Hey all, I've been asked to share this petition wherever I can and I think the Nexus is an appropriate place. I wanted to post this in the sub-forum for The Coalition for Entheogenic Liberty, as this explicitly concerns the rights and liberties of those who feel that their traditional ways are being exploited. Considering the touchy nature of this subject, however, I've posted this in Open Discussion.

As a disclaimer, I understand that many of you are Rainbow Family and that the way in which this petition is worded might be controversial for some and may make you feel uncomfortable, but I implore you to really consider what is being demanded by the people of the Sioux Nation and to think about what "respecting culture" actually looks like. For those of you who have been inspired or influenced by Indigenous culture, this is a concrete real-world action that you can take to help support Native communities and uplift their voices.

There is a LOT of support for this petition in the local community; it's been up for a day and already has close to 500 signatures. The link to the petition is below.

"Rainbow Warriors" Stay away from The Black Hills of South Dakota! ~ U.U.W.S ~

Aside from signing the petition, it's also being asked that people share this and repost it wherever they can. Please share this with friends and family, post it on facebook, and I know many of you are members on other boards such as the Shroomery, the Ayahuasca forums, Mycotopia, etc...

Additionally, there will be some kind of conference call taking place next week and organizers are asking for folks to call in to disrupt and tell them NO!

Conference call info:
Next Sunday 6/14/2015
9pm eastern (8C, 7M, 6P)
(712)-432-0460 then 397370#

Please participate if you are able! As people who benefit from psychedelics (particularly those who benefit from Indigenous sacraments), I would hope that collectively we have the integrity to step up to the plate and get our hands dirty even if it means questioning ourselves and confronting our own assumptions.

Om I

I have a hard time believing this violent hateful attack would be in any way representative of the confederation of tribes that make up the Sioux Nation.

The petition is filled to the brim with hate and negativity. I understand the strong emotion. I get it, but I also know they can express their disdain for the 'hippy dippy' culture in a more productive way.

The founder of U.U.W.S wrote the following.

"I would just as soon take a war party up in the hills and scalp a bunch of them! Then sit down and talk about them standing next to us with their Bull Shit Rainbow prophecy crap!...They say they respect us and honor our way! Yet they want to come and desecrate our church with their foolishness! No matter what we say or not! Then think its OK just because a couple Sell out Indians welcome them...LOL. AS IF they speak for "Oceti Sakowin" (The whole Sioux Nation)" ~ James "Magaska" Swan Founder U.U.W.S.

I cannot get behind someone who would say such things.

Yes, the wording of the petition is very strong and I'll admit that I was a bit skeptical at first; but it is being promoted by a group known as NAFPS (New Age Frauds and Plastic Shamans) who I have much respect and trust for. The petition itself was created by a group known as the United Urban Warrior Society who I don't know too much about, but I haven't found anything about them that would indicate that they are anything other than what they claim to be. I would not have posted this myself had I not been specifically asked to do so.

Like I said, a lot of people will probably be turned off by the harshness. I just ask that people think about what is actually being demanded. If you are stepping on someone's foot and they tell you to get off, my response would be to get off of their foot....not to say, "ask nicely please".

I also ask people to consider their expectations of other cultures. The racist myth of the "noble savage" still persists today, and when Native people do not behave in a way that fits this mold (peace loving, hanging out in the woods, utopian society, happy-go-lucky...) they are often ignored and dismissed. People are angry. Let them be angry.

In the meantime, I'll do a bit more digging because I acknowledge that the way in which this petition is worded raises some red flags. I'd encourage anyone else who is skeptical to do some research as well instead of simply dismissing the issue because you don't like their tone.

In the area where I live, the Rainbow family gathers yearly in our National Forest lands and does great harm to the ecology and economy both; The vagrant population that floods our small towns on the way to these events often bring waves of property crime and disturb the locals with panhandling and trespassing. As well, they dig cisterns (big ditches of human waste) above natural water sources and foul the water supply, killing or displacing native plants and animals... Not only that, but the Sierra Nevada water table provides drinking water to many major cities on the west coast as well as the local populations. These people are often purely hypocritical, behave criminally and have little to no respect for the local people who protect and maintain the land that they rape for their yearly festivities.

That being said... I still can't support this petition or the ideas behind it. Positive change is created through positive action; It comes to be by bringing people together in understanding, rather than dividing and deriding. The end never justifies the means, and one group's claim to the hills and forests of our universal Mother Earth is no more valid than another's... And this is without regard to Ethnic background, social outlook or economic status. People are people, and the Earth is our communal home.

Is a change in the family's practices appropriate and necessary?
Absolutely.

Do we, as the people living in the places they gather, have a right to demand appropriate behavior from our visitors?
Absolutely.

Is this the proper and compassionate way to make that change?...
Absolutely Not.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I guess my opinion is that the park is public property, and legally the Rainbow people have the right to be there. That an individual or group would take land that is designated for everyone and say "this is ours, keep out" is despicable. I just can't believe that people claim to own land simply because their ancestors happened to wander onto it. We're all just here. We don't own this place, and nobody has the right to tell others how to enjoy it.

I don't know if my previous experiences apply in this particular circumstance in any way but this looks quite familiar, at least on the surface. I have seen, many times, first nation people being directed/empowered by members of government agencies, in one instance a state governor in person, to rid their sacred land of these disrespectful hippies. Then, once the gathering is over, the land is immediately returned to cattle grazing or logging or some other exploitation that was disrupted by the festivities.

I'm not saying that some elements that are attracted to (and take advantage of) rainbow gatherings, are not a burden upon the land and surrounding towns. There are, however, some very redeeming things going on.

If I believed control of these lands were going to be returned to the indigenous peoples of the area then I would firmly stand behind keeping "family" out. As I've indicated, I very much doubt this to be the case.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Hiyo Quicksilver and others.

I asked around some more and James Swan and his group are indeed legitimate, and they've been engaged in a handful of successful campaigns. This said, he is known to sometimes act in a way that can be seen as confrontational. Regardless of race or organization, sometimes people who are angry say things that turn out to be a disservice to their cause in the long-run.

The fact of the matter is that the community does NOT want this event to take place. If I'm being totally honest, in my opinion it seems short-sighed to dismiss the concerns of an entire community because one person wrote something objectionable. I work with a few different groups and people say problematic things all of the time, but I'm not going to disregard the important work being done by large groups of people just because someone said something disagreeable.

I don't think it's up to any of us who are non-Indigenous to decide what the "proper" way is to defend their culture. The point of this petition isn't about reconciliation, it's not about saving the planet or bringing people together...it's pretty specific in that people are pissed off that this gathering is going to take place and they are standing up and saying no. If you want to support them, here is something you can do. If you do not want to support them then don't, but don't justify it by claiming that their anger is improper or inappropriate.

There are quite a few people discussing this issue here. If you take a gander at the comments you will see many statements left by members of the community in which this gathering would take place; they are respectfully requesting that the event happen someplace else, and they are thoughtful enough to explain why. Both perspectives are considered and many people are being receptive to the concerns. This said, it should also be easy to find the large number of disrespectful comments defending the gathering and even going so far as to dismiss the grievances because some hippies feel "hurt" about the wording of the petition. This isn't about our feelings and nothing is being asked, this is a demand. When people have been speaking out for 500 years and are treated like infants in return, don't act surprised that they aren't polite. Stealing culture and desecrating sacred landmarks when you are repeatedly asked not to is pretty rude if you ask me.

Anyways...yes, the petition probably could have been written in a way that didn't immediately turn people off. I don't disagree with any of you on that point, but I strongly feel that we have no right to tell people that their anger is inappropriate or unwarranted when we have no idea what their experience is like as marginalized people. People say regrettable things when they are angry, such is human nature. We are mature and insightful people, I don't think that it's unreasonable to assume that we could look past such emotional responses and consider the bigger picture here.

You're all individuals, you can do what you want and we're all going to have different ideas of right and wrong. But there are plenty of other voices speaking out against this gathering. If the petition offends your sense of right and wrong than why not find another way to offer support? Participate in the conference call, post about the issue on your preferred social networks, tell your Rainbow friends, or if this doesn't bother you than don't do anything at all. My point is that there are far more productive things that you could do other than getting offended by people standing up for themselves, even if that means doing nothing.

Rainbow nationals happened in my community this last year. Here's the verdict on that.

This is another example of generalization, and a push towards political correctness.

I don't believe in being politically correct, and while I do feel that there is a lot of stuff that goes on in the new age that is tacky to the extreme(like war bonnets at festivals), that is for the person wearing it to deal with. It does not matter what I think about them. It is actually not about me or what I think at all. I don't like people with racist views, but so what? Do I have the right to say they cannot have a racist gathering in the woods as long as they do not physically act upon those idea towards others?

Why is it okay to publish pictures of Alah when other cultures are soo sensitive about it, but it is not okay to hold a festival because first nations are sensitive about it?

I dunno, I have more important things to worry about than if some hippies can have a festival..

Here is a nice question for those who support this...do you also support the right for a man (say in Portland) to deny service at his business to another person because they are homo-sexual? If not, then why? Why is it okay for one persons beliefs about the actions of other non violent persons to be acted on, and not okay for someone elses?

Is this a free country(well I am in Canada)?

What does free country even mean?

Are we born with rights?(I say no, nature does not require rights)

Some things to think about.

I tend to support indigenous peoples because I feel they are usually offering the most sane perspective, and I see a level of community present that much of the rest of us are lacking...but what I do not support is a push towards political correctness that results in situations where a person(or persons) business or festival or w/e is taken away because some other people don't like those opinion.

I like freedom and rights to my own freedom as an ideal that we strive towards in society(but there are serious limits to that line of thought)...that includes my right to not serve people I don't like at my own business(or perhaps fire employees who discriminate in that way), or go to a festival that some people feel is culturally insensitive. It does not mean I personally support all of those points of view, some of them I think are held by backwards idiots, but it is none of my business...

Keep in mind, as soon as other peoples rights are actually threatened, or land is being abused(w/e that may mean) etc it stops being about a persons right to opinion and action should be taken.

I feel many people don't really understand what freedom entails. Not everything about freedom is feel good.

"The petition is filled to the brim with hate and negativity"

Nothing wrong with that, necessarily..and ironically, I think the lesson beneath all of this is tolerance.

How strong are we? What can we tolerate? When is something intolerable?

is sad how the concepts of the rainbow family are so good and pure, and attract good people,
but the end result is so bad and dirty, because i guess the good also attracts the bad people.

Well said

I'm glad they care for some land... Though ours isn't so lucky in their wake. Maybe because there is less publicity of the smaller gatherings here?

I think both sides are being fairly ridiculous to be honest. Rainbow for not just going somewhere else because that many people are actually pissed (even though many others welcomed them), and parts of the Sioux for such a disgusting and intolerant backlash.

Interesting post jamie.

To some extent I can agree with where you're coming from, but I feel like there's an important distinction between call-out culture/political correctness (which I'm not a big fan of) and groups of people asking that their culture be respected. Asking non-Indigenous people not to dress up like Native Americans, host faux-Indigenous ceremonies, and attract cops doesn't really have anything to do with political-correctness. In my opinion it's a matter of common decency and respect. I would not want people coming to my community and dressing in black face pretending to be tribal Africans, nor do I think it would be appropriate to travel to an Islamic region and share a picture of Muhammad; am I pushing for political correctness because of this? Being respectful=/=PC and the comparison (though I get where you're coming from) seems like a generalization to me.

The concept of what freedom looks like is a big conversation, perhaps larger than the scope of this thread. But I personally don't agree that freedom means you can do whatever you want regardless of the harm caused by your actions. I also feel like liberation, freedom, whatever you want to call it is a process and not an end-in-itself. There are steps we have to take to get there, and that involves mutual respect and accountability. Saying, "I'm going to do this regardless of what so and so thinks because this is a free country" is not respectful nor is it accountable. BP, Shell, Monsanto, Wall Street, The KKK...have all used a similar line of logic.

And lastly, who's country is this really? The mainstream left loves to lament about how awful it is that the USA occupies Indigenous land, yet conveniently forgets this fact when Indigenous people get upset about something. Colonization didn't just happen 500 years ago, it's happening now and this is what it looks like.

If someone came to your property and started doing something that made you feel uncomfortable, surely you would argue that you have every right to request that they leave?



The Rainbow family has a great reputation amongst the Forest Service in most places. This isn't really the issue though. It's OK to do whatever you want so long as you're green about it? The people who actually live in the area that this gathering would take place don't feel comfortable with it happening in their community. It's their community and has been for thousands of years, they have every right to request that the gathering take place somewhere else.

I'd be lying if I said that the Rainbow family was totally unwelcome. The UUWS facebook page shows that there are indeed a handful of community members welcoming the gathering, as universecannon pointed out. And what about the others, who constitute a very large portion of the community? Their feelings on the matter don't count?

I understand we all have our own opinions, as we have every right to; so I'm not going to try and persuade anyone otherwise. The facts are: this gathering is happening, most of the people who live there do no want it to happen in their community, this petition is one of many ways that you can support the locals. Nobody has to participate if they don't want to. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me on the issue and that's not why I posted this--but for those who do, here's something you can do. And for those who don't, thank you for an interesting conversation and I appreciate you sharing your perspective.

The difference is power. Native American tribes have been lied to, brutalized, and exploited by both State and Private institutions for hundreds of years. The same is not true of the majority of Muslims (Islam being one of the largest religions in the world, although Muslims in the USA admittedly face pretty extreme Islamophobia).

The same is true of the question of businesses serving gay folks. LGBT people have been ostracized and oppressed in this country, and others, for hundreds of years. The same is not true of self-righteous Christian bakers, who occupy a very privileged place in American society.

Does that mean that we should make the bakers serve gay people, or use legal force to keep the Rainbow Family off the land? No, I'm opposed to state control, BUT it is disingenuous to pretend that all demographics are treated equally because it ignores the complex history of violence and oppression that majority groups have inflicted on minority ones, including Native Americans and LGBT people.

Blessings
~ND

Here is another petition that was created by someone in the Rainbow Family. The tone of this petition is much less aggressive and there are no references to scalping (snide or otherwise). And they are saying please...

I generally have pretty mixed feelings about the effectiveness of petitions, but in many cases I feel that they are important and strategic first steps in a larger process of pushing for change. In this case, it definitely counts.

First and foremost, these two bigoted and hateful quotes on the original petition do not and should not be taken in any way to represent the entirety of the Sioux peoples. Frankly these people's violent shameful attacks should be considered an embarrassment to any sensible compassionate human being no matter what their race.

The gathering is not taking place on tribal lands, it's taking place in a national forest making it effectively the business of the US Forest Service and nowhere within the realm of tribal affairs. The governing bodies of the Sioux Nation have no involvement in this whatsoever and these clearly agenda driven organizations, NAFPS and UUWS neither are representative of, nor have the authority to speak for the Sioux Nation in any official capacity.

There are currently just over 700 signatures on the petition, hardly representative of a majority of the 100,000+ Sioux peoples living in in the United States today or the 800,000+ people living around the Black Hills.

Why are these people so up in arms about a few thousand hippies with a great track record of cleaning up after themselves gathering on public lands? Yet they have no qualms with the half million bikers that will descend on the Black Hills a month later for the Sturgis rally and all the debauchery that entails?

What about the thousands of people that camp in the forest every summer who don't have such an impeccable track record of cleaning up after themselves? Why are people praying for global peace and planetary healing more of an affront to sacred lands than Joe America and his family ripping up the terrain on their ATV's?

I believe council will be taking place to make a final decision on the gathering site on June 17. I encourage those who feel strongly about this on either side to attend this council and voice their concerns. Everyone is given the opportunity to speak their truth at council and decision is reached by consensus. Talking it out directly is a much more pragmatic and productive approach than launching internet petitions and calumny attacks.

Yes, the lands are US property... NOW. They have been tribal lands far longer, however.