People of the Rainbow: A Nomadic Utopia

10. The Rainbow and the U.S. Government

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right ofthe people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances -U.S. Constitution, First Amendment, 179 I It is essential that the Gathering be viewed as a group of persons exercising their legitimate right to use the National Forest and that it be treated in this way. Law enforcement and other functions must be viewed from that perspective -James Schuler, Sheffield district ranger, Allegheny National Forest (Feb. 27, 1987) In the United States, almost all Rainbow Gatherings are on public land, usually U.S. National Forest Service land. While Forest Service land is relatively abundant and often beautiful, Rainbows gather on public land as a statement, sustaining a bond to the land and exercising their inalienable right to peaceably assemble . They avoid gathering on private land to escape the class distinction between landowners and tenants. Since public lands are ostensibly held in trust, everyone shares equally in their ownership. Gathering on public lands, however, requires the Rainbow Family to interface with government bureaucracies. The Rainbow and the U.S. Government· 185 The relationship between the Rainbow Family and the U.S. government is often trying for all parties involved. Rainbow egalitarianism frustrates bureaucrats to whom, apparently, no one is in charge. From their first encounters with the Family in 1972, United States government agencies have insisted that the Rainbow Family produce leaders with whom they can negotiate. The Rainbow Family Council , ideologically opposed to hierarchy, steadfastly refuses to provide any. Rainbows point out that there are no leaders to "sell out" their interests. The Council does appoint "liaisons" to facilitate communications with government officials. Liaisons, however, have no authority to speak for the Family. The full Council must approve all decisions, including those involving government agencies. The bureaucrats who run the Forest Service, the governmental agency that has the most dealings with the Rainbow Family, understand bureaucracies, not participatory democracies like the Rainbow Family, where members do not yield their voices to representatives. The Family's refusal to appoint leaders seems to Forest Service officials like a ploy to thwart prosecution and intimidation. Forest Service officials sometimes try to identify people, usually men, as "leaders" or "organizers ," and then proceed to work with them as if they actually were leaders. At the 1989 Gathering in Nevada, law enforcement officers filed an intelligence report with the Forest Service identifying people' in the early Seed Camp by name, categorizing each person as an "organizer," a "laborer," or "security" (Lotspeich 1989), much as a child would try to sort out who's who in an ant farm. On other occasions, the Forest Service has simply been hostile and abusive, attempting to stop Gatherings from occurring altogether. Harassles and Jus~~ce How the Forest Service will react to Gatherings from year to year is unpredictable . The Forest Service is decentralized. Authority is vested in a hierarchy of regions, forests, and finally, districts. Regions operate somewhat autonomously from the national organization, each developing its own plan for working with or combating the Family. In 1983, for instance, the Forest Service took a "hands-off" approach to the North American Gathering. They spent eight thousand dollars (Lee 1984) monitoring the event, which ran smoothly; a high point in Forest Service/Rainbow relations. In 1987, however, the Forest Service spent $270,156 (Rickerson et al. 1987, G-I) to harass and disrupt the Gathering, ticketing or arresting people for 31 I predominantly vehicle related violations (Rickerson et al. 1987, E-3), as well as nudity. The year 1987 was a benchmark for the Rainbow Family. Diarrhea reportedly affected "61.7%" of Gathering participants.2 The causes of the epidemic are unknown . A number of Rainbows reported seeing an airplane spraying the area early in the Gathering (Adams 1988), a report that the Centers For Disease Control 186 . The Rainbow and the U.S. Government duly noted (Wharton and Spiegel 1987). Exceptionally unsanitary conditions and contaminated water sources at the Krishna Kitchen3 could have introduced the infection. Uncovered latrines throughout the Gathering and a general lack of potable water also may have contributed to it. The 1987 diarrhea outbreak and failure to clean up the Gathering site provided a plausible pretext for the Forest Service to try to get a court order...