Justice for American Indians: New York Times Editorial, 2-22-09

In the Editorial - Justice for American Indians - NYTimes.com, published on February 22, 2009, the editorialist addresses the Navajo Nation, and the American people and our past and present government by writing:

"The federal government has a long history of cheating American Indians, and not all of this dirty dealing is in the past."

( Mainly I believe the editorialist is trying to persuade Obama and rally support on behave of the Navajo Nation.

In this statement the editorialist mentions "a long history" without giving specific examples.) *

Peabody Coal had a lease to mine from areas of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah which is where Navajo's reservation is located. 

"The United States holds the lands in trust and manages the large coal deposits." 

(Implies that the United States has a vested interest in the financial gain of Peabody Coal.) *

The Navajo had appealed to the United States Supreme Court because in the original agreement between the States and the Navajo Nation, Peabody Coal was supposed to pay a "royalty rate to 20 percent of gross proceeds" starting in 1984 and Peabody Coal protested about the increase in paying so much. The interior secretary during the Reagan years met with Peabody  Coal and didn't notify the Navajo and a deal was made without the Navajo represented. 

The increase was blocked by the Interior Secretary forcing the Navajo into negotiations and under financial strain of their people, they accepted a "rate of 12.5" that cost them as much as "$600 million in royalties".

(The author's creditability is backed by a three-judge panel.  The figures given are vague and what the award amount is not stated. )*

According to the editorial, the Federal Circuit, United States Court of Appeals stated that our government did not follow through on the agreement, was "indefensible" as described by four former interior secretaries who had "submitted friend-0f-the-court briefs to the Supreme Court."

(The Interior Secretary who met with Peabody Coal was not mentioned by name. And neither was the four interior secretaries who made submissions as friends-of-the-court mentioned by name. This would of added to creditability.)*

Also, the writer suggests that Obama's administration should not follow Bush's administrations lead by not standing up for misdeeds of our government. 

(This ending seems to surface a new agenda not previously mentioned by the writer and seems to be goading Obama instead of just trying to bring information about an injustice that was done to Native Americans.)* 

For the final evaluation, the author reached his intended audience of the American people who read the New York Times. Maybe he did not reach the Navajos on the reservation. That would be dependent on how many Navajos of that area read the New York Times. The government and judicial bodies would most likely have a higher percentage who would read the NewTimes than those who are poor and lack funds for an extra newspaper or internet service in such a rural area.

The editorial does a good job of pointing out an injustice that was done to the Navajo. Although he doesn't give specific examples of the long history of the broken treaties and mistreatment of the Indian Nation, it is a feasible and coherent argument since so few Native Americans are still living. Genocide generally isn't fair and just treatment. 

I agree with what he states the Supreme  Court says about the Interior Department having "interests adverse to" the Navajo, and "had misled the Navajo about its actions."  This seems to be the most plausible argument against our government. 

And although I do not feel Obama is responsible for this injustice, I believe that he should make right what was done wrong in order to see the Navajo People's contract upheld.  If Peabody can't pay up then they are not financially responsible and should lose their federal funding or whatever benefits they receive by being in business with the Government who was supposed to have its people's rights in mind before basically changing the percentage rate.  If  Peabody Coal holds people responsible for their goods then what would they do if everyone that did business with them decided to pay them 7.5 percent less interest then what they currently charge. The consumer would be cut off or taken to court for redemption. And it wouldn't take approximately 24 years to rectify.     

Overall I liked this article and like to see Native American rights hopefully winning for a change and also being acknowledged. *

*My View in Orange Bold