrooms around California: building models of Spanish missions, which were constructed in real life with the forced labor of Native Americans.
California has the largest proportion of American Indians in the United States. About 723,000 residents identified as American Indian during the 2010 census.

 


Paraguay lawmakers approve defense agreement allowing an increased US military presence

Updated 5 sec ago
Follow

Paraguay lawmakers approve defense agreement allowing an increased US military presence

ASUNCIÓN: Paraguay’s Chamber of Deputies on Tuesday approved a defense agreement allowing the temporary presence of US military and civilian personnel inside its borders, widely seen as a victory for the Trump administration, which has sought to strengthen its presence in Latin America.
The Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, was approved by a large majority of lawmakers and now awaits the signature of President Santiago Peña to take effect. Peña, one of Trump’s closest allies in the region, is expected to sign the deal in the coming days.
The agreement passed with 53 votes in favor and eight against, and four abstentions out of a total 80 lawmakers. Fifteen were not present for the vote.
Signed by both countries in Washington in December, the agreement establishes a legal framework for the presence of US security forces in Paraguay for training, joint exercises, and humanitarian assistance. It also authorizes the United States to have criminal jurisdiction over its personnel while in the country.
The treaty, praised as “historic” by both the US State Department and Paraguayan Foreign Minister Rubén Ramírez Lezcano, was approved by the Paraguayan Senate last week, where debate was more polarized due to concerns over potential violations of sovereignty.
Some legislators argued against the agreement, citing a controversial provision to grant foreign troops immunity from prosecution, equivalent to that handed to diplomatic personnel.
“We believe in international cooperation, but we also believe in strong states, respected institutions and real democratic sovereignty,” said independent congressman Raúl Benítez.
Despite criticisms, Paraguay’s foreign minister backed the agreement, arguing in December that its main purpose is to strengthen cooperation between the United States and Paraguay in fighting transnational organized crime and “terrorism.” He also clarified that “there is no possibility of the installation of US military bases” in Paraguay.
Washington has also praised SOFA, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio calling it a “historic agreement” that would help facilitate bilateral and multinational training, humanitarian assistance, disaster response, and other shared security interests.
The approval of SOFA comes as Washington seeks to expand its influence in Latin America under the Trump administration’s national security strategy and as a sector of civil society in Paraguay continues to raise its voice against it.
“The security of a country is not built by importing troops or shielding foreign agents with diplomatic immunities,” said Peace and Justice Service, a civil organization which has a presence across Latin America, in a statement released days before the final vote. The treaty, it added, “does not represent progress in security, but rather the formalization of a geopolitics of impunity that undermines the pillars of our national dignity.”