If you’ve ever heard Van Jones speak you know that it’s an inspiring experience. “The Green-Collar Economy” was no different –- I was struck several times by the eloquent explanation of complex federal legislation, the innovative policies that Green for All is working on, and the great messaging that Van Jones is known for –- like Hoopties for Hybrids.

The Hooptie, also known as a beater, clunker or jalopy, is a car that contributes to both excessive amounts of carbon emissions and the daily expenses of millions of Americans. Hoopties for Hybrids is a program that would create a low-interest loan to help people trade-up for a hybrid. The book makes it clear that with smart policies like this we can lift millions of Americans from oppressive prices at the pumps and, in one fell swoop, reduce greenhouse gases.

The Dual Crisis

“The Green-Collar Economy” could serve as a guidebook for policy-makers, activists and entrepreneurs on how to build a more just and equitable society for people and the planet. Van Jones expertly illustrates that the issues that will define the 21st century are two-fold –- a dual crisis of socioeconomic inequality and rampant environmental destruction. He points out that the basic economic premise at work in America and in most developing nations is one based on an outdated model.

The era of exploiting unlimited natural resources and human capital, which developed during the Industrial Revolution, has outlived its usefulness. And now, because of the global predicament we find ourselves in, we have the opportunity to create a new model for economic growth, environmental conservation and equality. With new principles to guide us, smart policies and a politics that cherishes people and our planet, we can meet the challenges of the current economic crisis and build a better world for our children.

Principles, Politics, Policies

Van Jones is very clear that without core principles to guide their movement even the best policies fail. And without smart politics and policies even the best principles fall flat. Through a strong alliance of labor, community, local, state and federal governments, the United States can lead the way in renewable energy technology and reducing carbon emissions. The stark reality is that unless we restore the image of America abroad and model good behavior, $10-a-gallon gas will be the least of our worries in a world fighting over land, water and the last remaining drops of oil. The Green for All alliance is the first step in creating the political will necessary to transition our country to clean, green energy.

Eco-populism

Another important point the book makes is that if we hope to transition our economy to one built on all things green we must adopt a more inclusive movement. Jones uses a great analogy to describe the rift between poor folks in America and environmentalists. In rural and inner-city neighborhoods folks are more concerned with “Pookie” – getting a job than the plight of polar bears. Over the past century the conservationist movement has struggled to include people of color and less affluent communities. In places like New Mexico, there is a huge divide between tribal and land-grant communities and environmentalists. Historically there has been an all-or-nothing mentality from enviros that overlooked the cultural subsistence and economic development of poor people. But in “The Green-Collar Economy,” Jones shows that if we adopt the politics of eco-populism we can save the polar bears and make sure “Pookie” gets a job.

New Mexico

I grew up in McCarty’s village in Acoma. Acoma Pueblo is about 60 miles west of Albuquerque. My family moved to Albuquerque so that my father could work. Before that he was a land surveyor and before that he and my grandfather worked in the uranium mines in Grants. I have been blessed to work in a field that I  enjoy and that lets me to make a difference. And while I carry a reverence for nature that is an inheritance from my family, I have never thought of myself as an environmentalist.

Right now we are seeing the effects of years of exploitation in New Mexico. There is a whole generation of Hispanic, Native and Anglo men and women who now struggle to breathe and have developed terrible diseases from inhaling dust from these mines. Tailings that were never cleaned up now contribute to water contamination throughout the state. In addition, skyrocketing rates of cancer and birth defects in the Four Corners area have been linked to coal-powered plants.

Our people have a right to work. They have a right to put food on the table without inadvertently contaminating their family. They have a right to bring home a steady paycheck without desecrating the land or their traditions. Instead of stalling with more nuclear plants and supposed “clean coal” factories, we have the ability to create new industries and millions of jobs in clean energy now. If even a fraction of the money that goes to subsidize Big Oil went to renewable energy research, we could begin to transition our economy immediately. Instead of working in conditions that harm the earth and the health of future generations, we can create jobs that nurture all of our communities.

New Mexico is ready for Green Jobs now. Are you?

Last month, Sen. Barack Obama outlined his position on the rights and affiliation of Cherokee Freedmen. Freedmen, the descendants of mixed Indian and freed African slaves, have filed an injunction to prohibit the Cherokee Nation from ousting them from tribal rolls. In March of last year, Cherokees voted overwhelmingly to approve an amendment to the tribal constitution that "limits citizenship in the Cherokee Nation to descendants of people who are listed on the Final Rolls of the Cherokee Nation as Cherokee, Delaware or Shawnee and excludes descendants of those listed on Intermarried White and Freedmen rolls taken at the same time."



Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, made clear that in the ongoing dispute between the Cherokee Nation and Cherokee Freedmen he supports the tribe’s right to determine tribal affiliation. He also said that he did not agree with the decision but that “tribal sovereignty must mean that the place to resolve intertribal disputes is the tribe itself.” This is just the latest iteration of a storied battle for tribal self-determination within the Cherokee Nation. The conflict resulted from the Congressional Black Caucus attempting to get Obama to support their efforts to prohibit the Cherokee Nation from disenrolling Freedmen by withholding treaty obligations.



A bill that seeks to "sever United States’ government relations with the Cherokee Nation" until full tribal citizenship is restored to Cherokee Freedmen was introduced in 2007. Supported by 35 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, HR 2824 was a reaction to Cherokee Freedmen’s appeals to U.S. lawmakers to weigh in on their removal from the Cherokee tribal roll. This new conflict over tribal sovereignty and what it means to be part of a tribe finds its roots in the relocation and allotment policies of the 19th century.



During the mid-1800s the Cherokee people were forcibly removed from their homelands in the southeastern United States in what is known as the Trail of Tears. Their expulsion to reservation territory in Oklahoma was a policy implemented to make land available in the east for European settlers. During the removal the Civil War was raging and several tribes had sided with either Confederate or Union forces. New treaties were forged between the U.S. government and newly relocated tribes during Reconstruction. And tribes which had kept African slaves up until then were forced to free them. With the freeing of slaves who had been deeply involved in the culture of traditional Cherokee life and who spoke the language, there were many marital unions formed between Cherokees and Blacks.



As it had been for hundreds of years the Cherokee accepted these new in-laws and children of mixed heritage as full members of the tribe regardless of the foreign concept of "race." Formalized through treaty documents, the self-determination of tribes in matters of enrollment were left to the tribal governments. During this time Cherokee Freedmen became prominent business owners and leaders within the tribe. The age-old system of adoption and cultural inclusion was successful and functioned as it always had.



But as Indian policy morphed from removal to assimilation, the U.S. government introduced a new paradigm – blood quantum. Quantum was an attempt to influence tribal self-determination. For the most part, the tribes had been fairly homogeneous and in cases like that of the Freedmen, the Cherokee Nation had accepted outsiders that had already been initiated into tribal culture. But by introducing this new concept of race — a system based solely upon ancestry — the US government had devised a way to whittle down the tribes and their subsequent obligations to them over time. Faced with what appeared to be an arbitrary requirement the tribes adopted blood quantum requirements. And at the time many tribes required that ¼ or ½ “Indian blood” to be a tribal member. In this way the criteria for tribal enrollment came to be based solely on ancestry.



The fallacy of blood quantum has had tremendous repercussions over the last century. In many ways it has divided tribes and created a class system where a person’s degree of “Indian blood” is what determines their status in a community. Before quantum, tribal members were accepted based on their willingness to sacrifice for and support the tribe and leaders were chosen because of their values and character rather than racial purity.



Due in no small part to the assimilation policy of blood quantum the Cherokee Nation first started discussing whether Cherokee Freedmen should have rights as citizens in the early 1980s. The combination of a forced paradigm shift, off-reservation populations that weren’t as connected to the cultural aspect of the tribe, a century of racist federal policy targeting blacks and dwindling resources culminated in the 1990s with the first real attempts to oust Cherokee Freedmen from the rolls. And then last year the Cherokee Nation, through an election fraught with voter disenfranchisement passed a referendum that prohibited Cherokees designated as Freedmen from being enrolled members.



The Congressional Black Caucus and other lawmakers have attempted to make the case that this is a treaty issue and not one of sovereignty. They believe that because Freedmen were "granted" the same rights as Cherokees in treaty documents that this should carry through to their descendants today.

I find it humorous that the same government that has implemented these policies is now trying to find fault with them. I agree with Obama in that the Cherokee Freedmen should continue to be recognized by the tribe but that the decision should come from the Cherokee Nation. He put it this way: “Our nation has learned with tragic results that federal intervention in internal matters of Indian tribes is rarely productive – failed policies such as Allotment and Termination grew out of efforts to second-guess Native communities. That is not a legacy we want to continue.”



As our world becomes smaller, tribal nations will find that we have tribal members with African, European, American and even Asian descent. Tribal sovereignty must be respected and as Obama has said the tribes must not be interfered with in their process of determining membership. But the termination policies of the past, including blood quantum must be abolished or they will continue to divide and conquer our communities, family by family.



It is time for us to make a change. It is time to for our tribal nations to evolve back.