interviews
The Federal Government and Native American Health
by Sarah Stern
July 7, 2020
This interview with Sarah Stern, a Health Educator at John Hopkins American Indian Health (JHCAIH), was conducted and condensed by franknews.
frank | Native American populations have been disproportionately impacted by COVID. I am curious about what the current reality of tribal healthcare infrastructure looks like and the history that has played a role in shaping it?
Sarah Stern | The reality is that tribal healthcare infrastructure has been and remains underfunded and understaffed.
The Indian Health Services (IHS) has been vastly underfunded since it’s creation in 1955. The Snyder Act of 1921 was the first federal agreement to even allow Native people to receive medical care. We see facets of American history that are not even 100 years old. I stress this as a reminder that while Native people have always existed in the United States, there are far more years of physical and cultural genocide against Native people within American history than years of serving, protecting, and advocating for Native lives.
IHS remains the last in line to receive federal funding to aid the health and wellbeing of Native people. The National Indian Health Board (NIHB) released tribal budget recommendations showing that the IHS spends on average only $3,332 per capita on each patient, compared to a national average of $9,207. In comparison to the Veterans Administration (VA), which is also underfunded, the VA remains about 14 times as funded than the IHS. Highlighting these gaps creates dialogue for both Native people and allies to engage in political pressure to increase funding for healthcare and save lives.
From my understanding there was a "Self-determination Era," which came about in the 1960s, giving tribal governments greater control over local government operations, including healthcare and health clinics. Can you go into the history of that era?
The “Self-Determination Era” allowed Native people to use federal funds as they wanted, but the caveat was (and remains today) that Native people had to report how they wanted to use funds and keep records of the cash flows using systems developed by non-Native people. This created a newer opportunity to add in ‘western’, or non-Native educational programs. School-based teachings of Native cultural values or language were not allowed until 1975, which is less than 100 years ago. Public services, workforce creation, and health care facilities were more developed as Native people were granted the federal ability to allocate funds into these things, alongside education.
It is important to recognize Native people have always utilized the act of self-determination to keep community members, especially children and elders, safe from harm’s way, even before the “Self-Determination Era”. We have worked persistently to protect our land, people, and allies since time immemorial. As Native people proved in many ways to survive physical and cultural genocide, the United States eventually allowed Native people to use federal funding as they saw fit, which was not the case before the 1960s. Basically, the onslaught of Native people cost the United States so much time, money, and non-Native causalities that they eventually folded and decided to stop murdering on stolen land.
Native people also began to have more rights for self-governance, which allowed for leadership among the facets the people wanted funding applied to.
As we see in successful public health initiatives today, when communities have voices at the table representing what the needs and realities are, more positive opportunities take place.
Without Native leadership, the “Self-Determination Era” would not have been as successful nor propelled us to where Native communities are presently.
How can the federal government effectively help in this crisis while also ensuring levels of continued self-determination?”
The federal government can listen to Native leadership directly. Native community leaders have the means to communicate what their people need during this time. This is the most direct way for the federal government to help.
Another way that the federal government can help is to increase public health funding to health programs and educational opportunities. JHCAIH is committed to providing national leadership in training Indigenous scholars in health care and public health science. JHCAIH has awarded over 1,500 scholarships to people representing 45 tribal communities around the nation. Linked below is more information on the public health training programs and online application for scholarships.
Online Application for Scholarships
Is there a specific piece of that history and its effects that you are thinking about most right now?
Treaty rights, and the broken treaties this country participates in.
Broken treaties impact all aspects of Native American communities. Broken treaties account for the fact that some Native people are not federally or state recognized, which in turn impacts the ability to apply for education, housing, health, and infrastructure assistance. Broken treaties have taken away Native lands and water rights.
Broken treaties have created health disparities we see across Indian Country.
Broken treaties have fueled stereotypes against Native people and treaties continue to be broken to this day. For example, in February, the current administration demolished Tohono O'odham Nation’s sacred burial lands without consulting the tribe. Members of the Mashpee Wampanoag community are currently battling the federal administration for seizure of land granted by a federal trust. Land has life. Land connects to Native creation stories, it holds memories, it gives protection, and when land is seized, people hurt. I encourage you to find out what Native land you live on, who the Native people are in your area historically and presently, and how you can show allyship to Native people during this time. Allyship can help combat broken treaties.
How do the economic crisis and health care crisis particularly feed off of each other?
Both crises increase panic. Health care requires money. Lack of economic opportunities diminishes ability to pay for health care costs and decreases the ability to fund health care initiatives.
Collapse of economic ventures impacts everyone, regardless of whether the business is run by Native people or not. This will vary by community, but Native leadership works diligently to ensure that community members have the means to purchase essentials, like food and water, and as they are able, they create plans for how business can run with social distancing procedures at the foreground. Protecting the health and lives of people is the best practice to begin re-opening businesses during the pandemic.
interviews
Defining Terrorism
by Victor Asal
August 7, 2018
This interview was orignially conducted and published in frank on April 28, 2018.
This interview with Victor Asal, a professor and chair of public administration at Rockafeller College University of Albany, was conducted and condensed by frank news. It took place April 16, 2018.
My name is Victor Asal, I’m a professor of political science and Chair of Public Administartion at Rockafeller College at University of Albany, State University of New York.
I have three main areas of research. My first area of research is why people would go 400 miles out of their way to blow up people they’ve never met before. So criminal justice most times, most homicides are committed by people who know the other people. But going and killing people you’ve never met before, why would specific organizations do that? What are their strategies? That’s one area of research that I focus on.
My other area of research is why people are discriminated against by the State or by societies. Why are some people treated badly just because of the color of their skin, or their gender, or their sexual identity? I research all of those areas there.
These two areas of research are definitely connected.
My third area of research is the area of pedagogy in political science. What are effective ways of teaching students about political concepts, about the theories of politics? Specifically in the areas that I research. I’m a big fan of games, excerices, simulations — making a student a lab rat in their own experiment is much more useful than discussing why did Stalin do this? If I have an excersise where you are Stalin, and you did it, everyone else in class can ask you to explain it, it can be a different understanding.
Related to political violence I spent a great deal of time focusing on collecting new data that allows us to get traction under analysis on the organizational level, within a couple different contexts. The area of violent non-state actors. Why do certain organizations turn to violence? And when they do, why are some organizations much more lethal than other organizations? One of the things that I’ve found in my research is strong support for an argument that Ted Gurr made 47 years ago, about why men rebel.
There were a lot of people who disputed this and argued about this — but there's been growing literature that’s been focusing at the ethnic group level, that this is true, that this is one of the drivers of the use of political violence. I’ve been looking at this at the organizational level using a dataset called Minorities Risk Organizational Behavior dataset. And that’s ethnopolitical organizations in the Middle East and North Africa that claim to represent an ethnopolitical group, minority group. From the analysis, some of them are violent, some of them are not violent.
Can you tell me who some of them are?
Hammas, Amal, the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine), lots of different organizations, again some are violent, some are not, and some go back and forth.
That makes sense.
The other data set, that really is the genesis of myself and colleague, Karl Rethemeyer here at U Albany, is the Big Allied and Dangerous data set, which has the acronym BAAD. The BAAD Dataset is the dataset of organizations that have already turned to violence, that are using violence, and to be able to look at why some of them are so much more lethal than others, or use CBRN weapons [chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear ] in terrorism and such.
One of the interesting things that we’re finding is that organizations that are networked tend to be much more lethal than organizations that are not networked.
What do you mean by networked?
Having allies. For example, how many things have you gotten by knowing somebody?
Nearly everything.
Right, so we’re finding that that’s true of organizations also. Organizations that have connections tend to be more lethal, tend to get a lot more done, in a lot of different ways. Friends can be very, very helpful.
The other thing that we’re finding is that organizations that are lethal tend to generate more rivals. There’s a cycle process. But there's another issue here, that really drives these organizations, and that’s ideology. There’s some really interesting theoretical and case study work by a guy named Mark Juergensmeyer. He talks about how ideology can compel organizations and people to kill. Because they have this power of othering…have you ever seen the movie Aliens?
No.
You should see the movie Aliens. It's a great movie. Our heroine, Ripley, she’s trying to protect this young girl from aliens. And the aliens are these sentient, intelligent creatures, that have this unpleasant habit of eating humans. Ripley stumbles into a nursery of baby aliens. I mentioned that the aliens are intelligent beings?
Yes.
If I can build an ideology that makes me the good guy, and makes you evil, or not really even human — that enables me to say I can kill as many of you as I want, and I can kill as many civilians as I want. So ideology, particularly religious ideology, has an important impact. And the combination of religious and ethnonaturalist ideology have a very, very important impact on the behavior of these organizations.
The issue of killing civilians gets at one of the core debates we are having about terrorism. Because the term terrorism can be used in many ways. And there are lots of people who use the term terrorism to describe any violent organization they don’t like. Those are the terrorists, these are the good guys. And if you’re trying to study this phenomena from an analytical, theoretical perspective, in my mind that is highly problematic. Because what that means is the definition of what we’re looking at is whether we like you or not. And that might be a great definition for seventh grade friendships, but not a great definition for doing analysis.
And there are big debates about what, and how we should capture terrorism, even if we’re talking about it in an analytical fashion.
How would you like to define it [terrorism]?
So I define terrorism not by if I like you or don’t like you. I define terroism by, are you a political organization, with a political motivation, who is blowing people up, and specifically targeting civilians?
Intentionally targeting civilians.
Yes. Intentionally targeting civilians, to hurt and kill civilians. Now, there are organizations that are insurgent organizations that target soldiers, there are organizations, terrorist organizations, that intentionally target civilians, and there are lots of organizations that do both.
It's one thing to shoot somebody in uniform, I don’t have to like it, especially if I’m wearing a uniform, but I would consider that very different behavior than blowing up a nursery school.
How do you feel about US military action, especially in the Middle East, where they are not fighting people in uniform?
When I say uniform I am using it prosaically — I’m saying fighters.
Any figher? Even if they happen to be a civilian?
If they are in a militia, they’re fighters.
Let me very clear here, there's another distinction about terrorism, when people talk about terrorism, mostly what they’re talking about is non-state actors. There is a whole discussion about State terrorism. In my mind, if the State is intentionally targeting civilians, they are involved in State terrorism. But again, that's a controversial topic as well. Which gets back to my other focus, which is political discrimination and political oppression. When it comes to violence, I primarily look at non-state actors. Both insurgents and terrorist organizations, and what factors are pushing towards targeting civilians and other kinds of behavior. But States can be pretty awful. And if we want to compare which kind of organizations, between non-state actors and States, which have killed the most amount of civilians, there is no contest. Russia did a phenomical job under Stalin slaughtering millions of people. Hitler. I mean, we could go on and on about States. There have been States that have been lax, and have killed civilians by being lax, and not paying attention. And there have been States that have intentionally targeted civilians, who they meant to kill.
Do you think your research can help inform policy or military action in dealing with these organizations?
I would hope so. One of the key aspects of the kind of data I’m collecting is that it can help you identify who to be most worried about. You should know that most terrorist organizations don’t kill anybody because they are fairly incompetent. And very few kill many people.
A really sad example of this is the invasion of Iraq. Where the U.S conquered Iraq and then fired the entire military, and put them out of jobs, and took them out of organizational structure, and that was a big mistake. Oppression in general is not a smart policy.
What are the fundamentals of understanding terrorism as you define it?
I think there’s normative components here, and empirical components. When it comes to thinking about terrorism,
Try to understand why these organizations are doing this, strategies to make them stop is important, and something we need to be paying attention to. And being able to draw a distinction between violent organizations, we may or may not not like their ideology, but they are not killing civilians. It's important to make the distinction between organizations that maybe you do like, that might be killing civilians. A concrete example is John Brown. His goal was to stop slavery. I am in favor of stopping slavery. John Brown slaughtered civilians. Intentionally. That makes him, in my mind, a terrorist, whether I like his ideology or not. Being able to make that distinction is important both analytically, but also normatively, for how we understand the world around us.