ANNOUNCEMENTS
• Another 300 Costilla County landowners
were awarded the right to graze and gather firewood
on the Taylor Ranch (La Sierra) near San Luis,
Colorado on October 18. District Judge Gasper
Perricone, who has presided over all the claim
decisions, set a January 20 hearing to review the
next list of property owners eligible for access
rights to the land. He anticipates the process
should take another year to complete (estimates
vary that between 500 to 1,000 residents will
eventually have use rights on the ranch).
• Orlando Romero of the Forest Guild is
soliciting work for a forestry crew trained in hand
thinning and fence building who carry workers
compensation and liability insurance. The crew was
slated to start work on a project on Rowe Mesa but
because of a recent lawsuit that affects projects
released under Categorical Exclusions, the project
is on hold. For more information contact Herman
Vigil, 505 387-5694 or Romero at 505 983-8992 or
470-0032.
• Acequia Abajo de El Valle recently
approved incorporating new amendments to its bylaws
requiring approval by its commission for any water
rights transfers out of the acequia system and
allowing parciantes not using their water rights to
protect them from forfeiture by banking the rights
with the acequia commission. Both of these
amendments were approved by the 2003 state
legislature and help empower acequias to control
and protect their water rights.
Water Transfer Case Goes to NM Supreme
Court
Oral arguments for "Montgomery v State Engineer"
will be heard before the New Mexico Supreme Court
(237 Don Gaspar, Santa Fe) on November 16 at 9:00
am. This is an important hearing for parciantes and
Lynn Montgomery, one of the protestants, encourages
all to attend. The case involves the application to
transfer surface water rights from Valencia County
to groundwater rights in a Placitas subdivision in
Sandoval County, and has worked its way up through
the courts for several years now (see La Jicarita
News, September, 2003). Montgomery and the two
other protestants own and use surface water rights
in Placitas and contend that the transfer would
impair their existing rights as well as be
detrimental to public welfare and contrary to
conservation. This case is particularly interesting
in light of the recent announcement by State
Engineer John D'Antonio that water rights transfers
in the middle Rio Grande basin are going to be more
carefully scrutinized to protect flows in the Rio
Grande. The Office of the State Engineer (OSE)
recently denied an application by Rio Rancho to
transfer water from wells in Sierra County to wells
the city currently uses (Rio Rancho has filed a
lawsuit against the OSE). The OSE has ordered some
delays in pending transfer applications, including
one from Truth or Consequences to Santa Fe county's
Buckman well field.
Book Review: Brown-Eyed
Children of the Sun: Lessons from the Chicano
Movement, 1965-1975 By George Mariscal
Reviewed by Kay Matthews
For those of us who came of age in the 1960s and
70s, Brown-Eyed Children of the Sun is a reminder
of the movements that defined our attempts to
create a more just society: the new left, the Black
Power movement, the American Indian movement, the
women's' movement, and the subject of this book, El
Movimiento, the Chicano movement. But for those who
grew up or arrived in the United States during the
80s and 90s, it is a book that tries to set
straight the "history and the lessons of the
Chicano movement [that] were either poorly
understood or completely unknown."
This history is particularly relevant to the
Southwest and the land grant movement in northern
New Mexico. George (Jorge) Mariscal, who is a
professor at the University of California, San
Diego, includes a chapter called "Brown and Black
Together" that highlights the work of Reies Lopez
Tijerina and the Alianza Federal de las Mercedes to
validate his thesis that "in the face of renewed
forms of exclusionary 'nationalist' and
'race-based' identities and an expanding
neo-assimilationist Hispanic class, [it is
necessary] to look carefully at the lives of
these cultural workers [Tijerina and
others] and the lessons they can teach us about
identity, resistance, and historical change."
Increased attempts by many Mexican American
professionals and academics to discredit El
Movimiento by dismissing it as "nationalistic" or
lacking a place in the postmodern world demands a
closer look at a movement that included not only
the Alianza's struggle to reclaim the Spanish and
Mexican land grants of northern New Mexico but the
union organizing of César Chávez, the
profound influence of Che Guevara and the Cuban
revolution, and "efforts to link domestic struggles
to international movements for liberation and self
determination."
While many New Mexicans are familiar with the
history of the 1966 Alianza symbolic takeover of
the San Joaquin land grant at Echo Amphitheater in
Carson National Forest and the 1967 Tierra Amarilla
Courthouse raid, most are not familiar with Reies
Lopez Tijerina's attempts at coalition building,
particularly with the African American and Native
American communities. According to Mariscal,
Tijerina, who embodied "an Indo-Hispano nationalism
founded on the cultural particularities of New
Mexican culture and history" was like many other
Movimiento activists who "refused to insulate
themselves from other groups engaged in similar
struggles." With longtime New Mexico organizer
Maria Varela (who formerly worked for the Student
Non-Violent Coordinating Committee) Tijerina
attended the New Politics convention in Chicago
with Martin Luther King, Rodolfo Corky Gonzales,
and other leaders, and in October of 1967 invited
many black and Native American leaders to attend
the inaugural convention of the renamed Alianza
Federal de Pueblos Libres in Albuquerque. He
pursued these relationships over the ensuing years,
and at the Poor People's Campaign in Washington
D.C. said, "The poor is the only sector of the
country which has the right to question the
legitimacy of the rich. I feel the poor, if well
organized and properly directed, can bring the rich
and the establishment machine to their knees."
This is a particularly important statement in
light of the fact that, according to Mariscal,
"Because the analytical category of 'class' has
been virtually nonoperative throughout most of the
history of the United States, economic and cultural
inequality are too often reduced to issues of
'race' rather than being construed as an
intersection of racializing and gendered practices,
economic stratification, and other structural
hierarchies." Historians have reduced Tijerina's
role in the Movimiento to the issue of the land
grants and downplayed his innovative attempts at
coalition building with other groups in the sixties
and seventies that were addressing the issue of
class, which united them against the power elite's
attempt to pit them against each other.
In the chapter on Tijerina and the Alianza
Mariscal also highlights the work of two other
important New Mexicans, Maria Varela and Elizabeth
"Betita" Martinez. Varela worked alongside the
Alianza and into the seventies and eighties on the
issue of land ownership, managed La Clínica
del Norte in Tierra Amarilla, and founded Ganados
del Valle, a livestock cooperative based in Los
Ojos. Martinez, like Varela, also worked for the
Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee before
coming to New Mexico, where she published El Grito
del Norte, which focused not only on northern New
Mexico but the internationalist struggle,
particularly in Cuba. Both women were
"beacon[s] for a cross-ethnic and
internationalist Chicana/o ethics."
Mariscal uses this history to caution today's
activists, struggling against even more insidious
neoliberal forces than in the days of El
Movimiento, to not be sucked into a reactionary
nationalism that fails to build the coalitions and
internationalism necessary to continue the struggle
for economic, social, and political justice. The
concept of La Raza is a complicated one, ranging
from the separatist "my blood is pure" notion, to
La raza cósmica that connects to a larger
world, and to the fundamental question of what
values Chicanos can bring to an imperialist and
consumer society. This book is a guide-and a call
to action-for those who want to incorporate the
best lessons and avoid the worst mistakes of El
Movimiento.
Jorge Mariscal doesn't just write books about
political action, he embodies it. He is an
organizer with the Project on Youth and
Non-Military Opportunities (Project YANO) that has
launched a campaign to educate Latino parents and
students about military recruitment in schools. For
more information go to the website
www.projectyano.org or write Project YANO, P. O.
Box 230157, Encinitas, CA 92023 (see editorial,
page 6).
Aamodt Adjudication
Update
By Kay Matthews
The latest proposed settlement agreement to the
Aamodt adjudication was supposed to have been
released by the Office of the State Engineer on
October 17; public meetings initially scheduled for
October and November have been cancelled.
Apparently the city of Santa Fe and the state have
objected to certain provisions in the settltement,
and it's unlikely the court's December deadline (or
2006 legislative submission) will be met.
So as we go to press we don't know if there are
any significant changes to last June's Conceptual
Proposal, which was incorporated into the
settlement agreement. The Conceptual Proposal
stipulates that non-Pueblo residents will not be
required to hook up to a water delivery system;
that the Pueblos are guaranteed 3,660 acre feet per
year (afy) and that 2,500 afy will be supplied by a
pipeline to access imported water from the Rio
Grande; and that the Pueblos will use the pipeline
water supply of 2,500 afy before exercising their
Future Basin Use Rights.
La Jicarita News spoke with Scott
Pittman, a member of the Pojoaque Basin Water
Alliance, whose representatives have been sitting
in on the negotiation sessions, and he wasn't
optimistic that this latest proposal is going to
resolve any of the fundamental issues that remain
extant:
• Where is the pipeline water coming from?
The County of Santa Fe continues to look to San
Juan/Chama water, but as we've previously pointed
out, those water rights will continue to be
contested as our drought continues and are sought
in the resolution of other adjudications,
particularly in Taos. Top of the World water
rights, now slated for settlement of the Aamodt
adjudication (see La Jicarita News, August, 2005),
remain under protest, and the additional thousands
of acre feet of Top of the World rights are
supposedly being purchased by the county to serve
other county purposes.
• The currently constituted impairment fund
that would compensate Pojoaque Valley residents in
the event that the Pueblos impair their wells is
inadequate. The fund is subject to appropriation by
the New Mexico legislature and there is no recourse
against the Pueblos if continued pumping causes
non-Pueblo wells to go dry.
• Where is the money to implement the
delivery system? Now that the federal government
has reneged on its initial commitment of $214
million, it will be up to the county and state to
come up with the money.
• If a water delivery system is not in
place by 2016, the settlement is null and void. The
Alliance believes that because of the uncertainly
of funding there should be a shorter time frame for
implementation and if funding is not appropriated
within that time frame the Pueblos and non-Pueblos
should negotiate "on a simplified approach" to
adjudicate water rights. Meanwhile, the Pueblos
continue to pump the aquifer.
• Many believe that the settlement
facilitates a water grab for the county and plays
into the hands of developers who are racing to
corner the market on water rights.
Apparently the Pueblos are planning to sign the
proposed agreement, but according to Pittman, the
Alliance is not prepared to sign until these
concerns are addressed. The Alliance believes the
Pueblos should be required to find any future
development rights and that total current use
should be based on the original Judge Meechem
findings of 3,660 afy.
Taos Regional Water
Plan: Peñasco Meeting
On November 3 Peñasco area residents got
a chance to expand and rate alternative solutions
the Taos Regional Water Plan Steering Committee has
identified as it heads into Phase II of the
project. The alternatives identified and rated
through this process will be evaluated for
feasibility and implementation in the regional
water plan.
A diverse group of constituents showed up at the
meeting: three members of the Environment
Department at Picuris Pueblo; the Las Trampas Land
Grant Association president; a representative from
Rio Arriba County; residents of Llano San Juan,
Vaditio, and Chamisal; County Commissioner Manny
Pacheco; and several steering committee
members.
Joanne Hilton, project manager, provided an
overview of the process, explaining that once the
regional water plan is approved its implementation
is not mandated but will rely on the local
governments, non-governmental organizations, and
Taos Soil and Water Conservation District to raise
money and go forward with specific projects.
Facilitator Rosemary Romero reminded everyone that
Trudy Healy is both a member of the steering
committee and a member of the Water Trust Board,
the organization that funds water project
throughout the state. She then walked everyone
through the list of alternatives that have thus far
been developed. They ranged from solutions dealing
with growth and development to protection of water
quality and quantity, particularly in our acequia
communities.
The two top vote getters were: 1) help acequias
adopt bylaws to prevent transfers and establish
water banks; and 2) establish area of origin
protection within watersheds, and even
subwatersheds. It's not surprising that folks from
the Peñasco area would rate the protection
of acequias and community water as their top
priorities. Several acequias as well as those in El
Valle (see Announcements, this issue) have recently
incorporated these new provisions into their
bylaws. Other alternatives that were well received
included: respect tribal water quality standards;
adopt conservation measures to protect land from
development; develop centralized water and sewer
systems; and support local community efforts to
improve watersheds and devise local solutions.
When La Jicarita asked why no one had
voted for the first alternative listed, "Control
growth and development through management", several
people grumbled "It's hopeless." But Manny Pacheco
claimed that Taos County has already stepped up to
the plate with an updated land use plan and
subdivision regulations as well as fire planning in
collaboration with communities, the Forest Service,
and the BLM.
The next step in the regional water planning
process is to convene a county-wide meeting in
January to come to consensus on the alternative
priority list. A meeting date will be
announced.
|
Matthew G. Reynolds and
the Adjudication of Spanish and Mexican Land Claims
By Mark Schiller
The New Mexico State Records Center and Archives
recently acquired a microfilm copy of the files of
the United States Attorney for the Court of Private
Land Claims, which are part of the Thomas B. Catron
Papers owned by the University of New Mexico. The
New Mexico Historical Records Advisory Board has
given me a small grant to examine these papers and
I'd like to discuss some of what I've learned about
the role of the United States Attorney, Matthew G.
Reynolds, in adjudicating Spanish and Mexican land
claims during that Court's tenure from 1891 to
1904.
Reynolds has been characterized as a man
"dedicated to the defeat of as many claims as
possible. If he could not defeat them, he strove to
reduce the acreage confirmed as much as possible."
In his 1894 Report to the Attorney General summing
up the activities of his office Reynolds boasted:
"In New Mexico and Arizona the total area claimed
in the suits disposed of . . . was 4,784,651 acres;
amount confirmed, 779,611 acres; amount rejected
and not confirmed 4,005,040 acres. The result is
very gratifying to me . . . you will notice that in
most of the grants where judgments were obtained,
the areas have been much reduced . . . the amount
of land saved in this way alone during the term of
court just past will more than compensate the
Government for the cost of this court and the
salaries of its officials during the entire time
for which it was created." He went on to state
explicitly whose interests he represented: "The
celebrated Cochiti cases, four in number, were all
tried, two defeated entirely and the other two so
reduced in area as to make a complete victory for
the Government, and this has relieved the public
excitement growing out of fear that confirmations
might be made so as to include the recently
developed mining district covered by these claims."
In his 1892 Report Reynolds acknowledged the
government's unjust advantage over impoverished,
non-English-speaking Mexican claimants, stating, "
. . . those holding the small grants and those
owned by communities, I have no doubt are being
delayed from ignorance in many cases, and often
from inability to obtain counsel to prosecute their
claims." These statements make it abundantly clear
that he was not a public servant dedicated to the
"just" prosecution of Spanish and Mexican land
claims but, a colonial bureaucrat whose job, during
this era of aggressive expansionism, was to defeat
or reduce all claims, regardless of their validity,
in order to make land available for Anglo
settlement and capitalist development.
Let's take a look at one of the more than 280
land claims Reynolds opposed. The Santo Domingo de
Cundiyó grant, also known simply as the
Cundiyó grant, was made in 1743. During the
late summer of that year, four residents of
Chimayó petitioned Governor Gaspar Domingo
de Mendoza for a tract of land, the boundaries of
which were: north, the Pueblo Quemado land grant;
south, an arroyo of clear water and the northern
boundary of Nambe Pueblo; east, the mountain range;
and west, the lands of Juan Martín. The
petitioners were placed in possession of the tract,
as outlined in their petition, in September of 1743
and there is abundant archival evidence to
demonstrate that the community was continually
occupied from that date forward.
Sometime in the early to mid nineteenth century
a man named José Antonio Vigil settled in
Cundiyó. Formerly a resident of Santa Cruz
de la Cañada, by the time he died in 1861,
Vigil owned most of the grant. His heirs continued
to amass land in the area and when the grant was
adjudicated in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, it had evolved into a
quasi-community grant owned largely by the extended
Vigil family.
Although the petition for the Cundiyó
claim was filed before the Court of Private Land
Claims by Vigil's son, José Antonio Vigil
II, on 3 March 1893, Reynolds did not respond to
it until 29 December 1896. In that response
Reynolds, as he did with all claims, denied the
claimants' allegations and asked the court to enter
a decree rejecting the petition.
No further action was taken until March 1900
when Reynolds' file shows he directed special agent
Clayton G. Coleman to conduct a field investigation
of the tract. Because this was clearly a
legitimate claim, underwritten by unimpeachable
documentation and over 150 years of continuous
settlement, Reynolds concentrated his attention on
trying to reduce the approximately 20,000 acres
included within the boundaries as delineated in the
claimant's petition, rather than trying to defeat
the claim itself. Coleman's report, which formed
the crux of Reynolds' response to the claim,
unjustly rejected three of the boundaries shown on
the map submitted by the claimant's attorney, Ralph
Emerson Twitchell. As a result of his fieldwork,
Coleman created an alternate description of the
grant, which relocated the boundaries and reduced
the tract from approximately 20,000 acres to less
than 2,200 acres.
Predicated on this new description, Reynolds
proposed a stipulation, which stated that Coleman's
description "correctly delineates the land in
controversy . . . [and] any decree of
confirmation in said cause shall embody said
description as the basis for the survey to be made
of the Santo Domingo de Cundiyó grant."
Apparently Twitchell did not feel this wholesale
diminution of the grant was worth fighting over
because shortly after Coleman's field study he
agreed unconditionally to the stipulation. Bear in
mind that he was working on a contingency basis and
probably didn't want to expend any more time
defending the claim than was absolutely necessary.
Better a pre-trial agreement and a quick profit
than a lengthy litigation process, whose successful
outcome he may have doubted given the Court's
dismal record. Moreover, this kind of unethical
practice was not uncommon: Lawyers who represented
Hispano land claimants often held their own
interests above those of their clients.
Agreeing to the stipulation meant that the
boundaries were no longer litigable and Twitchell
made this critical decision without the approval of
his client, José Antonio Vigil II, because
on 9 August 1900 he wrote Reynolds' assistant,
William Pope, stating: "You may file the enclosed
stipulation in the case. I have tried to get Vigil
there several times, but he is an old man and sick
most of the time. I have written to him and it will
take at least a week before I hear from him."
The Court of Private Land Claims tried the claim
on 5 and 7 December 1900. Vigil was the only
witness at the trial. Interestingly, when he was
questioned about the boundaries, he referred to the
boundaries outlined in the 1743 grant rather than
those agreed to in the stipulation, so he still may
not have been aware of the stipulation. At the end
of the transcript of the trial, which amounts to
only three pages, it's noted: "That is the evidence
for the plaintiff with the stipulation that was
made between Mr. Twitchell and Mr. Pope which is to
be filed as part of the record in the case." In
other words, it was a "done deal" and the trial was
merely a formality.
On 19 December 1900, the Court of Private Land
Claims confirmed the grant in accordance with the
stipulation. Apparently Reynolds agreed not to
contest the confirmation if it was reduced to the
boundaries contained in the stipulation because
once the Court of Private Land Claims acted upon
the claim Reynolds, uncharacteristically,
recommended that no appeal be made.
Incredibly, the controversy over the boundaries
did not end there, however. After the confirmation
of the claim, the Office of the Surveyor General
directed Deputy Surveyor Joseph F. Thomas to
undertake a survey of the grant as outlined in the
stipulation. Thomas duly reported that after going
into the field he found that the Cienega Pajarita,
listed as the northern boundary, was not located
where Coleman designated it in the stipulation. The
report regarding this problem written by Surveyor
General Vance states: "This matter was called to
the attention of the U.S. Attorney for the Court of
Private Land Claims and said court sent Clayton G.
Coleman, one of its Special Agents on the ground.
Mr. Coleman assisted Deputy Thomas in locating the
boundaries as now reported surveyed and as are
supposed to be in strict conformity with the
intentions of the Court of Private Land Claims."
Thus, the survey was not even in compliance with
the stipulation, but rather with some arbitrary
notion of Coleman and Reynolds.
On 11 February 1903 a patent for the Cundiyo
grant was issued to José Antonio Vigil II.
It totaled 2,137.08 acres. The grant had been
reduced by approximately 18,000 acres.
To put the enormity of the injustice that
occurred during the tenure of the Court of Private
Land Claims in perspective, we only have to look at
the results. Excluding the obviously fraudulent
Peralta Reavis claim, Spanish and Mexican land
claims totaling approximately 22,000,000 acres were
heard by the Court. Of those 22,000,000 acres, less
than 2,000,000 acres were confirmed. According to
land grant historians Malcolm Ebright and Victor
Westphall, "70 percent of the court's rejections
[more than 15,000,000 acres] . . . are
subject to serious question."
Although the federal government did not use its
army to dispossess Hispano communities in the
southwest, as it had with Native Americans, the
result was the same: loss of their land-based
economy leading to loss of cultural integrity and
all the associated social problems. The
dispossession of these communities through the
legal chicanery of men like Matthew G. Reynolds
should be viewed in the same light as the
dispossession of the people of Chiapas, Guatemala,
El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Palestine. In order to
contextualize the injustices that occurred during
the adjudication of Hispano land grants in New
Mexico, they must be viewed as colonialist policy
and the bureaucrats who implemented that policy
should, at least historically, be held accountable.
Editorial: "Opt Out" of
Military Recruitment
By Kay Matthews
My seventeen-year old son recently received a
letter from a U.S. Navy recruiter with a toll-free
phone card. He was supposed to activate the card
and answer a survey so the recruiter could call
back and "shorten the distance . . . between where
you are and where you want to be." The letter also
promised that the Navy would take him to "the four
corners of the world", help him achieve "just about
any skill you want to get your hands on", and "earn
up to $70,000 toward college."
All of these promises were deconstructed at the
presentation given at Peñasco High School
earlier this year by the Santa Fe Veterans for
Peace (see La Jicarita News, May, 2005): money the
military makes available for college is often not
enough to cover expenses at private or even state
schools; world travel usually means a two-day
Hawaiian layover to a trouble spot where you may be
killed; and American soldiers are seen as
colonizers, not as liberators.
In a March interview with La Jicarita
News Representative Tom Udall said, " . . .
Hispanic and Native American communities have
traditionally served in wartime in
disproportionately large numbers." Minority
populations have been disproportionately targeted
for recruitment as well, and northern New Mexico is
no exception. Because the military is currently
unable to meet its quotas it has stepped up its
recruitment in burgeoning Latino communities across
the country. Jorge Mariscal, professor of Chicano
studies at the University of California at San
Diego and author of Brown Eyed Children of the Sun,
reviewed in this issue of La Jicarita, is one of
the organizers of the Project on Youth and
Non-Military Opportunities (Project YANO), an
organization that has launched a campaign to
educate Latino parents and students about military
recruitment in schools.
In a pamphlet titled "The Military's Not Just a
Job . . . It's Eight Years of Your Life!" Project
YANO provides information on the following
points:
• If military life doesn't live up to the
advertising (and a recruiter's job is to sell the
military) you can't undo your enlistment: you are
obligated to the military for the duration of your
enlistment.
• Military training is designed for
military jobs, not to help you get a civilian job
later.
• You have to pay a non-refundable deposit
to qualify for any aid towards college and that aid
is not automatic: you have to qualify for special
jobs or sign up for an extra-long term. There are
many other sources for college money outside the
military.
• Racism is a reality in the military. In a
1996 equal opportunity survey, 65% of active-duty
personnel reported having experienced racially
offensive behavior. In 2002, 38% of enlisted
personnel were people of color but only 17.5% of
the officers were.
• Discrimination against women is common;
they are still limited in the positions open to
them. Sexual harassment and rape are a real threat.
Thirty percent of women reported being victims of
rape or attempted rape while in the military; 75%
had experienced sexual harassment.
• Discrimination against gays, lesbians and
bisexuals is official policy with the "Don't ask,
don't tell" rule that has resulted in increased
forced discharges.
• You lose your basic rights of free speech
and movement when you join the military.
• The main purpose of the military is to
fight wars, and if you enlist you will have no
choice if you are ordered to fight for something
you don't believe in. Signing up for the National
Guard for a "non-combat" job does not mean you
won't be in combat.
Project YANO also provides a form letter to
exercise your legal right under the "Opt Out"
provision of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
that tells your school it may not release your
personal information to recruiters (to be filled
out by parents). "Opting Out" is your legal right.
There is no penalty and school officials must
comply with your request. Many schools have their
own forms, but if you don't receive one, contact
the school or use Project YANO's form (available on
the website: www.projectyano.org).
Personal information may also be released to
military recruiters if you take the military's
Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB)
test at school. If you take this test your personal
information will be provided to recruiters even if
you "Opted Out." The test is devised by the
Department of Defense to measure skills for
military jobs. The ASVAB is also being used by the
Pentagon to create a national database on all
teenagers. This test is not mandatory and there is
no penalty for not taking it. Parents should
contact the school and tell them they do not want
their children to take the test.
Project YANO also provides information on the
Delayed Entry Program (DEP), whereby students sign
up a year before they have to report for active
duty. The military is obligated to release all DEP
recruits who request a separation. The Project also
has a flier titled "Careers in Peacemaking and
Social Change" that encourages students to look for
a job that "does not harm others and promotes
cooperation and the building of a just
society."
For more information, contact Project YANO at
P.O. Box 230157, Encinitas, CA 92023, e-mail Proj
YANO@aol.com or go to the website, listed
above.
|
