Posted on

Jeanette Armstrong – Renaming Mt. Rainier

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Renaming Mt. Rainier | References

Ti'Swaq, also called Mt. Rainier, surrounded by trees and green grass.
Ti’Swaq’

One of Washington’s most well-known landmarks is Mt. Rainier, named after Peter Rainier, a friend of the colonizer George Vancouver. In fact, the volcano is so loved that the University of Washington designed portions of its campus, the Rainier Vista, to ensure the perfect view of it.

Long before Vancouver ever laid eyes on Mt. Rainier, multiple Pacific Northwest Indigenous tribes gathered at, explored and built a relationship with the volcano. This relationship dates back to at least 5,000 BCE; while only a minuscule portion of Mt. Rainier’s area has been covered by archeologists, over 75 prehistoric sites and items have been discovered. While no singular tribe necessarily lived on the volcano, there is a multitude of tribes that visited and cherished Mt. Rainier–originally known as a variety of names, including Tahoma, Tacoma, Pooskaus, Tacobeh, or Ti’Swaq’. Puyallup activist Robert Satiacum has been fighting to get Mt. Rainier renamed to this last name, Ti’Swaq’, which translates into “the sky wiper,” or “it touches the sky.” The multitude of names reflects the multitude of languages, people, and culture that blossomed around Ti’Swaq’. “Mt. Rainier” erases the presence of the local Indigenous People and the history that they share with the volcano, and instead dishonors Ti’Swaq’ by naming it after a colonizing figure that never saw it. This incorrect name promotes a colonizing agenda that has worked for centuries to destroy Indigenous culture, heritage, and belonging to the land.

In the Syilx Nation, traditional land and water connections are embedded in their identities and local dialects. Members are raised to value the collaboration of individuals in skilled work, along with the consistent presence and respect that the Earth holds while completing their duties. As such, naming practices of landmarks are vital to Cpcaptikwlh (story-telling) because these titles encompass all of the historical, geographical, science, and cultural knowledge of the Syilx Nation. Through this, Jeanette Armstrong’s model of eco-literacy, the healthy relationship between Indigenous people and the community, land, and water, is restored. Likewise, reestablishing traditional names rejects economic colonial practices of land-ownership and exploitation. Therefore, by reestablishing Mt. Rainier to its true name, Ti’Swaq’, Armstrong’s teachings suggest that the abuses of power and miscommunication from colonizers would be reduced. This would restore Indigenous land memories, local dialects, and traditional land and water use. 

In the Syilx (Nsyilxcən) language, all words and phrases have been shaped by the traditional land and water connections. Tmxʷulaxʷ (land), is a symbolic term that provides a framework to interpret the oral traditions, education, and traditional frameworks and values that govern them. Thus, also serving as the foundation for Jeanette Armstrong’s core beliefs and teachings. Similarly to the Puyallup people’s commitment to restoring Mt. Rainier to Ti’Swaq’, the Syilx Nation demanded unceded landmarks to include their traditional Indigenous names alongside their English titles. 

Naramata, currently home to numerous Canadian vineyards, was originally known as citxʷs paqəlqyn or “House of the Bald Eagle”. In 2018, the Naramata Park Naming Project, after commissioning a public poll, modified all city landmark signs to include its true name, citxʷs paqəlqyn. This momentous achievement serves as a permanent acknowledgment of the colonial assimilation practices used against Indigenous peoples and their land and waterways. Moreover, with the inclusion of the Syilx (Nsyilxcən) title, Syilx people are able to reform land-based connections and begin the reconciliation process of regaining their lost language.

Another significant achievement for the Syilx Nation was permanently erecting their nation’s flag at the University of British Columbia Okanagan in September 2018. Flown alongside the Canadian flag, British Columbia flag, and the UBC flag, the Syilx Nation flag represents the University’s acknowledgment of their position on unceded traditional land and waterways.  This event took place in 2018, while students, faculty members, and Syilx members witnessed. Jeanette Armstrong, as both a Syilx Member and professor at the University of British Columbia Okanagan, spoke from a unique perspective about combining western education with traditional teachings of the land and Syilx culture. With four of her students, they raised the flag and sung “We Are Beautiful”. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, the Okanagan Nation Alliance Chairman, regarded this event as recognition of their distinct position as students and staff at the university. Presidents of the UBC was proud of having more diversity on the campus by creating tribal nation flags. Also, by having a stronger Syilx presence on campus, students who are unfamiliar with Indigenous Studies will be able to learn about colonialism and their ongoing effects through Syilx teachers, such as Armstrong. Moving forward, there will be more classes and projects about the Syilx culture offered in the Indigenous Studies program. This relates to the renaming of Mt. Rainier because the Okanagan gained recognition and partnership from the University of British Columbia.

The assimilation practices in Canada and the United States of America sought to eliminate the Indigenous peoples’ identity, by claiming ownership of the traditional lands and waters that held their languages, cultures, and traditional frameworks and values. The reclaiming of Naramata and UBCO serve as examples that reinstating traditional place-making would allow for the revitalization of Indigenous cultures. Therefore, through the understanding of Jeanette Armstrong’s eco-literacy philosophy, Mt. Rainier should be renamed to Ti’Swaq’ to properly honor the Pacific Northwest Indigenous peoples and begin the healing process.

Posted on

Ely S. Parker – Maori Land Ownership

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Maori Land Ownership | References

 

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.

Posted on

Chief Leschi – Schaghticoke Nation Lawsuit

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Schaghticoke Nation Lawsuit | References

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.

Posted on

Katie John (Athabaskan)- Biographical Timeline

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Atlantic Salmon | References

Posted on

Chief Leschi – Biographical Timeline

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Schaghticoke Nation Lawsuit | References

Posted on

Winona LaDuke (Ojibwe) – Whanganui Water Rights

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Whanganui Water Rights | References

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 unregulated dairy 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, argued strongly 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.