A better person. Look how happy she looks.

Oh, how I have missed my loyal T/Sers! The truth is it’s hard being a reporter. Especially when a bunch of big stories hit at the same time.

I’m also going to miss True/Slant as it has been once the Forbes developments truly kick in. This has been a nice place to explore Native issues for an audience that might not not have always known they cared about Native issues.

It’s funny, I write on a daily basis for many really passionate Native American readers who are so keyed in on Native topics, as well as mainstream issues. They tend to know every little detail of tribal-federal policy, but also care about Justin Bieber’s hair just as much as the next red-blooded American.

I wish more mainstream readers would take just a slight percentage of time to read and understand more about Native issues; there are so many amazing bits of information to ponder in a wide swath of genres. I’m not asking for such readers to become impassioned zealots, just a tiny bit better informed. Since America was formed on the backs of indigenous people who thrived in spite of it, isn’t that a pretty easy thing to do in return?

Now a special thanks to Osha Gray Davidson, who recently made the point I’m trying to get at through his post naming this blog as a “must-follow.”

Osha writes: “For affluent white people in Phoenix, Arizona — where I live — it’s entirely possible to go through life never seeing or having to think much about what’s going on in Indian Country, despite the state’s large population of indigenous peoples. The only part of a reservation most Phoenicians will ever see is the inside of Casino Arizona. National media coverage is about the same. That’s one reason why Rob’s T/S blog, Native Pop, is a valuable addition to this site. Rob is a staff writer for the influential Native publication, Indian Country Today and his blog shares the ICT’s geographic coverage and, more important, the emphasis on today. With the rare exception of the newest Twilight film, media Indians are frozen in time: the middle-to-late 19th century.”

Very flattering, but also a whole lot of truth there in terms of the need for so many Americans to open their eyes.

P.S. I just picked up a Native American Journalists Association media award in the best daily/weekly news category, so that’s pretty cool. Many of my fellow Native-focused journalists were deservedly honored, and they have so much to share. Seek them out. They’re all around you.

You can follow my work on Twitter @RobCapriccioso. It’s sometimes as intriguing as Justin Bieber’s hair, I promise.

Why did President Obama create your position?
Indian Country suffers from so many socioeconomic challenges: the unemployment rate, infrastructure needs, health care, a high crime rate. Those things were not being addressed adequately. Tribal nations should have a voice at the table whenever policy decisions are made.

What are you working on now?
Job creation is a huge priority: Unemployment rates on some reservations are as high as 80%. We’re also working to modify and strengthen the criminal-justice system that operates in Indian territory. And we’re working with the First Lady’s “Let’s Move” campaign to address obesity: As many as 50% of American Indians suffer from it. Indian Country has great needs, but our future is far from bleak—more than $3 billion was directed to Indian tribes through the Recovery Act, and the 2011 budget provides a 5% increase over 2010.

Do you speak Cherokee?
Not fluently. My parents were part of a federal relocation program, so I was born in Chicago. We moved back to Oklahoma when I was young. My family is of modest means, but we have a great love of community—the bond of what it is to be Cherokee.

Kind of funny that one of the three questions was devoted to whether she speaks her tribal language, given that she’s overseeing crucial Indian policy issues that affect all of Indian country. Still, nice to see a little national attention paid to her position.

It’s looking like Congress may miss what’s been billed as the final deadline in a $3.4 billlion settlement deal hashed out between the Obama administration and Indians suing the government:

Senate Democrats said Thursday evening they would not be able to pass an extenders bill with the Cobell v. Salazar settlement attached in time to meet a deadline agreed to by the Indian plaintiffs in the case.

In recent days, legislators attached the $3.4 billion settlement to the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010, a measure aimed at extending unemployment benefits, Medicare reimbursements, and several tax credits.

The White House supported the settlement as part of the legislation, although some Congress members wanted it to be voted on as a standalone measure.

Unable to come to an agreement on the overall bill due to cost concerns facing members in both chambers, Senate Democrats decided late Thursday to try to pass a short extension of unemployment benefits, rather than agree to a pared-down version of the larger bill the House had been working on.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the Senate would work on passing the larger measure when senators return from Memorial Day recess June 7.

The problem with Reid’s timeline for the Cobell settlement is that congressional approval was needed by Friday for the deal to proceed. The agreement was initially finalized between Indian plaintiffs and the Obama administration in December, and has faced several setbacks.

May 28 was to be the last of four deadline dates that the plaintiffs and the administration had set for congressional action. There have already been three deadline extensions since December.

Dennis Gingold, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, previously said that if Congress did not meet the May 28 deadline, he would proceed anew with litigation. The case has already been ongoing since 1996.

Lawyers for both the Indian plaintiffs and the Justice Department, which is handling the case for the Obama administration, could not say Friday morning whether they might agree to another extension.

Gingold said Friday morning, “[W]e have no present plans to discuss an extension of the settlement agreement.”

Some observers have speculated that the plaintiffs should consider another deadline extension, since Congress seems close to approval. At the same time, there is no guarantee that legislators will move quickly after the Memorial Day recess.

A couple of Congress members have said they’d like to see another deadline extension, but it’s unclear if that will happen. Read more here.

Chief Zee, unofficial Redskins mascot. Something wrong with this picture?

Many thoughts have been written about the ongoing lawsuit over the Redskins name and logo from Native Americans who note that the term is racist. Now, new research is showing that the psychology of the situation goes beyond Indians.

Before I get into the research, a disclaimer: Historians note that the word “redskins” was historically used by the U.S. government as a way to refer to bounties it placed on scalped Indian heads.

Many Native American plaintiffs have made personal arguments for why the Washington, D.C. football team name is damaging. As the lawsuit against the team’s trademark has progressed since the early 1990s, research has begun to show that the damages go beyond the individual.

In some cases, large groups of Native Americans can be negatively impacted, research indicates. Some of the nation’s top psychology scholars wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court last fall that the effects of American Indian sports team names and mascots are especially harmful to Native youth, tending to lower the self-esteem of Indian children and young adults.

Now, the arguments are going beyond the idea that these kinds of names and mascots are simply harmful to Native Americans–they may be bad for much of American society.

A new study, published by Chu Kim-Prieto, a psychologist with the College of New Jersey, suggests stereotyping of American Indians is a psychological process that actually encourages a broader attitude that affects all minority communities, not just the ones being actively stereotyped.

I wrote about the study in an article published at Indian Country Today:

“In other words, my stereotype is your stereotype, too,” Jenn Fang, an Asian American advocate, summarized in a recent blog post regarding the study.

Kim-Prieto said she began the research when she was a graduate student at the University of Illinois, which until 2007 featured the infamous Chief Illiniwek mascot. Like the Washington Redskins, many Native Americans decried the Illinois mascot, saying it degraded their culture, and was a racist misrepresentation.

The researcher conducted her experiment through two separate studies, in which she showed students either a picture of Chief Illiniwek, or a generic University of Illinois logo. Next, students were given a questionnaire asking them to rank their agreement with statements regarding Asian American stereotypes.

The findings indicated that students who first viewed stereotypical images of Chief Illiniwek were more willing to promote stereotypical statements about Asian Americans. The same was true of students who read a fictional biography of Chief Illiniwek, compared to students who read a generic description of an arts center.

“We usually think about racism as something that’s motivated by racial hatred of a targeted ethnic group,” Fang blogged about the findings. “Instead, this study tells us that even exposure to racial stereotypes appears to encourage an overall more black-and-white (pardon the pun) outlook on the world – even against unrelated groups.”

Even if you might think the study isn’t all that big of a deal, some lawyers for the Indians suing the Redskins, as well as lawmakers, think otherwise:

“We are happy to see psychologists doing important work that confirms our argument that these stereotypes are harmful,” said [Philip] Mause, of the Drinker Biddle firm.

“I think it should be clear to the Redskins’ owners, based on this kind of research, that they are going to be facing litigation from a variety of people for a long, long time. Simply put, they should just change the name.”

Top policy makers, some whom have offered legislation against stereotypical representations of Native Americans, are also paying credence to the new psychological research.

“I think it is more important than ever to address and eliminate derogatory stereotypes of Native Americans, which often includes their portrayal as school mascots,” said Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., after learning of the study.

“I agree that stereotyping Native Americans as mascots for example makes it more acceptable to apply stereotypes in other situations. I continue to pursue support for my legislation and the elimination of derogatory stereotyping of Native Americans.”

Pallone introduced a bill before the House of Representatives last November that would identify derogatory mascots in schools and create a grant program to assist in changing offensive images. It’s called the NATIVE Act.

Will this one study make a difference in whether the Redskins name changes? No, but I think it says something big about the direction this situation is heading.

The situation stems from an April 24 diabetes screening event. The university is saying that students in a physician training program, under faculty supervision, may have improperly used a device that pricks fingers to draw blood. The implication is that blood was likely cross-contaminated.

The university is estimating that over 50 individuals were tested, although exact records were not kept, so a major public health crisis is a possibility. They say that their “best current estimate” is a .5 percent chance of infection. The full warning follows:

Diabetes Testing Incident – April 24, 2010

On Saturday April 24th, 2010, a group of students from the University of New Mexico Physician Assistant program were volunteering at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center in Albuquerque during the Center’s American Indian Week “Pueblo Days” to offer free voluntary blood sugar tests. The device used to prick the finger to get the blood sample required for testing was meant for single patient use and not for multiple patients. Those who volunteered for testing that day may have been put at risk of contracting infections due to potential exposure to diseases spread by blood contact.

Despite direct faculty supervision, three mistakes were made: They used the wrong device; they were not all properly trained on the device; no records of those tested were kept.

We estimate that 51 to 55 individuals were tested, potentially exposing these people to other’s blood. The diseases of greatest concern are Hepatitis B and C although theoretically HIV is also possible. Our best current assessment of the risk of infection is less than a 0.5% risk. Even though the risk is small it is something we are very concerned about it and are taking it seriously.

UNM School of Medicine deeply regrets this error and wants to apologize to all those who may have been exposed, and to the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center. We are asking that those who were tested come forward so we can better assess any risk from this episode and assure that exposed persons receive appropriate follow-up testing and care. If you know someone who was tested please contact us.

Those who may have been exposed will be offered follow-up testing for Hepatitis B, C, and HIV. The costs of testing will be covered by UNM.

Public health authorities are requesting that those who participated in the diabetes screening event should contact 1-888-899-6092 for more information and referral for screening. You may also use this web form to make contact.

Thank you.

I can’t help but wonder if the faculty and students will face punishment. Even if no one is harmed, this was an outrageous lapse in judgment.

I’m not sure how often military helicopters land at Wounded Knee nowadays, but Native American protesters are saying that a recent landing there, plus more overhead flights, represented an injustice to the sacred site and their buried ancestors.

The video, timestamped May 1, shows several tribal citizens watching and protesting the landing. Many are now asking why the helicopters were there, but few solid answers have come yet. Will update as they become available.

A big reason the development is significant is because the Battle of Wounded Knee is one of the most well-known armed conflicts between the Sioux Nation and the United States. In the resulting massacre, approximately 150 tribal citizens were killed, as were some U.S. forces, according to historical records.

It happened in 1890. The scars live on to this day.

An update from the Argus Leader:

Colorado Army National Guardsmen attempting to land helicopters at the Wounded Knee memorial site Saturday were rebuffed by protesters who considered their presence insulting.

Oglala Sioux tribal officials had agreed to allow the guardsmen to land at Wounded Knee site to hear an educational and historical presentation on the massacre.

Marie Fox Belly, great-granddaughter of Wounded Knee massacre survivor Dewey Beard, said the presentation she was going to make to the guardsmen was meant to help them learn about the massacre and ensure such things never happened again.

But about 16 protesters drove the three helicopters away after one had touched down for a minute or two in a flat just southeast of the mass grave, Fox Belly said.

“It was meant for a healing process,” she said.

But Belva Hollow Horn, a member of the Descendants of the 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre organization, said she considered the helicopters’ presence at the memorial site “outrageous.”

“Why would you want helicopters landing at the Wounded Knee massacre site,” Hollow Horn said. “That is totally insulting.”

As I reported in January, no press releases went out; the White House didn’t make any announcements; and the president didn’t tell any tribal citizens or leaders about the apology he had signed.

The question from several Indians I interviewed at the time centered on whether this was a real apology. After all, is an apology not said out loud, and not drawn attention to, really an apology? I titled the piece, “A sorry saga.”

“What kind of an apology is it when they don’t tell the people they are apologizing to? For an apology to have any meaning at all, you do have to tell the people you’re apologizing to,” said Robert T. Coulter, executive director of the Indian Law Resource Center.

“I have had my doubts on whether this is a true or meaningful apology, and this silence seems to speak very loudly on that point.”

The story has been popular in Indian circles, and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., drew more attention to it in an interview he did with me after the president’s signature.

Brownback, who introduced the original resolution in Congress in 2004, again made points on the topic at the recent National Indian Gaming Association conference. There, he told my colleague and attendees that he’s been “pushing the administration to have a major public ceremony, but they aren’t taking it on yet.”

When I asked the White House in January about the situation, they told me there were “no updates at this time” on how Obama might proceed. And no updates have since come, either.

What does the Native American Apology Resolution say? It reads in part that Congress “apologizes on behalf of the people of the United States to all Native Peoples for the many instances of violence, maltreatment, and neglect inflicted on Native Peoples by citizens of the United States.”

It also “urges the President to acknowledge the wrongs of the United States against Indian tribes in the history of the United States in order to bring healing to this land.”

Further, it comes with a disclaimer that nothing in the resolution authorizes or supports any legal claims against the United States and that the resolution does not settle any claims against the country.

Some tribal officials are hopeful that an apology ceremony will happen by the end of this year with major tribal officials in attendance. But, with politics looming large, no one is saying with confidence at this point that it will happen.

Brownback told me that this situation should ideally be apolitical.

“I am concerned about people doing political calculations in the White House, looking at it that way,” the senator said.

“My hope is that they would look at this, noting it has been a bipartisan issue. They could use me and others to shield themselves on it. They don’t have to take all the responsibility themselves. I do think there’s strength in the nature of this being bipartisan for them to use that. I just think there is so much good that could come out of this.”

As Brownback said, the apology has indeed been largely bipartisan. Now, let’s see how this sorry saga plays out.

“If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans,” the leading scientist said in a recent interview promoting a new Discovery documentary.

The danger appears all the more real, since Hawking believes the odds of aliens existing are mathematically pretty good.

Most of those aliens would probably be simple creatures, he said, but some could come ready to raid, plunder, and destroy Earth.

So we should just be quiet, and not try to attract them, the scientist believes.

A problem with that plan: no recorded history suggests that Native Americans reached out to colonizers to attract them to the “New World.” Nope, Columbus and friends just stumbled upon it. And then did what they did.

Just like the aliens might do to Earth.

Something happened today that I’m not used to seeing: a substantial mainstream media outlet covered a big American Indian tribal issue in a top slot position.

CNN and reporter Patrick Oppmann deserve kudos for featuring an article about devastating flooding on the Hoh Reservation in Washington state as its top news item this morning. The story was reported from the tribe, and compelling video and pictures were used to illustrate the piece. It also contains notes on the tribe’s unique history, its cultural traditions, and highlights the voices of tribal citizens.

From reading the front pages of American newspapers today (even the back pages), it would be next to impossible to know that tribes face some of the worst economic, poverty, and health issues of our time. Their stories are sometimes just as horrid as situations reported from Third World countries — despite being a part of America.

Too often, when tragedy strikes a tribe, few in the mainstream population know about it. When a blizzard and ice storm hit the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe this winter, leaving some without services for days, numerous tribal citizens asked where the mainstream coverage was. At the time, much attention was focused on the Haiti earthquake devastation, so the lack of coverage was painfully obvious.

Today, CNN took a solid step toward appropriate inclusion. That’s a good thing.

To other news outlets, I would like to remind you that there are 564 federally-recognized tribes alone. And hundreds of other state and non-recognized tribes. And even more American Indians who aren’t enrolled in any tribe.

There are thousands of rich stories to be told. Some of the most interesting state and federal policy matters directly relate to tribes. There are major scoops to be had. Just take a look.

A Native-focused blog I like to check out from time to time, Newspaper Rock, has started a battle with an editorial posted on the South Dakota Mitchell Daily Republic’s Web site.

The editorial wrongly claims that American Indians haven’t protested offensive mascots consistently.

Rob Schmidt, writer of the Indian-focused blog, did the research to show that Seth Tupper, the writer of the editorial in question, was mistaken.

“To recap, in 15 seconds I found evidence of four decades of opposition: newspaper articles, protest videos, and a case that almost reached the US Supreme Court,” the blogger wrote. “That’s the proverbial tip of the iceberg. In 15 minutes I could’ve found 60 times as much evidence: marches and demonstrations, editorials and op/ed pieces, condemnations by Native and civil rights organizations, documentaries and videos, books and websites, and lawsuits and court rulings.”

Tupper got a little feisty after Schmidt e-mailed him his research. So he did what any respectable editorial writer would do: debase the platform on which Schmidt runs his blog.

“The fact that you’re backing up your claim with a zero-comment post on an obscure Google Blogger site only serves to underscore my point that, though there have been protests, none have risen to the level of a ’sustained, popular effort,’” Tupper wrote to Schmidt.

Oh my. First, Tupper’s claim is 100% wrong, easily verified. Next, Schmidt tore him — and his small town newspaper — a new one:

“…Tupper attacks the popularity of this blog. In doing so, he veers even further into the stupidity. If he wants me to embarrass him, I’ll be glad to.

First, he notes the lack of comments on my original posting. I posted it late Friday night and he responded early Saturday morning. Of course there weren’t any comments between midnight and dawn, dummy.

The posting has comments now. Meanwhile, I don’t see any comments on Tupper’s editorial. I don’t consider comments a measure of success, but if they are, I’m winning.

Next, Tupper calls Newspaper Rock an “obscure Google Blogger site.” That’s pretty funny coming from a tiny paper in a small town few people have ever heard of.

According to the City of Mitchell website, this prairie pit stop had 14,558 people in 2000. The newspaper’s circulation must be a few thousand. Meanwhile, my nationally read website got 20,535 pageviews last Friday, or 1.5 times the town’s entire population.

I don’t know how many people read my Chief Wahoo posting. It’s on the blog’s front page for a week…posted on PECHANGA.net and Facebook…and tweeted and retweeted on Twitter. Some fans subscribe to the blog or see the postings in RSS feeds. I’d guess the number of views is comparable to the number of views Tupper’s editorial got: a few thousand.

I don’t feel bad comparing my blog to a bump in the road where the big news includes “Holiday Garbage Collection,” “Street Closing,” and “Cabela’s Gobbler Contest.” I’ll take my significance over Mitchell’s any day.

It’s a serious issue, but Schmidt’s response can’t help but make me smile. Here’s hoping Tupper has learned a lesson, regardless of the blogger’s platform. Somehow, I doubt it.