Category: Finnish Perspectives on Contemporary Native America (Page 1 of 2)

The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People in 2007. This year marks the tenth anniversary of it. Before its adoption, the declaration had been 25 years in the making. The original idea stems largely from the so-called Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP) which was set up in 1982 to deal with discrimination faced by indigenous peoples. In 1985, the group started working on the declaration’s draft. It was finished in 1993, submitted and went through several commissions examining it. Mentions of rights to self-determination, rights to self-government, rights to control resources on traditional lands and access to territories especially slowed down the approval of the draft.

When the declaration was adopted in September 2007, 144 states voted for it, 11 abstained (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russia, Samoa, and Ukraine) and 4 countries voted against it (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States). The four countries that voted against the declaration in 2007 explained their initial rejection of the declaration with legal concerns over its content, lack of clear instructions for implementation and in some cases, and conflicts with existing national declarations of rights.

However, since 2007, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States have changed their stance and now support it as the legally non-binding document it is. As a declaration, it is not a legally binding document in any form. However, the United Nations sees the declaration as a ‘significant tool towards eliminating human rights violations (…) and assisting [indigenous people] in combating discrimination and marginalization”, representing countries’ commitment, setting and encouraging standards.

The 23 preambular clauses and 46 articles of the declaration deal with a vast range of issues ranging from rights to lands or resources, historical grievances or contemporary issues, to rights of self-government, protection of languages, cultures etc., emphasizing indigenous peoples’ ”rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health, education (…)”, to “their own institutions, cultures, and traditions, and to pursue their development” as well as ”socio-economic, political and cultural aspirations”. Another explicit intention mentioned by the United Nations is that the declaration should function as a way for indigenous causes to get international attention

The vast range of content, thegeneral wording of articles and topics, the fact that it is in scope but does not refer to any specific nations, areas, or continents, the lack of instructions for implementation orf concrete measurements, and the fact that as a declaration it has no legally binding power r inevitably raise many questions about the function or purpose of it.

Reactions and Effects of the Declaration in the United States

Nonetheless, based on provisions in the declaration, a number of policies have been adopted in the U.S., including The Policy on Environmental Justice for Working with Federally Recognized Tribes and Indigenous Peoples (2014), The Fish and Wildlife’s Service Native American Policy (2016) and The Tribal Consultation Policy (2017). What these policies mean in reality for tribes is another question.

Alternative Approaches chosen by other countries

Other countries, most prominently Ecuador and Bolivia, have made reforms to their own countries’ constitutions during the last decade, recognizing the rights of both nature and of indigenous people constitutionally. These reforms, summarized under the concept of Sumak Kawsay (a Quechua term referring to the principle of human beings living in harmony with each other and with nature). At the same time, the new constitutions cemented extractivism rights more explicitly, with the idea to support the protection of indigenous rights and nature rights with money made off of natural resources.

Challenges

Effective implementation of changes based on its articles remain the biggest challenge of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people. Any actual implementations of a legally non-binding declaration demand proactive action by governments themselves on behalf of the declaration, which is problematic. U.N. special rapporteurs generally criticize effectiveness and progress made in regard to the declaration themselves. Considering this, one is left to wonder if it is not more effective to look at indigenous issues as part of the larger global reality of the present-day world and near future.

The Myaamia Center’s (“myaamia” meaning “the downstream people”) roots go back to the 1990s, when the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma began its attempts to revitalize Myaamiaataweenki, an Algonquian language consisting of two dialects, Miami and Illinois. The initiative first gave birth to the Myaamia Project in 2001, which in 2013 transformed into the Myaamia Center, an institution aimed at advancing research and providing education on myaamia culture, especially language. The center works directly with the Miami Tribe and the Miami University in Ohio.

There is clear need for tribal initiatives such as the Myaamia Center. In Native North America, a survey says that 194 Indigenous languages are still being used. However, of those, only 34 languages are spoken by both adults and children, suggesting the others, without any child speakers, are in imminent danger of eventually disappearing altogether.

The fact that there are nearly 200 Native languages that have survived genocide, several waves of removal and cultural assimilation tells volumes about the power of one’s own Native tongue. Various studies conducted among Native American tribes show the health benefits of speaking one’s own language. For example, a study focused on Southwestern Native communities showed that among those bands where their native language was widely spoken, only 14 percent of the band members smoked. Speaking one’s own language has been shown to positively affect youth suicide ratio and graduation success as well.

Future of indigenous languages

Languages going dormant or extinct is not exclusively a Native American issue. Currently, there are approximately 6,000 languages in the world. Linguists have predicted that within the next century, up to 90% of world’s languages will cease to exist. Especially bringing children to learn their native languages is necessary for the languages to survive the English, French, Spanish, Mandarin and Arabic dominated globalization.

Language revitalization efforts are, according to Daryl Baldwin, the director of the Myaamia Center, mostly done by relying on living, fluent tribal elders in Native American communities. Baldwin commented to the Smithsonian Magazine in April 2017, that there are dormant or little used Native languages well documented in writing, and often these written archives are not utilized. The work he and his colleagues at the Myaamia Center are doing is heavily reliant upon the documentation the 16^th-century French missionaries compiled on the Miami-Illinois language during their journeys. The techniques and technologies created and developed at the Myaamia Center have sparked interest, and now more and more tribes are attempting to re-embrace their languages. There are a lot of contexts in which Native languages can find a foothold, whether it be ceremonial or educational usage, or perhaps learning traditional songs.

Bringing native languages to the 21st century

While revitalizing Myaamia, Myaamia Center director Baldwin has faced various practical problems. Figuring out the correct pronunciation is one of them: how, for instance, does one figure out how to pronounce words from a language that hasn’t had a first-language speaker since the 60s? Developing the vocabulary has proven to be tricky at times too. Consider, for example, the need to create new words that fit the 21^st-century lifestyle, such as “computer” or “dorm room.” Baldwin has used comparative data to help solve many of these struggles, relying on the help of related Algonquian languages. To keep the language tempting for the youth, this has been an essential task. For, as Daryl Baldwin poignantly asks, : “When a language stops evolving, why speak it?”

SOURCES:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/how-resurrect-lost-language-180962937/

https://myaamiadictionary.org/dictionary2015/entry/entry.php?entry=2406&type=entry

https://myaamiahistory.wordpress.com/language/

https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/education/native-education/myaamia-center-language-revitalization-finding-new-ways-languages-live/

http://myaamiacenter.org/statement-of-purpose/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rytcqVIdTdA

https://youtu.be/Nof211qarKc

The Hanford Nuclear Site in the state of Washington played an important part in America’s war effort during World War II. The nuclear production complex was established in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project, and introduced the world’s first full-scale plutonium production reactor. The site produced the plutonium for the Fat Man, the nuclear weapon detonated over Nagasaki, and was crucial for the nation’s increasing nuclear arsenal during the Cold War.

While most of the reactors and plutonium processors have been decommissioned, the legacy of the site lives on. Because of the part it played during the Second World War, the site itself and working in the facility is still considered patriotic.

The site, however, holds another legacy as well. The site’s safety procedures and waste disposal practices were inadequate and there have been significant amounts of radioactive materials released into the air and into the Columbia River, resulting in the nation’s largest cleanup effort that was initiated 30 years ago, and might take another 30 years to finish. Some official documents from the site even indicate, that radioactive materials were released on purpose, in order to see the effects, it would have on the environment and the people.

Native people have felt the impact of this environmental catastrophe the most. Russell Jim, a citizen of the Yakama Nation and the project director for Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program for the Yakama Nation, has been calling for a cleanup and extensive research for the damages for decades. The radioactive materials are most likely the reason for the large number of cancer, thyroid problems and anencephaly, a rare and fatal birth defect, of the Yakama people.

The Yakama, Umatilla and Nez Perce used the Hanford area as wintering grounds, and the Wanapum Tribe lived there year-round, until forced out in the 1940s. Nonetheless, the area was selected for a nuclear site development because of the rural location, the nearby dams that provided hydroelectric power, and the Columbia River that supplied plenty of clean water for cooling the reactors.

Russell Jim explains in an interview with the Atomic Heritage Foundation, that the Yakama people used the Columbia River as their primary source of food and the area provided for all their dietary and medicinal needs.

When the Hanford Site was established, their access to the land and river was restricted. The Yakama Reservation is located only 20 miles from the Hanford Site, and the people are worried how the radioactive waste has affected the Chinook salmon and other fish, that the tribe uses. The Yakama Nation does not hold the funds needed for the research, and the U.S. seems uninterested in funding it. Nonetheless, a study conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency found, that the indigenous people of the area have one chance in fifty of getting cancer from the chemicals if they continue to eat the fish. As Jim points out, if this would have happened in New York, “it would have been cleaned up yesterday”.

The Yakama Tribe have had their livelihood and land imperiled by the Manhattan Project. The federal trust responsibility dictates that the U.S. government should project the tribal property, its lands and resources, and the nation’s access to fish and game.

Access to the Hanford Site, however, is restricted, the land has been contaminated, and the health of many people has suffered.

Russell Jim calls for true concerted effort to involve the Yakama Nation on a government-to-government basis on the cleanup, and, in so doing, for the federal government to recognize Yakama sovereignty and its trust obligation to the Yakama nation. “What does the land mean to us?” Russell Jim asks. “All of this is tied together to our sovereignty, our government, our culture, our religion – all tied to the foods and medicines, our language, our way of life.”

On October 22, 2011, thousands of people gathered to mourn and pray for a lost Blackfeet warrior. She had been the lead plaintiff in Cobell vs. Salazar; a 1996 class-action lawsuit against the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Department of Interior (DOI) condemning the mismanagement of Individual Indian Money accounts (IIMs). She had dedicated her life to bringing justice to her fellow Indians by revealing over a century–long abuse of the IIMs by the U.S. government. Despite her limited assets, she fought relentlessly against a multi-million-dollar army of lawyers and dozens of experts working for the United States. In 2009, after spending thirteen years in court pursuing a fight considered by many to be impossible, she accepted a 3.4 billion-dollar settlement on behalf of half a million American Indians—the largest settlement in U.S. history. Her name was Elouise Pepion Cobell, or the Yellow Bird Woman.

The Root of the Problem: General Allotment Act of 1887

In 1887, the United States Congress passed the General Allotment Act (a.k.a. the Dawes Act). Seeking to assimilate Native Americans into U.S. citizens by breaking up tribal structures, the bill mandated that Indian Country was to be divided into individual allotments, and all the remaining tribal land declared as “surplus” would be opened up for white settlers and enterprises. Because the government saw Indians as “incompetent” to manage their own lands and financial affairs, allotments were held “in trust” by the DOI. These trust lands were then leased, for instance, for grazing and mineral extraction, and revenues from the leases were supposed to be paid regularly as steady income to the individual landowners into trust accounts (the IIMs). In 1934, the allotment policy was forever abandoned. But the disastrous outcomes remained: Native Americans lost two-thirds of their tribal land base (nearly 100 million acers in all), and the federal government failed to fulfill its trust responsibilities, plunging Indian Country into even deeper despair.

Cobell: “I Went From a ‘Dumb Indian’ to ‘Genius’ in One Lifetime”

Born on a Blackfeet reservation in Montana in 1945, Elouise Cobell grew up on a small family ranch without electricity or running water. Trying to understand the surrounding poverty, Cobell began to ask for accounting of her trust monies from the BIA when she was only 18 years old. While working as Treasurer of the Blackfeet Tribe, Cobell frequently came across irregularities in the IIM accounts, yet her inquiries were dismissed several times by the BIA and DOI, and she was even called “incapable” of understanding such matters. In 1996 she had seen enough, and along with four other plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit demanding full accounting of all IIMs. Although it soon became apparent that sufficient records of the trusts had not been kept, the case went through nine appeals—each time ruled in favor of Cobell’s side. Once a district court even issued a statement saying that “it would be difficult to find a more historically mismanaged federal program than the IIM trust.” Cobell’s ability to expose government corruption was acknowledged by the MacArthur Foundation in 1997 as she was awarded with a $310,000 grant nicknamed “the genius grant.”

A True Warrior

In 2011, Cobell lost her battle against cancer, but the impact she had on Native America continues. Some of her other achievements included founding the first Native American bank, creating financial literacy programs for Native children, initiating the first tribal land trust program to protect crucial grizzly bear habitat, and being honored as a warrior by her tribe. Moreover, Cobell v. Salazar set the precedent for tribal trust cases that are still ongoing. In 2016, Cobell was posthumously awarded the highest civilian honor in the United States, as her son accepted on her behalf the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Barack Obama. Elouise Cobell was not just a plaintiff in a historic lawsuit. She was a true warrior.

References:

Berger, Bethany R. “Elouise Cobell.” Cobell Scholarship, 2015. http://cobellscholar.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/cobell_chapter.pdf

Capriccioso, Rob. “Elouise Cobell, 65, Walks On.” Indian Country Today, October 17, 2011. https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/elouise-cobell-65-walks-on/

“Elouise Pepion Cobell: Banker-Warrior.” Women’s History Matters, September 23, 2014. http://montanawomenshistory.org/elouise-pepion-cobell-banker-warrior/

Gingold, Dennis M. & Pearl, M. Alexander. “Tribute To Elouise Cobell.” Public Land and Resources Law Review, 2012. http://cobellscholar.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/In-Memoriam_A-Tribute-to-Elouise-Cobell.pdf

Hevesi, Dennis. “Elouise Cobell, 65, Dies; Sued U.S. Over Indian Trust Funds.” The New York Times, October 17, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/us/elouise-cobell-65-dies-sued-us-over-indian-trust-funds.html

Lee, Tanya H. “’Elouise Cobell Is My Hero’: Awarded Posthumous Presidential Medal of Honor.” Indian Country Today, November 23, 2016. https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/native-news/elouise-cobell-is-my-hero-awarded-posthumous-presidential-medal-of-freedom/

“The Dawes Act of 1887.” YouTube, January 23, 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45HATCWo2PQ

In broadest terms, repatriation refers to the process of returning someone or something to its nation of origin. In Native America, the acquisition of objects that originally were possessed by Indigenous people began immediately after the first Europeans entered the North American continent. The first efforts to repatriate cultural objects were initiated in the 1890s. This case concerned wampum belts owned by the Six Nations Confederacy, which includes the Cayuga, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Tuscarora, and Seneca. Some of the wampum belts were returned, but this process actually continued well into the 1960s.

The concerted effort to protect Native American graves and to repatriate human remains began in Iowa 1971. A historical cemetery was discovered during a road construction project, and the aftermath initiated new legislation. The Iowa reburial statute of 1976 ordered that in similar cases the human remains should be treated respectfully and those should be reburied. This statute inspired 27 other states to enact similar protective laws by 1990. In addition, federal repatriation legislation advanced during the 1980s. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was enacted into law in 1990, and according to it, federal museums were required to repatriate objects that were culturally affiliated with federally recognized tribes.

One of the best examples of possible problems surrounding repatriation and contradictory interpretations concerning cultural affiliation is the case of the Ancient One, or the Kennewick Man. Remains of a skeleton were discovered on the bank of Columbia River in Washington state in 1996. The local Colville, Nez Perce, Umatilla, Wanapum, and Yakima tribes claimed the remains to rebury them and the scientists aimed at researching the remains.

The debate focused on the origins of the skeleton and who ultimately had the right to determine the skeleton’s fate. The Colville, Nez Perce, Umatilla, Wanapum, and Yakima tribes turned to oral tradition and researchers justified their actions in the name of science. Finally, the studies revealed that the remains belonged to the Native American Indian heritage, and the skeleton was returned to the tribes for a reburial in 2016.

Recently there has occurred a similar case in Australia as well. The remains of so called Mungo Man were discovered in Mungo National Park in south-west New South Wales in 1974. They were taken to the Australian National University in Canberra for a research and returned to the Indigenous Australian Mutthi Mutthi, Ngiyampaa and Paakantji / Barkandji communities on November 17, 2017. Indigenous Australians have campaigned for years to obtain the remains back, and they held a ceremony to celebrate the occasion.

Both the case of the Ancient One and the case of Mungo Man reveal the fact that despite all attempts to protect indigenous heritage the scientific interest seems to overrule the rights of indigenous peoples. Ironically, the scientific research of the Ancient One revealed only that the claims of Native American Indian tribes were justified.

These cases raise also broader questions concerning, firstly, the general right to gain knowledge and to study ancient objects, and, secondly, the question of who ultimately has the right to conduct a scientific research on these objects. A scientific research concerning indigenous peoples should always be conducted in a co-operation with the representatives of the tribes and communities in question, and scientists should allow indigenous peoples to express their opinions on the theme of research and respect these opinions when they plan research projects. Moreover, indigenous peoples possess a great amount of knowledge that might be valuable for scientists, and this knowledge should not be neglected.

References:

Andersson, Rani-Henrik & Markku Henriksson 2010. Intiaanit – Pohjois-Amerikan alkuperäiskansojen historia. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

Buikstra, Jane 2006. “History of Research in Skeletal Biology” In Handbook of North American Indians, edited by Douglas H. Ubelaker, 504–23. Vol. 3. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.

McKeown, C. Timothy 2008. “Repatriation.” In Handbook of North American Indians, edited by Garrick A. Bailey, 427–37. Vol. 2. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.

Electronical sources:

Colwell, Chip. “What Has the Ancient One’s Epic Journey Taught Us?” Counterpunch. January 02, 2017. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/03/what-has-the-ancient-ones-epic-journey-taught-us/.

Higgins, Isabella. “Mungo Man returned to ancestral home where he died 40,000 years ago.” ABC News. November 17, 2017. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-17/mungo-man-returned-to-ancestral-home/9159840.

“Mungo Man: Australia’s oldest remains taken to ancestral home.” BBC News. November 17, 2017. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-42020675.

Uranium mining in the Navajo Nation, which covers portions of three states and is the largest tribal nation by area in the United States, is a multifaceted issue with many different aspects and points of view.

Economic action created jobs, health consequences

Uranium mining is the process of extraction of uranium ore from the ground, and it is used almost entirely as fuel for nuclear power plants, which makes it a national question related to environmental and energy policies. Mining has taken place in several areas of the country, however the sovereign Navajo Nation contains some of the largest uranium deposits in the U.S. and that makes the issue special. More than one half of all U.S. uranium deposits lie under reservation land. The mining has had serious, long-term health impacts and consequences on Navajo miners and families. Nevertheless, there are defenders of mining as well because it has brought jobs and supported the tribal economy.

Health issues are one of the most important questions when discussing the legacy of uranium mining boom during the 1940 to 1950s. Many of the 1,200 mines, though abandoned, have not been properly closed. Pits have been left open, and the tribes have claimed that chronic exposure to radiation has continued for decades. Indeed, the cancer rates started to increase drastically a few decades after uranium mining began in the Southwest, as well as the Great Plains. According to a report by Earthworks, “Mining not only exposes uranium to the atmosphere, where it becomes reactive, but releases other radioactive elements such as thorium and radium and toxic heavy metals including arsenic, selenium, mercury and cadmium. Exposure to these radioactive elements can cause lung cancer, skin cancer, bone cancer, leukemia, kidney damage and birth defects.”

Earlier this year, a historic $600 million settlement agreement was reached by the Navajo Nation, the United States, and two subsidiaries of the mining company Freeport-McMoRan. After 50 years, mining companies will pay for cleanup at 94 abandoned uranium mines within the Navajo Nation. Since 2008, federal agencies have invested $130 million to address this uranium legacy. Through the recent settlement agreement, the United States will contribute about half the cost. It has taken the government and mining companies nearly five decades to make real progress toward resolving these longstanding health and environmental issues caused by uranium.

According to data from the Navajo Nation, a total of 523 abandoned uranium mines exist on the 27,000-square-mile reservation. With the settlement reached in 2017, cleanup efforts are taking place at about 200 of them. It is positive that after several decades, different agencies including the Environment Protection Agency, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Interior and Energy departments, the Indian Health Service, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have collaborated to tackle contamination of Navajo land. The EPA has compiled a list of 46 “priority mines” for cleanup, and it is expected that the cleanup will generate more than 100 jobs for Navajo employees.

A way forward?

The Navajo Nation settlement is a positive sign of cooperation between different organizations, the companies, the U.S. government, and additional actors bearing responsibility. And it may also provide a way forward in other areas and affected communities as well.

For instance, Defenders of the Black Hills have written legislation, The Uranium Exploration and Mining Accountability Act, calling for study and remediation. This legislation proposes to place a moratorium on any processing or approval of new licenses for uranium exploration or mining operations until all abandoned mines in the country have been cleaned up.

The Native communities suffering from the health impacts of uranium mining should be supported, and the health and environmental effects, as well as the profound religious, cultural and identity-specific questions related to the use of the native sacred sites, deserve serious consideration.

At the same time, should natural resource exploitation take place, it must be clearly demonstrated that it will directly benefit local communities.

Sources:

Azcentral.com. Abandoned uranium mines continue to haunt Navajos on reservation. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/investigations/2014/08/04/uranium-mining-navajos-devastating-health-effects/13591333/

EPA. Navajo Nation: Cleaning Up Abandoned Uranium Mines. October 11 2017. https://www.epa.gov/navajo-nation-uranium-cleanup

Impacts of Resource Development on American Indian Land. Human Health Impacts on the Navajo Nation from Uranium Mining. https://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/nativelands/navajo/humanhealth.html

Indian Country Today. Navajo Nation Abandoned Uranium Mines Cleanup Gets $600 Million. February 14 2017. https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/environment/navajo-abandoned-uranium-mines-600-million/

Kline, Curtis. Uranium Mining and Native Resistance: The Uranium Exploration and Mining Accountability Act. https://intercontinentalcry.org/uranium-mining-and-native-resistance-the-uranium-exploration-and-mining-accountability-act/amp/

npr.org. For The Navajo Nation, Uranium Mining’s Deadly Legacy Lingers. April 10 2016. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/04/10/473547227/for-the-navajo-nation-uranium-minings-deadly-legacy-lingers

NY Times. Uranium Mines Dot Navajo Land, Neglected and Still Perilous. March 31 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/us/uranium-mines-dot-navajo-land-neglected-and-still-perilous.html

Reaching the Sky. Uranium Mining and Native Americans. November 15 2013. https://mettahu.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/uranium-mining-and-native-americans/

Chaco Canyon lies in the Four Corners region in northwestern New Mexico. It was a cultural center of the Ancestral Puebloans between AD 900 to 1150 and reached its zenith around the year 800. The canyon’s inhabitants built magisterial cliff dwellings and vast towns constructed of stone, including semi-subterranean kivas used for ritual purposes.

Around 1150, its inhabitants abandoned the area, leaving behind the buildings. Possible reasons cited for this abandonment have been droughts, poor water management, deforestation (a study has suggested that the canyon’s inhabitants hauled up to 240,000 trees from mountain ranges 46 miles away for home construction), or possibly wars, violence or enemy raids. Researchers still haven’t managed to fully understand the extent of Chaco Canyon’s “lost civilization” or its trade routes among other things.

The discovery of cocoa and the excavation of scarlet macaw skeletons as recently as 2015 in Chaco Canyon, however, both prove the existence a trade with Mesoamerican civilizations that lived hundreds of miles south of New Mexico. Because of this, some Natives in the area call the site “the Original World Trade Center.”

The first in-depth U.S. archaeological expedition to Chaco Canyon took place in 1896. In 1949, the Chaco Canyon National Monument was created. In 1980, it became the Chaco Culture National Historical Park. It is also a UNESCO World Heritage site since 1987, and it is one of the most important pre-Columbian historical sites in the U.S. The Hopi and Pueblo people consider the area sacred ancestral homelands.

Energy Development in northwestern New Mexico

Initial excavation of fossil fuels in New Mexico started in the 1920s and heavily intensified in the 1960s. The state is dependent on income from energy extraction, including fracking. In the Four Corners area for example, 91% of all public lands are leased for drilling. Most of the remaining 9% lie in the vast area outside of the protected Historical National Park.

An argument the Bureau of Land Management uses for the lease sales is that it promotes U.S. energy independence. The oil and gas lease auctions for the Chaco area were first planned during Obama’s presidency. Because the sale’s lands are only 20 miles away from Chaco Culture National Historical Park they have been controversial from the beginning. Now, the Pueblo tribes want the Trump administration to impose a temporary ban on oil and gas drilling near the Chaco Culture Historical National Park.

Both Pueblo and Navajo communities in the area are worried about possible impacts of fracking (hydraulic fracturing) on ancestral sites and demand that further studies should be conducted on the possible environmental and health dangers of fracking caused by spills before leasing more land. They also are concerned that water trucks of fracking companies ruin their dirt roads due to the ruts they leave in them and fear that their water quality will suffer from the fracking activity.

An additional problematic aspect in regard to energy development in the area is the concept of sacred lands and special sites: The All Pueblo Council of Governors stated that energy development in the region threatens sacred sites and places that are otherwise important to Pueblo communities. The council also stated that they see energy development plans in the region as a “total lack of respect” for their sovereign tribal nations and as “attacks” on their heritage, adding that they believe their ancestors still reside in the area.

Navajo leaders also state similar concerns as the Pueblo tribes in regard to energy development encroaching on lands they consider sacred or otherwise special, fearing the greater region could turn the area into an industrial wasteland. Russell Begaye, President of the Navajo Nation, has explained, “We are connected to these lands spiritually. The voices of our ancestors live in this area and any disturbance to this area is culturally and morally insensitive.”

The issue has had a mobilizing effect on the local Native communities, some of its activists say. Tribal communities have filed lawsuits against the Bureau of Land Management and at least one of their lawsuits claims that fracking in the area violates the National Historic Preservation Act.

The frictions between Native people and agencies which energy development plans in the Chaco region cause one to contemplate different questions: What is sacred to whom and who decides over what should be protected? What are the best compromises between the desire to protect landscapes of historical and cultural significance and present-day demands for resources?

The gaming industry is an important economic backbone for many American Indian nations. The struggles of the Poarch Band of Creek Indians in Alabama suggest why it is also a matter of contested sovereignty and self-determination.

The Poarch Band of Creek Indians are descendants of the Creek nation, once habiting most of Alabama and Georgia. Unlike many of their Eastern counterparts, they were never moved out of their homeland. They are also the only federally recognized tribe living in Alabama, gaining the status in 1984, soon followed by trust lands enabling a success story with a thriving gaming enterprise. The tribe hosts three gaming facilities on their trust lands, employing hundreds and looking for to expand beyond state lines.

All well then? Not quite.

Since a Supreme Court ruling in 2009, tribes that gained federal recognition after the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA) have found themselves in a grey zone. The IRA determines the governmental process of taking land into trust for federally recognized tribes. In Carcieri v. Salazar, the Supreme Court ruled that the IRA only applies to tribes that were federally recognized at the time of the Act.

Like many other states, Alabama has already tried to use the ruling in their favor to block the gaming business of the Poarch Band Creeks. Indeed, the state is questioning the actual validity of the tribe’s federal recognition as well their trust lands. The federal courts have thus far sided with the tribe. In addition, many members of the U.S. Congress have proposed fixes (one pending) that would clarify the law once and for all. However, only tribe-specific bills have been passed as the stakes for the states are high.

Why does it matter then?

For the tribes, such as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, tribal gaming on trust lands is a question of economic independence and self-sufficiency. Even if the gaming wouldn’t be a lucrative business, it employs members and finances many programs that strengthen the community. Trust lands allow tribes to enact laws and conduct business based on their own cultural values and terms, so it’s never just about business. It’s about sovereignty.

From the vantage point of many state governments, gaming poses a moral question with risks such as crime and social problems related to gaming. The states also lose tax revenues as their taxation is limited on trust lands. However, they do often get various payments through the compacts that are negotiated for Class III (casino) gaming. This is also a continued battle between the states and federal government regarding Indian affairs.

For its part, the federal government wants to see self-sufficient tribes that have a strong basis for economic development. Treaty-based federal funding has always been lacking, and many tribes face severe social and economic challenges. Tribal gaming has had a positive impact on tribal sovereignty and wellbeing.

Conclusion

Tribal gaming isn’t a mere question of a right to do business. It intertwines with a larger question of the right and ability of tribes to act as sovereign nations. And it therefore reflects the complex, never-ending battle between the American family of governments: federal, tribal, and state. While gaming has been an American Indian success story, the United States Supreme Court ruling in Carcieri poses a severe threat to the future of many Native nations.

Sources:

Meister, Alan P, Rand, Kathryn R. L. & Light, Steven Andrew 2009. Indian Gaming And Beyond: Tribal Economic Development and Diversification. South Dakota Law Review, vol. 54, no 3.

Miller, Mark Edwin 2013. Claiming Tribal Identity: The Five Tribes and the Politics of Federal Acknowledgement. Universitty of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/201966-poarch-indians

http://lagniappemobile.com/poarch-band-creek-indians-continue-efforts-clarify-tribal-status/

https://news.worldcasinodirectory.com/poarch-creek-land-into-trust-bill-could-also-aid-florida-effort-29698

http://pci-nsn.gov/wmlib/pdf/kits/tribal_history.pdf

http://pci-nsn.gov/westminster/index.html

https://windcreekhospitality.com/About/History

http://www.al.com/business/index.ssf/2014/09/poarch_creek_tribes_growing_in.html

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02/poarch_indians_to_florida_let.html

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/12/poarch_creek_indians_evaluatin.html

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060027045

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/