Jump to content

User:Sophiaweltman/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As the copyright lead, I will take the lead on making sure that we do not publish any copyrighted material.

I have a particular interest in the actions occurring at a local level in relation to Native American Land trusts. There is a group of indigenous women in the Bay Area attempting to establish a land trust in the East Bay I would like to talk to. I am also interested in exploring the ways in which the Native American cultural reserve, Quiroste, just north of Santa Cruz operates. These timely matters may be less trump focused, however I think it is important to remember that much more is happening in this world than Trump, although the media makes it seem otherwise.

Bibliography

Churchill, Ward. Struggle for the Land: Native North American Resistance to Genocide, Ecocide and Colonization. San Francisco: City Lights, 2002.

Carlson, Leonard A. Indians, Bureaucrats and Land. Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1981.

Banner, Stuart. How the Indians Lost Their Land. Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005.

Native American Land Trust Lead

Between the early 1600s and early 1900s sovereignty over all the land known as the United States was transferred from Native Americans to non-Natives [1]. Native Americans retained sovereignty over land presented them by the U.S. government in the form of trusts. Over the last three centuries the amount of land entrusted to Native American populations has been in decline. Today, the United States government owns more than 50 million acres in trust for Native American tribes and individuals. [2] While this land was entrusted to Native Americans to govern under the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, historical disputes between Native Tribes and the U.S. Federal Government and the state governments that surround the trusts, reveal that the governance of this land is not always clear.


Colonial History

In 1764 the “Plan for the Future Management of Indian Affairs” was proposed by the Board of Trade.[1]  Although never adopted formally, the plan established the imperial government’s expectation that land would only be bought by colonial governments, not individuals, and that land would only be purchased at public meetings.[1] Additionally, this plan dictated that the Indians would be properly consulted when ascertaining and defining the boundaries of colonial settlement. [1]

For much of North America, the American Revolution was more of a battle against the Indians than a war against the British.[1]  So when the war was brought to an end with the 1783 Treaty of Paris, the treaty was generally understood by American officials to strip the Indians of all property rights east of the Mississippi River.[1]  The treaty was seen by Americans as a confirmation of their conquest of Indian land. [1]

The private contracts that once characterized the sale of Indian land to various individuals and groups— from farmers to towns— were replaced by treaties between sovereigns.[1] This protocol was adopted by the United States Government after the American Revolution. [1]

Land Disputes

[edit]

The Black Hills Land Dispute

"The Lure of the Black Hills" (1916)

The Federal Government and the The Lakota Sioux tribe members have been involved with one another over the legal claim of the Black Hills since the signing of the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty,[3] which created what is known today as the Great Sioux Nation covering the Black Hills and nearly half of western South Dakota.[3] This treaty was acknowledged and respected until 1874, when General George Custer discovered gold,[3] sending a wave of settlers into the area and leading to the realization of the value of the land from United States President Grant.[3] President Grant used tactical military force to remove the Sioux from the land and assisted in the development of the Congressional appropriations bill for Indian Services in 1876, a "starve or sell"[4] treaty signed by only 10% of the 75% tribal men required based on specifications from the Fort Laramie Treaty[5] that relinquished the Sioux's rights to the Black Hills.[3] Following this treaty, the Agreement of 1877 was passed by Congress to remove the Sioux from the Black Hills, stating that the land was purchased from the Sioux despite the insufficient number of signatures,[3]tribal representation, the lack of transaction records, and the tribe's claim that the land was never for sale.[4][6]

The Black Hills are sacred to the Sioux as a place central to their spirituality and identity,[3] and contest of ownership of the land has been pressured in the courts by the Sioux Nation since the they were allowed legal avenue in 1920.[3] Beginning in 1923, the Sioux made legal claim that their relinquishment from the Black Hills was illegal under the Fifth Amendment, and no amount of money can make up for the loss of their sacred land.[3] This claim went all the way up to the Supreme Court United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians case in 1979 after being revived by Congress, and the Sioux were awarded over $100 million as they ruled that the seizure of the Black Hills was in fact illegal. The Sioux have continually rejected the money, and since then the award has been accruing interest in trust accounts, and amounts to about $1 billion in 2015. [6]

During President Barack Obama’s campaign he made indications that the case of the Black Hills was going to be solved with innovate solutions and consultation,[6] but this was questioned when White House Counsel Leonard Garment sent a note to The Ogala people saying, "The days of treaty making with he American Indians ended in 1871; ...only Congress can rescind or change in any way statutes enacted since 1871." [3] The He Sapa Reparations Alliance [6] was established after Obama’s inauguration to educate the Sioux people and propose a bill to Congress that would allocate 1.3 million acres of federal land within the Black Hills to the tribe. To this day, the dispute of the Black Hills is ongoing,[4] and sources believe principles of restorative justice [3] may be the best solution to addressing this century old dispute.

Iroquois Struggle for Land in Upstate New York

While 1783 Treaty of Paris that ended the American Revolution addressed land sovereignty disputes between the British Crown and the colonies, it neglected to settle hostilities between indigenous people— specifically those who fought on the side of the British, as four of the members of the Haudenosaunee did— and colonists.[7] In October of 1784 the newly formed United States government facilitated negotiations with representatives from the Six Nations in Fort Stanwix, New York.[7] The treaty produced in 1784 resulted in Indians giving up their territory within the Ohio River Valley and the U.S. guaranteeing the Haudenosaunee six million acres— about half of what is present day New York— as permanent homelands.[7]

Unenthusiastic about the treaty’s conditions, the state of New York secured a series of twenty-six “leases,” many of them lasting 999 years on all native territories within its boundaries.[7] Led to believe that they had already lost their land to the New York Genesee Company, the Haudenosaunee agreed to land leasing which was presented by New York Governor George Clinton as a means by which the indigenous could maintain sovereignty over their land.[7] On August 28,1788 the Oneidas leased five million acres to the state in exchange for $2,000 in cash, $2,000 in clothing, $1,000 in provisions and $600 annual rent. The other two tribes followed with similar arrangements.[7]

The Holland Land Company gained control over all but ten acres of the native land leased to the sate on September 15, 1797.[7] These 397 square miles were subsequently parceled out and subleased to whites, allegedly ending the native title to land. Despite Iroquois protests, federal authorities did virtually nothing to correct the injustice.[7] Certain of losing all of their land, in 1831 most of the Oneidas asked that what was left of their holdings be exchanged for 500,000 acres purchased from the Menominees in Wisconsin.[7] President Andrew Jackson, committed to Indian Removal west of the Mississippi, agreed.[7]

The Treaty of Buffalo Creek, signed on January 15,1838, directly ceded 102,069 acres of Seneca land to the Ogden company for $202,000, a sum that was divided evenly between the government— to hold in trust for Indians— and non-Indian individuals who wanted to buy and improve the plots.[7] All that was left of the Cayuga, Oneida, Onondaga and Tuscarora holding was extinguished d at a total cost of $400,000 to Ogden.[7]

After Indian complaints, a second Treaty of Buffalo was written in 1842 in attempts to mediate tension.[7]

Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute

The modern-day Navajo and Hopi Indian Reservations are located in Northern Arizona, near the Four Corners area. The Hopi reservation is 2,531.773 square miles [8] within Arizona and lies surrounded by the greater Navajo reservation which spans 27,413 square miles [9] and extends slightly into the states of New Mexico and Utah. The Hopi, also known as the Pueblo people, made many spiritually motivated migrations throughout the Southwest before settling in present-day Northern Arizona.[10] The Navajo people also migrated throughout western North America following spiritual commands before settling near the Grand Canyon area. The two tribes peacefully coexisted and even traded and exchanged ideas with each other; However, their way of lives were threatened when the “New people”, what the Navajo called white settlers[11], began executing Natives across the continent and claiming their land, as a result of Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act. War ensued between the Navajo people, who call themselves the Diné, and new Americans. The end result was the Long Walk in the early 1860’s in which the entire tribe was forced to walk roughly 400 miles from Fort Canby (present day Window Rock, Arizona) to Bosque Redondo in New Mexico. This march is similar to the well known Cherokee “Trail of Tears” and like it, many tribe did not survive the trek. The roughly 11,000 tribe members were imprisoned here in what the United States government deemed an experimental indian reservation that failed because it became too expensive, there were too many people to feed, and they were continuously raided by other native tribe.[12] Consequently, in 1868, the Navajo were allowed to return to their homeland after signing the Treaty of Bosque Redondo. The treaty officially established the “Navajo Indian Reservation” in Northern Arizona.[9] The term reservation is one which creates territorialities or claims on places. This treaty gave them the right to the land and semi-autonomous governance of it. The Hopi reservation, on the other hand, was created through an executive order by President Arthur in 1882. [8]

A few years after the two reservations were established, the Dawes Allotment Act was passed under which communal tribal land was divvied up and allocated to each household in attempt to enforce European-American farming styles where each family owns and works their own plot of land. This was a further act of enclosure by the US government. Each family received 640 acres or less and the remaining land was deemed “surplus” because it was more than the tribes needed. This “surplus” land was then made available for purchase by American citizens. 

The land designated to the Navajo and Hopi reservation was originally considered barren and unproductive by white settlers until 1921 when prospectors scoured the land for oil. The mining companies pressured the US government to set up Native American councils on the reservations so that they could agree to contracts, specifically leases, in the name of the tribe. [13]

During World War 2, uranium was mined from their land as well though the companies and government neglected to inform the people of the dangers of radiation exposure. Some people had even built their houses out of mine waste. The companies also failed to properly dispose of the radioactive waste which did and will continue to pollute the environment, including the natives’ water sources. It is clear at this point that it is a sight of accumulation where the oil companies are accumulating, or benefitting and the natives are hurt through the degradation of their land and health. Many years later, these same men who worked the mines died from lung cancer and their families received no form of financial compensation.

In 1979, the Church Rock uranium mill spill was the largest release of radioactive waste in US history. The spill contaminated the Puerco River with 1,000 tons of solid radioactive waste and 93 million gallons of acidic, radioactive tailings solution which flowed downstream into the Navajo Nation. The Navajos used the water from this river for irrigation and their livestock but were not immediately informed about the contamination and its danger. [14]

After the war ended, the American population boomed and energy demands soared. The utility companies needed a new source of power so they began the construction of coal-fired power plants. They placed these power plants in the four corners region. In the 1960’s, John Boyden, an attorney working for both Peabody Coal and the Hopi tribe, the nation’s largest coal producer,  managed to gain rights to the Hopi land, including Black Mesa, a sacred location to both tribes which lay partially within the Joint Use Area of both tribes.

This case is an example of environmental racism and injustice, per the principles established by the Participants of the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit[15], because the Navajo and Hopi people, which are communities of color low income and political alienation, were disproportionately affected by the proximity and resulting pollution of these power plants which disregard their right to clean air, their land was degraded, and because the related public policies are not based on mutual respect of all people. 

The mining companies wanted more land but the joint ownership of the land made negotiations difficult. At the same time, Hopi and Navajo tribes were squabbling over land rights while Navajo livestock continuously grazed on Hopi land. Boyden took advantage of this situation, presenting it to the House Subcommittee on Indian Affairs claiming that if the government did not step in and do something, a bloody war would ensue between the tribes. Congressmen agreed to pass the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 which forced any Hopi and Navajo people living on the other’s land to relocate. This affected 6,000 Navajo people and ultimately benefitted coal companies the most who could now more easily access the disputed land. Instead of using military violence to deal with those who refused to move, the government passed what became known as the Bennett Freeze to encourage the people to leave. Under the Bennett Freeze, 1.5 million acres of Navajo land were banned from any type of development, including paving roadways and even fixing roofs. This was meant to only be a temporary incentive to push tribe negotiations but wound up lasting over 40 years until 2009 when President Obama lifted the moratorium.[16] Still, The legacy of the Bennett Freeze still looms over the region as seen by the nearly 3rd world conditions on the reservation - 75% of people do not have access to electricity and housing situations are poor.


The Standing Rock Sioux tribe and the Dakota Access Pipeline

Dakota Access Oil Pipeline in North Dakota

The construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, a, 1,172 mile pipeline that delivers crude oil from North Dakota to Iowa, has been in contest with the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, who claim that construction and usage of the pipeline threatens native lands, sacred burial grounds, water supplies provided by Lake Oahe[17], and environmental health[18]. The pipeline was originally proposed to be built through the northern area of Bismarck, but was rerouted to area near the Standing Rock Sioux reservation with push back from members of the Bismarck community afraid of the damages the pipeline may bring to their water supply [19]. Bismarck has a 92.4% white-alone demographic[20], and opponents of the pipeline have been cited in saying that the rerouting of the oil pipeline to area that may impact indigenous land is racist[21].

Beginning in April 2016, native and non-native protestors gather on land near Dakota Access Pipeline construction sites to protest the pipeline[22]. Conflict between the tribe members and the government have been occurring since the signing of the Fort Laramie Treaty in 1868, which created the Great Sioux nation and followed with later contention regarding ownership of The Black Hills[3][3][3][3]. In December of 2016, the pipeline has a was temporarily halted and denied easement under President Obama[23], but President Trump signed an executive order on January 24th, 2017[24]; which allowed for continuation of construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Currently, after the forced evacuation of Oceti Sakowin[25], the Standing Rock Sioux are continuing to contest the construction and continued usage of the pipeline within the United States court system[26].

Life and Culture

It is a common conception that environmentalism and a connectedness to nature is ingrained in the Native American culture. In recent years, cultural historians have set out to reconstruct this notion as what they claim to be a culturally inaccurate romanticism.[27] Others recognize the differences between the attitudes and perspectives that emerge from a comparison of Western European philosophy and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) of Indigenous peoples, especially when considering natural resource conflicts and management strategies involving multiple parties. [28]

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i Banner, Stuart (2005). How the Indians Lost Their Land. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-01871-0.
  2. ^ Lending, 1st Tribal (2014-04-01). "Native American Trust Lands Explained". Retrieved 2017-03-01.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l "'It doesn't seem very fair, because we were here first': resolving the Siou...: Start Your Search!". eds.a.ebscohost.com. Retrieved 2017-03-17.
  4. ^ a b c "Black Hills Land Claim". Wikipedia. 2017-03-17.
  5. ^ "United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians". Wikipedia. 2017-03-12.
  6. ^ a b c d "Saying no to $1 billion: why the impoverished Sioux nation won't take feder...: Start Your Search!". eds.a.ebscohost.com. Retrieved 2017-03-17.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Cite error: The named reference :5 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ a b "Hopi Reservation". Wikipedia. 2016-08-14.
  9. ^ a b "Navajo Nation". Wikipedia. 2017-04-03.
  10. ^ Dongoske, Kurt E. (1996-01-01). "The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: A New Beginning, Not the End, for Osteological Analysis--A Hopi Perspective". American Indian Quarterly. 20 (2): 287–296. doi:10.2307/1185706.
  11. ^ DeAngelis, T. (2004). The Navajo: Weavers of the Southwest. Mankato, MN: Blue Earth Books.
  12. ^ Reidhead, S. (2001). Wild West.
  13. ^ Mudd, V. (Director). (1985). Broken Rainbow [DVD]. United States: Earthworks Films.
  14. ^ Pasternak, J. (2010). Yellow dirt: An American story of a poisoned land and a people betrayed. New York, NY: Free Press.
  15. ^ Mohai, Paul; Pellow, David; Roberts, J. Timmons (2009-10-15). "Environmental Justice". http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-082508-094348. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-082508-094348. Retrieved 2017-04-19. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
  16. ^ "Congress.gov | Library of Congress". congress.gov. Retrieved 2017-04-06.
  17. ^ "FAQ: Standing Rock Litigation". Earthjustice. 2017-02-14. Retrieved 2017-04-24.
  18. ^ "Supporters". Stand With Standing Rock. Retrieved 2017-04-17.
  19. ^ Service, Amy Dalrymple Forum News. "Pipeline route plan first called for crossing north of Bismarck". Bismarck Tribune. Retrieved 2017-04-20.
  20. ^ "Population estimates, July 1, 2015, (V2015)". www.census.gov. Retrieved 2017-04-20.
  21. ^ "The Dakota Access Pipeline And Environmental Racism". WBEZ. Retrieved 2017-04-20.
  22. ^ "Dakota Access Pipeline protests". Wikipedia. 2017-04-23.
  23. ^ Savransky, Rebecca (2016-12-04). "Feds deny permit for Dakota Access pipeline". TheHill. Retrieved 2017-04-24.
  24. ^ "Presidential Memorandum Regarding Construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline". whitehouse.gov. 2017-01-24. Retrieved 2017-04-24.
  25. ^ CNN, Mayra Cuevas, Sara Sidner and Darran Simon. "Dakota Access Pipeline protest site is cleared". CNN. Retrieved 2017-04-24. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  26. ^ News, A. B. C. (2017-02-14). "Standing Rock Sioux Ask Court to Halt DAPL Work". ABC News. Retrieved 2017-04-24. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  27. ^ Lee., Schweninger, (2008-01-01). Listening to the land : Native American literary responses to the landscape. University of Georgia Press. ISBN 9780820330587. OCLC 812757112.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  28. ^ Goode, Ron W. "Tribal-Traditional Ecological Knowledge." News from Native California, vol. 28, no. 3, Spring2015, p. 23. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=102474325&site=eds-live.