Katie John in Batzulnetas, with fish wheel in background.
Katie John grew up learning how to live off the land, also known as subsistence living, specifically fishing. Many tribes in the Pacific Northwest also grew up this way. When one grows up in a certain ecosystem with certain animals, any change can throw off the entire system. Atlantic salmon are being farmed in the Pacific Northwest and due to human error, these fish break free sometimes. This leads to many issues such as the disease and parasites that the salmon contract. Katie John would be against Atlantic salmon farming in the Pacific Northwest because it interferes with the natural balance of the eco system. This effects those that survive off of the salmon like she did growing up. Natives that are still fishing for substance will not eat the disease ridden Atlantic salmon in their waters, for obvious reasons. Katie John already fought for the right to fish on her land, she would not be okay with the fish being tainted.
A salmon with sea lice.
A great concern that came upon the impact the Atlantic salmon issue brought upon was the impact it Native Pacific salmon. These Atlantic salmons are invasive species which then lead to the problems of them being competitors whether it be of finding food or even eating the other species. Not only does this negatively affect other species in the same ecosystem, but it also economically affects the people there too. Although other corporation might see this event as a great thing due to the increase of production and selling they could do off it, Katie John knew this would hurt her people. Not being able to use their sources because they have been interfered with lead to the decrease of what they could use to benefit themselves. Along with this, she would be against any idea of not trying to fix this problem, even if that meant taking action herself.
The way of life of Kate John’s people was one of subsistence . You took what the land gave, you did not take more than you could use, and you worked to replenish it when you were done. Katie once said, “Our land , air and water have always been good to us.” The land and animals took care of you, and you took care of them. For many tribes, this lifestyle was common, but it has been interrupted by colonialism–often by commercial and capitalistic ventures. These ventures have been shown to deplete and damage the land, and are often not sustainable. Katie John believed that the western world did not know how to take care of the land, and she knew that it was up to her and her people to fight for it. The case of Atlantic Salmon farming is a clear parallel to her fight in Alaska, and she would strongly support and advocate with tribal rights to those lands and lifeways.
Mauna Kea is a dormant shield volcano located in Hawaii, with the tallest summit in the region at almost 14,000 feet above sea-level. Mauna Kea is considered a sacred place for the native people of Hawaii, because of it’s many sites of natural and cultural significance such as traditional cultural properties, buildings and trail systems. The land is rich with objects of cultural significance that maintain the cultural identity of the Hawaiian community.
In addition to Mauna Kea’s cultural significance to Native Hawaiians, the land is also known for being the optimal spot for astronomers to stargaze and conduct research due to its high elevation, unblemished air, and distance from any cities. In addition to objects and sites of cultural significance, Mauna Kea is also home to many observatories and telescopes owned and operated by eleven different countries.
In 2014, there was a proposal for a new telescope to be constructed on the summit of Mauna Kea, the $1.4 billion Thirty Meter Telescope. When/if built, this telescope would be the most powerful and advanced optical telescope on the planet. However, the plan has been received with much opposition from Native Hawaiians who refer to Mauna Kea as the core of their culture. At 18 stories tall 1.4 acres wide, the Thirty Meter Telescope would be another tarnish to a sacred, ancient landscape which holds cultural significance dating back hundreds of years. To the Native Hawaiians, the construction of the telescope represents the recurring issue of indigenous land rights and whether these scientists have a right to build this telescope on their sacred land in the first place. After Hawaii was annexed to the United States, there was a boom of development on Hawaiian land, which contributes to the lack of credibility in the U.S. government’s promise to preserve and protect Hawaiian land currently.
On the proposed first day of construction, peaceful protest ensued on Mauna Kea’s summit and has persisted ever since. As of today, the telescope has not been built, but scientists are lobbying for its completion. However, some scientists are divisive about the issue as well, stating that although the telescope would be extremely critical in advancing astronomical research, they themselves do not have the right to develop on the sacred mountain. Protesters currently are hoping the court case opposing the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope reaches the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the developers claim to be on track to completion by 2024.
Regarding this event, Neville Bonner would support the Native Hawaiian’s peaceful protest against the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope in Mauna Kea. During his time, Bonner was supportive of Aboriginal activists when they utilized their right to express themselves and speak against the injustices Aboriginal peoples faced. However, Bonner would believe that utilizing political methods would be far more effective than a peaceful protest. Instead of directing his attention onto the scientists, Bonner would face the white government who has the final say on constructing the Thirty Meter Telescope to show that indigenous peoples are capable of doing more than protests. He believed that the best way to bring change to the Aboriginal community was to reform the oppressive political system. Bonner would show the U.S. government that indigenous peoples’ rights are to be honored and given the proper political support. To the non-indigenous politicians who do not understand indigenous cultures, Bonner would speak for the spiritual relationship indigenous peoples had with their lands. Only in the government would he have the opportunity to push the issue and force the non-indigenous politicians to listen to the problem involving Mauna Kea, because it is they who wield the power in constructing the Thirty Meter Telescope.
During his life, Neville Bonner was an advocate for indigenous rights, especially land rights. As the chair of the Select Committee on Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, he recommended better protection of Aboriginal sacred lands, as well as the exclusive use of certain lands for Aboriginal communities. Therefore, he would recommend the same to the United States government. Mauna Kea is a sacred land of cultural significance and importance to the Native Hawaiians. Therefore, Bonner would uphold the belief that the United States has a duty to protect these lands, rather than destroy them by building the Thirty Meter Telescope. Bonner would also advocate that Mauna Kea originally belonged to the Native Hawaiians, and therefore the Native Hawaiians currently retain ownership of such lands. Even though Hawaii was annexed by the United States, Bonner would avidly oppose the theft and destruction of sacred Native Hawaiian lands.
The Maori people are indigenous Polynesians currently facing land ownership issues in their home of New Zealand. Between 1250 and 1300 CE, settlers from the Polynesian islands began to make canoe voyages to New Zealand, where they developed into a distinct culture. Europeans arrived In the 17th century. Initially, relations between the Maori and Europeans was amicable, but the Europeans were eager to claim this land for their own. In 1840, after years of negotiations with the indigenous people on the island, the Europeans and Maori leaders signed the Treaty of Waitangi. This treaty established British governance over the island and gave the Maori people the full rights and privileges of British subjects. Most importantly, it guaranteed full ownership of the Maori lands, forests, fisheries and other possessions. The treaty made both parties happy at first, but disputes over the wording of the English and Maori versions of the treaty have lead to problems of land ownership in New Zealand. Since the treaty was established, Maori land has frequently been sold without its peoples discretion. This problem continues today.
Maori Leaders Signing the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi
In 2004, the New Zealand parliament passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act, which granted the ownership of the intertidal zones all around the island to the government. This zone held plentiful natural resources, such as fish, that the government wanted to sell for extra money. The Maori people, however, had been using those lands since they arrived in the 13th century, so under the treaty, they were rightfully the owners of this land and thus it was illegally claimed by the government.
This act has been protested by the Maori since 2004, and in 2009 the act came under official review and revision. Revisions were put into the Marine and Coastal Area (Takuti Moana) act of 2011. This act made the coastal land public again, and also gave the Maori the right to claim ownership of the land under two conditions. The people had to prove they were holding the land in accordance with their customs, i.e. they were engaged in traditional fishing tactics and generally not abusing the land, and they also had to prove that they have occupied the area from 1840 to now without substantial interruption. Obtaining and presenting this proof to the government was and still is difficult, and thus many people have lost the lands their families have lived on for many generations, despite the fact that the treaty of 1840 granted them full rights.
If Ely S. Parker were alive today and serving the New Zealand government instead of the US, he would have greatly opposed the 2004 FAS act and would have upheld the Treaty of Waitangi. He would have endeavored to make sure that no Maori people would have their land illegally claimed and sold away.
Parker valued fairness above everything else, and at all times in his life sought to uphold the law of the United States. He saw ratified treaties as the final word on disputes, regardless of the contents of the treaty. When Native Americans or white politicians attempted to change treaties, Parker followed the Supreme Court decision of Fellows vs Blacksmith, which stated that a treaty, once ratified, had to be followed whether the Native Americans had knowingly assented or not. In the case of the FAS act, Parker would maintain that the treaty had to be followed, whether whites liked it or not.
Parker was also a pragmatist. He valued the continuation of Native peoples and communities, but he was flexible about methods. He would be eager to support the diversification of Maori incomes, so they were not reliant on fish. As he provided Native tribes with farm equipment and training, he would seek to provide the Maori with resources that would allow them to leave the shore behind. Currently, the Maori use the intertidal zones for fishing, gathering seaweed, travel, and burial grounds. They have a long cultural connection to the land. Parker did not spend much time worrying about cultural heritage. In his early career, he supported land allotments and removal of Native Americans in an effort to compromise. Later in life, he regretted his strong stances on both matters, realizing that many Native Americans had stronger connections to their land than he did. Depending on when in time he was asked about the FAS act, his views on it would evolve.
No matter Parker’s views on the nuances of FAS, he would still uphold the Treaty of Waitangi. He followed the law at all times, carefully overseeing his position as Commissioner of Indian Affairs and taking great pains to keep everything in order. He would never have allowed his own government department to cheat indigenous people out of their land.
In October of 2016 the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation filed a lawsuit against the State of Connecticut claiming the state unlawfully seized the nation’s land and has profited from since 1801 without properly compensating the tribe. The suit is seeking compensation from the state to the tune of $610 million and announcing the tribe’s intention to seek restoration of its federal recognition that was granted in 2004 then revoked the following year.
Modern boundaries of the Schaghticoke reservation. It is bounded by the New York border on the west, the Housatonic River on the east, and is downstream from the town of Kent, CT.
In 1736, the Colony of Connecticut established 2,400 acres of land in its northwest corner along the border with New York as a reservation for the Schaghticoke people. The state is required to act in the best interest of the Schagticoke people in managing the tribe’s land (which is held in trust by the state for the tribe) and funds as per statutes dating as far back as 1757. Between 1801 and 1918, the state sold or in other ways profited from portions of the reservation promising to compensate the tribe, and today, only 400 acres remain in the hands of the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation. Both the constitution of the United States and of the State of Connecticut mandate proper compensation for any and all land seized by the government, but to this day no compensation has been given to the Schaghticoke people for the 2,000 acres stolen from them. The State of Connecticut is likewise required by Connecticut law to render an annual accounting of the funds of the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation and any profit made from their lands–a mandate that has been similarly ignored.
Location of the Schaghticoke reservation in Connecticut.
Were Chief Leschi still alive today, he would certainly not stand for Native lands being stolen and not properly paid for. It is likely that he would even go a step further and demand the return of the land itself and not just compensation. This is a motion the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation has attempted to no avail. In 2010, the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation filed a land claims action for the return of 2,100 acres of the stolen land–the majority of which remains undeveloped and sparsely populated. This suit, however, was dismissed by the Second United States District Court in light of the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ reasoning for revoking the tribe’s federal recognition in 2005–a move resulting from a massive lobbying campaign by members of the government of Connecticut that began when the tribe was granted federal recognition in 2004. The Schaghticoke Tribal Nation appealed the ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the District Court’s ruling whereupon the tribe appealed their case to the United States Supreme Court which denied to review the decision.
This assessment of Leschi’s view is based on his actions with regards to the Medicine Creek Treaty and his stand that the Nisquallies be granted proper land–not merely the leftover scraps proposed in the treaty. The negotiation process and treaty terms were rife with grievances against the Native representatives. Washington Territorial Governor and Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Isaac Steven expressly instructed the interpreters to only communicate in the crude trade language of Chinook Jargon (a language with only five hundred words and unsuited for negotiating the complex language of treaties) and not the full language in which the representatives were fluent, Lushootseed. Stevens arrived at the negotiating table with a pre-drawn treaty and, by most accounts, strong-armed the Native representatives into signing instead of listening to their perspective and negotiating terms that fit their needs. Yet, Leschi, a man with a reputation for level-headedness and a renowned moderator, was willing to look past these and plenty other grievances, but he would not waver on securing a proper land deal for his people.
A sign marking the border of the Schaghticoke reservation.
The 1854 treaty granted the Nisquallies a reservation of 1,280 acres made of the least desirable land that could be found along the Puget Sound. It was made of densely forested rocky hillsides and marshy shoreline unsuitable for farming with no access to the rich prairie land or Nisqually River from which Nisquallies drew most of their food and wealth–not to mention their name which literally translates to “people of the grass country.” Accepting these terms would have meant relegating his tribe to dependence on outside forces as the vast majority of the land that enabled Nisquallies’ self-sufficiency and livelihoods was being stripped away. Such an arrangement was so unacceptable for Leschi that there are several accounts claiming he stormed out of the negotiations without signing the treaty and that his signature was forged. The subsequent war that erupted the following year in 1855 between United States forces and several tribes around the South Puget Sound area under Leschi’s leadership forced Governor Stevens back to the negotiating table. New reservation lines were drawn giving both the Puyallup and the Nisqually greatly expanded borders on much more productive and desirable land–one of the very few instances in United States history whereupon a war with Native Americans resulted in better treaty terms for the Native Americans.
Considering his determination to prevent his people from essentially getting ripped off and to defend their ability to function as a sovereign nation, and the fact that, of everything in the negotiation process and treaty terms that could cause grievance, it was the land issue that drew the greatest opposition and resistance from Leschi, were he alive today he would in no way stand by and permit the State of Connecticut to break their own laws in order to unjustly (and unlawfully) steal land from the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation.
President Trump recently announced to reduce the size of the Bear Ears National Monument and the Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah by 85 percent. On December 4th, 2017, Trump gave back about two million acres of land back to the local officials. This will open the sacred Native American lands and forested highlands to oil and gas drillers, coal and uranium miners, and to build more roads. By doing so, Trump pleased small government and business proponents in Utah. The ancient artworks at Bear Ears National Monument will be destroyed along with the area’s ancient Native American petroglyphs. Bears Ears holds great cultural significance to the Navajo and Hopi tribes, as well as the Zuni Pueblo, the Ute Mountain Ute, and the Southern Ute tribes. This reduction represents the largest decrease of federal land protection in US history and could threaten the area’s tribal culture.
Bear Ears National Monument location on southeastern border of Utah. (Courtesy https://bearsearscoalition.org/proposal-overview/)
The monuments were preserved under the efforts of President Obama and President Clinton, but these efforts will be erased due to the reductions signed by President Trump. The monuments in Southern Utah have long been opposed by state leaders. Obama and Clinton created them under the Antiquities Act, which gives presidents authority to unilaterally protect any federally owned area from development, with few restrictions. President Obama said the monuments were meant to safeguard “important cultural treasures, including abundant rock art, archaeological sites, and lands considered sacred by Native American tribes.” Though Trump disagrees with that and thinks that the past democratic administrations have severely abused the purpose of the century-old law, Antiquities Act.
This is a 1,200 year old rock art that is covered with modern day bullet holes. People have disregarded the sacredness of the land and used it as target practice. (courtesy http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/utah-monuments-trump-weir/index.html)
Although Trump’s actions can expand the economy, he faced immediate backlash from environmentalists and American Indian tribes who say his actions threaten sensitive and culturally significant areas. Bear Ears houses some of the oldest Native American rock paintings and engravings. All of which are very fragile and without the protection of the government, they will be destroyed. Many Native Americans believe that their heritage is traded for short term corporate profits. A group of five native tribes along with 13 environmental organizations have filed suit against the Trump administration to protect these monuments. Legal experts say that the Antiquities Act gives presidents authority to create national monuments, but does not give them the power to cut or abolish them altogether. Boundaries of national monuments have been modified more than 80 times since congress created the Antiquities Act and no group has fought against it in court, so this will the be first time.
Even though majority of Native Americans and environmentalists are against Trump’s actions, there are still a handful of Native Americans who applaud Trump’s move. About two percent of Navajo’s are in support of Trump’s administration to slash the monuments. The southeastern part of Utah has about 31 percent poverty rate and a median income about 24 percent lower than the national average. The believe that by wiping out the monuments, more job opportunities would be available through cattle farming, ranching, mining, and logging.
One of the 100,000 archaeological sites in Bear Ears that houses one of the oldest Native art. (Courtesy https://bearsearscoalition.org/proposal-overview/)
If Carl Gorman were still alive today, he would certainly not stand for their scared land to be given back to the government for economic gain. He would stand by his tribe and environmentalists to protest Trump’s actions. Gorman would use his status as a prominent artist and professor at UC Davis to speak out against the stolen land. This assumption is speculated because Gorman was a Indian artist himself. After World War II, Carl attended Otis Art Institute in Los Angeles, California. He was a proud Navajo who used his art to express and showcase his history and traditions. Throughout the rest of his life, he continued to paint. His interests with Navajo culture led him to manage the Navajo Arts and Craft Guild and Direct the Native Healing Sciences with the Navajo Nation. Gorman also became a professor at University of California Davis focusing on Native Art. It can be seen that throughout his life, whether it was during WWII or post-war, he was a proud Navajo. His interests in art was also clear. With that being said, because of his love of art and cultural appreciation, he wouldn’t want Bear Ears National Monument to be decreased by 85%. With him being an art lover, he certainly would not want the ancient rock work and history to be destroyed. He would hope they can be preserved and appreciated forever.
The ‘Sixties Scoop’ was a period in the late 20th century when provinces of Canada forced adoption of indigenous children into white families in Canada, the United States, and as far as Europe. As the federally-supported boarding school system of cultural genocide was wound down, the task of forced assimilation was placed on social workers in provincial child welfare systems. Social workers coerced parents and used any reason possible to take indigenous children away from their parents, such as after doctors appointments, using any minor accidental injury as an excuse. The sixties scoop was arguably even more effective at the goal of the residential schools that Prime Minister Macdonald laid out in 1879, writing, “Indian children should be withdrawn as much as possible from the parental influence, and the only way to do that would be to put them in central training industrial schools where they will acquire the habits and modes of thought of white men.” Forced adoption furthered this goal in a way the residential schools could not.
Ending over 18 class-action lawsuits, on October 6th the federal government reached an $800m settlement agreement to make reparations to surviving adopted indigenous people, who should each receive around $25,000. However, people of the Métis Nation and other native people without Federal Indian Status are not eligible for compensation, despite being victims of the sixties scoop. Jeffery Wilson, the class action lawsuit attorney who represented Ontario First Nations scoop survivors, commented that, “the reason Métis are not included is because there is no records to identify Métis during the relevant period of time.” This is contradictory to the many lived experiences that survivors have come forward with.
In a television interview, David Chartrand, president of the Manitoba Métis Federation, rebuffed the claim, “I can give them a list of names and names and families and families. We’re finding them every day, and on our own dime.” Chartrand saw the snub as yet another case of Canada disregarding the Métis, as they have done in the past with the sixties scoop itself. He connects it to Canada’s 1870 land grab after the Red River Rebellion, where Louis Riel’s achievement was promised in the Manitoba Act for 240 acres of land to be set aside for each Métis nation member, giving them a “head start” before white colonialists arrived en masse. After the act, the federal government improperly distributed the land, failing their promise and allowing white settlers to prospect, ultimately leading to the Northwest Rebellion and Louis Riel’s unjust execution. Chartrand spoke, “There’s a sense of being again left out, not only the first time. You go back and reflect on history. Canada left us out in 1870 in the land claims. And again in 1960, they did that to us as children, they left our children out, they sold our children – because it was a cost saving for Canada to give them away to the United States and other countries, and again in 2017 we’re being abandoned by Canada and the children are being left out.” Louis Riel would likely agree with his present successor – Canada continues to ignore Métis sovereignty while conquering and dividing indigenous communities through uneven reparation.
In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favor of the Métis on Canada’s land theft after 1870, requiring Canada to negotiate a treaty with the Métis. At the time, Chartrand reminisced about Louis Riel’s philosophy, “He said there were two societies with treaty together. One was small but in its smallness had its rights. The other was great but in its greatness had no greater rights than the rights of the small. You know, how more fitting can that be today?” Riel would engage in sixties scoop reparations as a negotiation between two nations; diplomatically, as he did with the creation of the provisional Manitoba government, Bill of Rights, and petition for a reservation in Montana, while also willing to take military action when necessary, knowing he’s doing the right thing as a leader for his people.
A recent debate has been made over whether to posthumously exonerate Louis Riel. Riel remains controversial among white Canadians: Québécois widely support him, but many anglophones still view him as a traitor, including the conservative political scientist Thomas Flanagan, who has written extensively on Riel. George Goulet is a Métis scholar who argues that Louis Riel was genuinely illegally convicted under an English statute of treason carrying the death penalty that was no longer the applicable law in Canada. The fact that fresh wounds continue to be made against the Métis nation show a government that is still in the wrong. The Métis National Council believes the act could be one of whitewashing history. Chartrand spoke, “This would probably alleviate Canada’s stress and pressure and guilt that they have maintained when the facts are very clear that they murdered this great leader. Exoneration is not about Riel. Exoneration is about Canada.” Settler colonialism continues in Manitoba; the federal government fought the Supreme Court to continue violating the agreement they made with Riel while leaving his people out of the sixties scoop settlement. The Métis survive with strong leadership, willing to demand sovereignty just as Riel did.
Colonization is destructive and ongoing, and manifests in similar ways around the world.
In many ways, the external threats faced by Winona LaDuke and the Ojibwe, are very similar to the challenges faced by other indigenous nations fighting for their sovereignty and their rights to self-determination.
The Whanganui iwi (tribe), for example, is located thousands of miles away from the Ojibwe nation, on Aotearoa (an island more commonly known as New Zealand). Their struggle to protect their waters from the harms of the colonial government is similar to the work that Winona LaDuke does today.
Cows grazing on a river in Aotearoa. Photo courtesy of Radio New Zealand.
Water is threatened in Aotearoa.
How is it threatened? Let us count the ways…
For starters, it has been poisoned. Gallons of human and animal waste flood the waterways. Although the New Zealand government has botched sewage control for decades, many blame an unregulateddairy farming boom for the recent increase in fecal contamination. The resulting level of E. coli contamination has left many lakes and rivers unsafe for people to touch, much less to swim in – and by 2017 the drinking water of Aotearoa was contaminated to the point of emergency. Nutrient-rich plant fertilizers escape from agricultural farms as well, and can feed the overgrowth of harmful algae. Heavy metals, rubber, and petroleum byproduct also contaminate the water when they wash off of roads and out of urban areas. Furthermore, many industries obtain the right to dump waste directly into the waterways of Aotearoa.
The riparian ecosystem has been damaged as well. The amount of available water decreases every year, as the New Zealand government relies economically on agriculture, and issues water rights to farmers with unsustainable irrigation practices. Furthermore, dams and poor forestry tactics deform rivers and degrade the health of the ecosystem.
These issues clearly affect everybody who lives on the island – whether they are members of an iwi, or not. However, for the Māori people, New Zealand’s attack on the water supply is simultaneously an attack on Māori sovereignty.
What is sovereignty? Who has sovereignty in Aotearoa?
Absolute sovereignty. In Māori, tino rangatiratanga.
Māori leaders signed a treaty with the British Crown in 1840, which Britain then used to claim ownership of and sovereignty over Aotearoa. There were two versions of the this treaty: one written in English and signed by the Crown, and the other written in Māori and signed by Māori leaders. In the Māori version of the treaty, although the leaders ceded governorship (kawanatanga) to the British in return for protection, they retained tino rangatiratanga. Absolute sovereignty. Because of this difference in language, the Waitangi Tribunal determined in 2014 that the Māori people did not legally sacrifice their sovereignty. And yet, the Māori people still live under the rule of a colonial government which retains the ability to rule over their people and their land.
Image of the Whanganui river, published by ABC.
Whanganui water sovereignty
The denial of Māori sovereignty, and the implementation of the colonial model of resource use in Aotearoa, is at the heart of New Zealand’s water abuse. To the New Zealand government, water is merely one natural resource among many. On the other hand, to many Māori people, the rivers and lakes they have lived alongside for centuries are sacred family members.
The Whanganui iwi has a familial relationship with the Whanganui river. The leader of the iwi, Gerard Albert, arguedstrongly against New Zealand’s “perspective of ownership and management” of the river, which instead of an object which can be owned is “a living entity,” an “indivisible whole.” The government, on the other hand, tends to compartmentalize the health of the Whanganui river by putting it into what Albert calls “environmental…box,” isolated from social concerns, public health, and the rights of the Whanganui people.After compartmentalizing the issue, the government dismisses “environmental” concerns as unimportant, especially when “the environment” would benefit from limits on resource extraction. “New Zealand tries to squeeze maximum value out of its natural resources,” according to a NZ national research institute. From the perspective of the Whanganui people, the colonial government squeezes them to the point of suffocation.
However, the iwi fights back against this suffocation. In 2014, after years of organizing and activism, the Whanganui iwi gained legal recognition of the Whanganui river as a person. This sets a precedent for other iwi in Aotearoa to fight for the legal personhood of rivers and other ancestors near them. Although the NZ government still retains control over the river, it retains such control in Māori terms. This is not a recognition of absolute sovereignty. However, this success does allow for the Māori people to self-determine within the NZ government.
Winona LaDuke speaking about the importance of water, at Standing Rock.
What would Winona LaDuke’s perspective be?
The United States rejects tribal sovereignty in many ways, and takes a very similar stance to resource extraction and ownership as does the NZ government. In this sense LaDuke is already familiar with the situation faced by the Whanganui and other iwi in Aotearoa – as it is the same kind of situation she has been fighting against for years.
LaDuke is no stranger to discussions of treaties and sovereignty. The Ojibwe signed treaties with the US government in the 19th century, which preserved their right to hunt and fish on ceded land. However, the Minnesota state government frequently denies these claims – on the basis of state law, and treaty language.
In 2000, LaDuke fought against a Minnesota university’s attempt to patent wild rice, a crop which her people have harvested for hundreds of years. The University’s attempt to establish ownership over a living organism, with which indigenous peoples have a centuries-old relationship, is much like the NZ governments establishment of control over the waterways of Aotearoa.
In October 2012, fishing on the Kuskokwim River in Southwest Alaska was closed due to low amounts of king salmon during a salmon run. Native fishermen who depend on salmon, decided to ignore the closure because they believed their rights surpassed the state’s decision to close the river. Alaska State Troopers were notified of the defiant act and descended upon the river, apprehended dozens of nets, and more than 1,000 pounds of fish. The state pressed charges against sixty-one fishermen. This event sparred a rally, not the first rally for fishing rights, and certainly not the last. Alaskans gathered together to demand indigenous fishing and hunting rights be restored. These rights were eliminated under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971 and since then, Alaska natives often find themselves in a losing battle of rules, regulations, and jurisdiction. In 1980, congress attempted to fix this by enacting the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). In theory, ANILCA was meant to help Alaska Natives by allowing subsistence hunting. However, ANILCA also allowed any rural resident to engage in subsistence hunting if they could prove residency in Alaska for one year. Subsistence fishing and hunting has been a continuing concern for Alaska’s Natives with no end in sight.
Diagram of who harvests fish and game in Alaska (Alaska Department of Fish and Game).
In 1971, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act attempted to resolve land claims of Alaska’s Natives. This act gave the legal title of forty-four million acres of land to Alaska’s Natives if it was considered unappropriated and unreserved. Alaska’s Natives were also awarded a $962.5 million settlement. The Settlement Act allowed the development of regional, and smaller village corporations in which all Natives were eligible to be shareholders. These corporations were under Alaska state law and there were no restrictions on using or selling the land. In the continental United States, almost all Native lands are owned by the federal government and cannot be used without the consent of the United States. Because of this difference between Alaska and the continental United States, the Alaska’s Natives’ land is not considered Indian Country and the Natives do not have governmental powers over them. Aboriginal hunting and fishing rights were exterminated despite that subsistence hunting takes less than one percent of the resources. Alaska Natives are required to comply with state laws everywhere in the state. These laws interfere with Alaska Natives’ traditional ways of life and began a lengthy battle for Natives rights.
Some success was meant to come in 1980 when the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act was enacted. The ANILCA is a piece of federal legislation providing protection to millions of acres of land in Alaska. Under this act the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was implemented more specifically. The ANILCA specifies the designation of wilderness and subsistence management. Since ANILCA, Alaska Natives have practiced subsistence fishing just as they have for hundreds of years. However, Alaska Natives face the frustrating reality that their rights have been restricted. State and federal management of fish and game conflict at times and Alaska Natives become the victim of a diverging government.
Were Billy Frank, Jr. alive today, he would have stood with Alaska Natives in preserving their right to continue subsistence hunting and fishing without regulations from the government. Billy Frank, Jr. was a passionate, and resilient leader. He cared deeply for the preservation of his home, traditions, and people. If Billy Frank, Jr. would have been present in October 2012, it can be speculated that he would continue subsistence fishing despite facing charges from the state government. This assumption comes from the dozens of time Billy Frank, Jr. was arrested for fishing when the government had placed regulations that he did not believe were fair or just. Billy Frank, Jr. believed he had a right to live off the land as his ancestors had for hundreds of years. He trusted that being consistent and resilient would serve his purpose and bring attention to the overlooked travesty of indigenous peoples’ rights.
As an inspirational leader, Billy Frank, Jr. would have done more than just participated in fishing. At his core, he was an activist. He spent his entire life fighting for the rights of indigenous people and held many influential positions including chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Billy Frank, Jr. was defiant, but he was not brash. His actions had thoughtful and strategic purpose. He would have taken time to completely understand the situation and then determined practical solutions. As a reasonable man, Billy Frank, Jr. would have actively sought influential people in government to help his cause. This assumption comes from the video clip, below. In this clip, he speaks about “going together” to the government. It was not fair to let the united states congress, or state legislature dictate the rights of indigenous people without the opinions of indigenous people. Billy Frank, Jr. had a deep understanding that solutions are created from fair representation and compromise between parties and he would have continuously fought for the Alaska Natives’ right to fish.
Protesters hold signs with missing Indigenous Women on them.
During the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) special chiefs gathering in Gatineau, Québec in early 2016, the Liberal leader announced that his government had begun the process to create the inquiry into the nearly 1,200 indigenous women and girls who have been murdered or who have gone missing in Canada over the past three decades. Across Canada, activists, aboriginal leadership and many of the families of missing or murdered Aboriginal women have been calling for a national inquiry for more than a decade. First Nations Communities have been seeking to ensure a safe and violence-free future for all Aboriginal bodies across Canada. The previous Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, failed to take any action to investigate these decades of genocide towards First Nations Canadian women and Two-Spirit people. It is critical for our Canadian Government to consult with victims’ families and Aboriginal leaders to gather the views of our First Nations people on the design, scope, and parameters of the full inquiry of the murders and missing First Nations women across Canada. Aboriginal women make up just 4% of Canada’s female population but constitute the staggering rate of 16% of all women murdered in the country. First Nations, Inuit and Metis women are three times more likely to report experiencing violence. The Canadian justice system itself is responsible for perpetuating violence against Aboriginal bodies and has been set up to serve a society built on Indigenous erasure. Law enforcers are often the offenders/perpetrators of these crimes committed.
Leanne Simpson addresses this epidemic of colonial gender violence throughout Indian Country in Not Murdered, Not Missing: Rebelling Against Colonial Gender Violence. Simpson begins by explaining, “White supremacy, rape culture, and the real and symbolic attack on gender, sexual identity and agency are very powerful tools of colonialism, settler colonialism and capitalism, primarily because they work very efficiently to remove Indigenous peoples from our territories and to prevent reclamation of those territories through mobilization. These forces have the intergenerational staying power to destroy generations of families, as they work to prevent us from intimately connecting to each other. They work to prevent mobilization because communities coping with epidemics of gender violence don’t have the physical or emotional capital to organize. They destroy the base of our nations and our political systems because they destroy our relationships to the land and to each other by fostering epidemic levels of anxiety, hopelessness, apathy, distrust and suicide. They work to destroy the fabric of Indigenous nationhoods by attempting to destroy our relationality by making it difficult to from sustainable, strong relationships with each other.” Leanne then suggests that it is in our best interests to approach this issue of gender violence as a core resurgence project, a core decolonization project, a core of any Indigenous mobilization. She makes it clear that she is addressing violence against all genders, including the high rates of violence perpetuated against two-spirit/queer Indigenous bodies. Women and Two-Spirit/LGBTQ2 peoples are both at higher risks of being subjected to violence within the structure of settler colonialism. Leanne breaks this down by explaining that one of the many tactics of the colonizer is to use gender violence to remove Indigenous peoples and their descendants from the land, then remove agency from the plant and animal worlds and re-positioning the land as a resource to be used by the colonizer.
Leanne Simpson then states that movements such as Idle No More, where women are on the front lines cannot be used to abolish this violence. Throughout history and continuing to present day, we see that gender violence is the colonial response to Indigenous resistance. Simpson creates a consensus to avoid putting Indigenous women leaders and activists at risk when working to eliminate this violence. Leanne Simpson states, “We must build criticality around gender violence in the architecture of our movements. We need to build communities that are committed to ending gender violence and we need real world skills, strategies and plans in place, right now, to deal with the inevitable increase in gender violence that is going to be the colonial response to direct action and on going activism. We need trained people on the ground at our protests and our on the land reclamation camps. We need our own alternative systems in place to deal with sexual assault at the community level, systems that are based on our traditions and do not involve state police and the state legal system. Her end goal is working towards building Indigenous communities where all genders stand up, speak out and are committed to both believing and supporting survivors of violence and building Indigenous transformative systems of accountability. The answer is within the community to work to protect its women and two-spirit members, we cannot look to the state which is the largest perpetrator of gendered violence to solve this issue.
On speaking out about Gender Violence towards Indigenous women, Leanne Simpson claims that the situation is infuriating. Simpson views the situation as one that impacts every Indigenous person. Leanne Simpson states, “It ends here for Loretta, Bella and all of the other brilliant minds and fierce hearts we’ve lost. It ends here. This is my rebellion. This is my outrage. This is the beginning of our radical thinking and action.” Simpson knows that her reactions to such an event are driven on pure emotion but she is diplomatic- using emotion to drive her activism home when it comes to gender violence. Simpson educates and explains why everyone should feel upset and horrified at the murders. She gives her audience the room to become emotional and driven to make a change in a society where emotional involvement is invalidated.
In 1999, the Makahs harpooned a gray whale off of Washington State’s coast. This drew support from many Indigenous and non-Native allies and the wrath of some in the animal rights community. As a Makah himself, Yellak̓ub would have supported his people’s right to hunt whales, a customary practice in which they had engaged for 2,000 years.
