Month: November 2017

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is the largest wildlife refuge in the country located in northeastern Alaska, consisting of over 19 million acres. The refuge was established in 1960, one year after Alaska became the 49th state.

The ANWR can be divided into three different areas. Eight million acres, a little under one half of the refuge, is the Mollie Beattie Wilderness. As a wilderness, the area is designated for the preservation of the area’s natural condition. 1.5 million acres, the 1002 area, was added in 1980 under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. As the name suggests, this area was added for the study of the area’s natural resources, especially petroleum. The remaining 10 million acres of ANWR is under “minimal management” but has not been designated as a wilderness.

The Drilling Controversy

After the ascendancy of the global oil market in the 1970s, Congress turned their gaze towards Alaska and its oil resources. Since 1977 there has been an ongoing debate between environmentalists and those in favor of the oil drilling. The question of oil drilling in the 1002 is ultimately a debate between the economic benefits and the harm it might, or should we say would, cause for the areas wildlife.

The ANWR has the most diverse wildlife in the Arctic Circle, and it is now under threat because of both the potential oil drilling and global warming. At the center of the environmental concern is the Porcupine caribou. The potential oil drilling would take place in the caribou calving grounds disturbing the animal’s natural behavior. The Porcupine caribou in turn is central to the culture and spirituality of the Gwich’in Nation.

The Porcupine caribou is not important for the Gwich’in only for its cultural status, but it also makes up a substantial part of their diet. In the challenging terrain of the Arctic, grocery-store food is expensive and in times hard to come by. The Porcupine caribou therefore has pivotal significance for the survival of the Gwich’in.

In the Light of History

The situation of the Porcupine caribou and the Gwich’in can be compared to the mass buffalo killings in the 1800’s continental America. Killing buffalo herds to near extinction was done, in part, as an attempt to force the Native Americans of the Great Plains to assimilate into the Euro-American way of life. It was this type of destruction of wildlife, wilderness and the Native cultures that led to the creation of National Parks in the first place.

When considering what the oil drilling in the ANWR would mean for the Gwich’in, many questions arise. In the grand scale of history, is it unrealistic to think that such a small culture would survive very long? So should the Gwich’in culture therefore just change their ways? Should Gwich’in simply assimilate to a more Western way of life?

Or do these questions miss the point? Does the preservation of the ANWR ultimately point to the issue of the right of Indigenous peoples to their ways of life, a principle clearly identified as a human right in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

Any way you look at the issue, the Gwich’in have lived in the area for thousands of years in a sustainable way, maintaining the areas natural condition. So, the next time the debate between economy and ecology is raised, one must define it as more than a contest between economic growth and environmental protection. It’s critically important to also look at its implications for the human rights of Indigenous people, for Native ways of life.

On December 25, 2016, as one of his final acts before leaving the office, U.S. President Barack Obama invoked the Antiquities Act and designated Bears Ears, a 1.35-million-acre area located in southeastern Utah, a national monument. The proclamation was a triumph especially for five tribes – the Diné, Hopi, Uintah & Ouray Ute, Ute Mountain Ute, and Zuni – who in 2015 had formed a historic consortium of sovereign tribal nations, the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, in order to conserve the cultural landscape sacred to the first peoples of the South-west. Calling the protection of Bears Ears National Monument “a massive federal land grab,” Obama’s successor, President Donald Trump, now plans to drastically reduce its size.

#trumpthemonument

Following Trump’s orders to review whether Bears Ears and nine other national monuments created by the president’s immediate predecessors could be modified, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke recommended in late August that the size of the Bears Ears National Monument should be reduced dramatically. This would open up parts of the sacred Indian land to economic activities such as drilling, mining, and timber production—regardless of the area containing tens of thousands of cultural artifacts. Siding with many Utahans who believe the Antiquities Act allows excessive power to the president, Trump announced on October 27 that he will, in fact, shrink the monument. Confident that the president does not have legal authority to enforce his plan, tribal leaders and environmentalists alike anticipated Trump’s decision, and already have lawsuits ready to be filed.

“This is our land. The damn Navajos need to go back to the reservation.”

The heated debate over federal use of the land has led to increased racial tensions especially in Utah as citizens are divided between those demanding respect for the culturally and spiritually significant Indian lands and those who protest reduced public access. Many fear, that the mutual understanding that has been developing between Native Americans and non-Natives is now diminishing. Among non-Natives, ironically, the frustration stemming from this “land grab” has much to do with losing access to what they consider home, a familiar tragedy when looking back at the histories of Indigenous peoples in the United States. A white male interviewed in a CBC report summarized his dissatisfaction as follows: “They are going to start restricting it, restricting access, restricting freedoms that we already enjoy up there.” Another Utahan, commenting on a YouTube video that supports the monument writes: “You don’t know what it is like to have something this big took from you! This is our home that Obama took from us!” The unseen benefit of this dispute, however, is that it continues to increase awareness of Native American cultural and spiritual life.

Nahodishgish: A Place to be Left Alone

Several southwestern tribes have populated the Bears Ears region since time immemorial, and have significant spiritual connections to the land. The area is still used in ceremonies and for hunting as well as collecting herbs and medicine. For some tribes, the area is a burial ground; to all it is a place where anyone can go and pray.  A history of broken promises with the United States has caused deep wounds to many Native peoples, and rescinding Obama’s monument declaration would mean tearing those wounds open once again. As Willie Grayeyes, the board chair of Utah Diné Bikéyah, puts it: “What we are asking for is just a small acreage compared to what was taken away from us.” It remains to be seen whether President Trump will follow in the footsteps of Andrew Jackson, one of his self-proclaimed heroes, and go down in history as yet another leader of the United States who has dishonored Native America.

Sources:

Bears Ears Coalition. https://bearsearscoalition.org/

“Controversy over Bears Ears National Monument designation.” FoxNews, January 4, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt2gX9Kt2G4

Eilperin, Juliet & Fears, Darryl. “Interior secretary recommends Trump alter at least three national monuments, including Bears Ears.” The Washington Post, August 24, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/08/24/interior-secretary-recommends-trump-alter-a-handful-of-national-monuments-but-declines-to-reveal-which-ones/?utm_term=.f438e0cddf39

Eilperin, Juliet. “Shrink at least 4 national monuments and modify a half-dozen others, Zinke tells Trump.” The Washington Post, September 17, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/shrink-at-least-4-national-monuments-and-modify-a-half-dozen-others-zinke-tells-trump/2017/09/17/a0df45cc-9b48-11e7-82e4-f1076f6d6152_story.html?utm_term=.2edcaeda2ee2

Eilperin, Juliet & Fears, Darryl. “Trump says he will shrink Bears Ears National Monument, a sacred tribal site in Utah.” The Washington Post, October 27, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/10/27/trump-says-he-will-shrink-bears-ears-national-monument-a-sacred-tribal-site-in-utah/?utm_term=.296dc930930b

Grayeyes, Willie. “Op-ed: Bears Ears is a place for healing, not conflict.” Desert News, May 20, 2017. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865680391/Op-ed-Bears-Ears-A-place-for-healing-not-conflict.html

Noisecat, Julian Brave. “Bears Ears is sacred to Native Americans. But heritage isn’t all equal for Trump.” The Guardian, September 19, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/19/bears-ears-sacred-native-americans-heritage-trump

Siegler, Kirk. “With National Monuments Under Review, Bears Ears is Focus of Fierce Debate.” NPR, May 5, 2017. http://www.npr.org/2017/05/05/526860725/with-national-monuments-under-review-bears-ears-is-focus-of-fierce-debate

“The Battle for Bears Ears.” The National, April 29, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K70t7eugbg

“The Battle Over Bears Ears.” Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, September 14, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsLkzUjOCUM

Visit Utah. https://www.visitutah.com/places-to-go/state-and-federal-recreation-areas/southern/bears-ears-national-monument/

Introduction

The Washington R*dskins are a professional American football team based in the Washington metropolitan area (headquarters in Virginia). The team competes in the National Football League (NFL) as a member of the National Football Conference (NFC) East division.

Native American individuals, tribes, and organizations have been questioning the use of the name and image of the team for decades and it has been part of a larger controversy. Already in the 1940s the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) created a campaign that aimed at eliminating negative stereotyping of Native American people in the media. Over time, the campaign began to focus on Indian names and mascots in sports.

The question is not a simple one—it has many different aspects, including the historical construction of Indian identity, the persistence of stereotypes, deep societal divisions over race, the relationship between “free speech” and “hate speech,” and the legal protection of registered trademarks.

Reasons for the controversy

The Washington team name, logo, and mascot represent the Native Americans in a deeply negative way and recreate societal divisions and prejudices. Indeed, the name is a dictionary defined racial slur. According to the NCAI, teams with mascots such as the R*dskins and the Braves perpetuate negative stereotypes of Native American people, and demean Native traditions and rituals.

In 2013, the NCAI issued a new report summarizing opposition to Indian mascots and team names generally, and the Washington R*dskins in particular. However, the name and logo of the Cleveland Indians baseball team has received criticism as well.

The Washington team was born in an era when racism and bigotry were accepted by the dominant culture, and the founder of the team, George Preston Marshall, was an infamous segregationists who openly supported the ban of African American players in the NFL. He was the very last team owner to permit an African American player on his team, but he did so only under the threat of sanctions by the federal government. Marshall’s racist beliefs drew support from the American Nazi Party, and he even went so far as to stipulate in his last will and testament that his foundation would not distribute any resources to schools or programs that promoted the intermingling of children from different races.

Nonetheless, “Indian” sports brands such as the R*dskins have grown to become multi-million dollar franchises and the name controversy also raises the question of legal protection of trademarks (and whether the team name presents hate speech or racist commentary and therefore should be a registered trademark for that matter).

According to the NCAI, the “Indian” sports mascots, logos, and symbols promote harm and intolerance and have very real consequences for Native people. Rather than honoring Native peoples, the caricatures and stereotypes that are represented by the logos are harmful and perpetuate negative stereotypes of America’s first peoples. According to NCAI, this contributes to a disregard for the personhood of Native peoples. The NCAI states that derogatory “Indian” sports mascots have serious psychological, social and cultural consequences for Native Americans, especially Native youth, who face a higher risk of hate crimes than other groups in the society.

The dispute is deeply important to many Native American groups, who have sought for decades to revoke federal protection of the “R*dskins” trademark and to force the team to change the name altogether. In 2014, the U.S. Patent Office ruled that the R-word is “disparaging to Native Americans” and therefore not entitled to taxpayer-financed copyright protections. In 2013, even president Obama urged the team to change its name. The name has been criticized by a prominent NFL player Champ Bailey as being a similar insult to the Native Americans as the N-word is to African Americans.

Nevertheless, nothing in federal law prevents Pro-Football Inc. or the teams from continuing to use the offensive names. The Patent and Trademark Office rejected the application to trademark the name because it is “immoral, deceptive or scandalous” — only to see the appeals court state that the part of the 1946 Lanham Act, which regulates trademarks, violates the First Amendment’s protections of free speech. The R*dskins asked the Supreme Court to hear the case and the court stated that “rejecting trademarks that disparage others violates the First Amendment.”

Conclusion

Even though the topic has been on the agenda of the NCAI for decades, it has become prominent in the wider discussion only in the recent years. Even though late, it is about time it is discussed by the politicians and the court system and not just activists alone. The continued use of this language invokes stereotypes that reproduce and strengthen societal divisions.

In May 2017, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu said it well while drawing national praise for removing a set of Confederate monuments from his city. In his speech justifying the move Landrieu said: “History cannot be changed (and) cannot be moved like a statue,” but getting rid of those monuments was one way to try to begin a healing process.

In early September 2017, the Cherokee Nation accepted a U.S. District Court ruling on the descendants of Cherokee Freedmen by arguing that they had “all the rights of native Cherokees.” Judge Thomas Hogan ended one chapter in the longstanding controversy concerning the status of the descendants of former slaves, many of whom live among Cherokees. It is now time for Cherokees to resolve internal discrepancies and to strengthen relationships within the nation.

The core issue in the Cherokee Freedmen controversy has always been power relations and the question of who has the right to determine citizenship in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. After the Civil War, the United States ratified a treaty with the Cherokee in which all slaves residing within the Cherokee Nation would be freed, and they would gain full legal status within the Cherokee Nation. The Treaty of 1866 thus guaranteed to some 2,500 slaves freedom and an equal status with those who were Cherokee according to the definition used by the tribe members Cherokees were not eager to accept Freedmen as full members of their tribe, and debates on tribal citizenship and on the interpretation of the treaty have continued to the present day.

For Native American peoples, kinship and blood quantum were, and still are, essential foundations for tribal citizenship. Freedmen, on the other hand, laid claim to citizenship as a treaty right. In 2007, the Cherokee Nation, citing its inherent sovereign power to determine its own citizenship criteria, restricted citizenship to those who could prove their family line through its tribal rolls.

The government of the United States made efforts to support the Cherokee Freedmen. For instance, it blocked federal housing funds from the Cherokee people in 2011, and consequently the tribe returned Cherokee citizenship to more than 2,800 people. Later they were disenrolled from the tribe again, forcing them to join an estimated 40,000 unenrolled descendants of the slaves once owned by Cherokees.

It would appear that the Cherokee Nation has now stepped into a new era in their history. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that old attitudes remain strong among some of its citizens. I would like to suggest that current developments are a positive thing, and I hope that the relationships among and between Cherokee citizens shall improve in the process of time. Citizenship and a sense of belonging are important factors when one constructs his or her identity and attitude towards life.

References:

Champagne, Duane, George P. Horse Capture, and Chandler C. Jackson. 2007. American Indian Nations: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Lanham, Maryland: Altamira Press.

Littlefield, Daniel F., Jr. 1978. The Cherokee Freedmen: From Emancipation to American Citizenship. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Monet, Jenni. 2017. Linking Arms, Marching Forward: Cherokee Nation Accepts Ruling on Freedmen. In Indian Country Today. Available from https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/native-news/cherokee-nation-accepts-ruling-freedmen/.
Sturm, Circe. 2014. “Race, Sovereignty, and Civil Rights: Understanding the Cherokee Freedmen Controversy.” Cultural Anthropology 29, no. 3: 575–598. https://doi.org/10.14506/ca29.3.07