Posted on

John Trudell – Oklahoma Tribal Gaming Dispute

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | OK Tribal Gaming Dispute | References

Tribal Gaming first began in the late nineteen-seventies. The initial form of tribal gaming came through bingo halls. By the mid-1980s, the United States began charitable gaming and state lotteries. Federally recognized tribes began running casinos as a form of revenue for communities. Contentions between the states and tribes questioned whether or not tribes had the authority to conduct gaming w/o state regulations.

In 1987, the court case: California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (480 U.S 202) settled the conflict at a national level. The US Supreme Court “confirmed the inherent authority of tribal governments to establish and regulate gaming operations independent of state regulation, provided that the state in question permits some form of gaming.”

In the following year, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988. With this act, the state was given a voice in determining the scope of tribal gaming through a tribal-state compact for Class III gaming. Class II and I were to be regulated under full tribal authority. Furthermore, the National Indian Gaming Commission (NICG) was to maintain regulations at a federal level. 

This was enacted in 1988 as Public Law 100-497 (25 U.S.C. 2701). Within this law, the framework for tribal gaming was established. The regulations for each class remain different. Class I gaming includes traditional Indian gaming and social gaming for minimum prizes. In class I, the regulatory authority belongs to the tribal governments. Class II gaming includes games of chance, such as bingo, pull tabs, and punch boards. This authority to license and regulate remains with the tribes, but it must be approved by the NIGC. Class III gaming is the broadest category. Class III includes all games outside of Class I and II, such as slot machines and table games. This category generates the greatest revenue and must be negotiated through state-tribe gaming compacts, approved by the Secretary of the Interior and the tribe must have their gaming ordinance approved by the NIGC. 

In Oklahoma, the first gaming compacts were signed in 2005. This was a 15-year compact with renewal set for January 1st, 2020. The current issue lies within the state government and their response to the Class III compact renewal. Governor Kenny Stitt(R) and the state of Oklahoma argue that it is time to renegotiate the compact. The State believes that the tribes owe greater taxes on their exclusivity fees for operating Class III gaming. Under the gaming compact, Oklahoma Tribes are required to pay an “exclusivity fee” for the exclusive right to operate Class III gaming. This form of revenue sharing is not explicitly authorized by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Oklahoma tribes pay an average of 10-15% of their gaming revenue to the State. A recent Oklahoma Gaming Compliance report showed that the state received $1.28 billion in exclusivity fees since the Class III gaming compact was in effect. These funds have been directed to a variety of programs, most of which funds public education. Public school districts, especially rural, rely heavily on these funds. 

Kenny Stitt Media
Oklahoma Governor Kenny Stitt (R) discusses the renewal of Tribal Gaming Compacts Thursday, Nov. 14, 2019, in Oklahoma City. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)

Many tribes are in opposition of the greater taxation rates. Oklahoma Tribes argue that the compact was an agreement between equals. In order to renegotiate, both parties must be willing. Additionally, many tribes believed that this compact was set for automatic renewal. Governor Stitt has stated that the tribes must renegotiate or they will be illegally operating their casinos. Since then, the Cherokee, Chickasaw and Choctaw nations have issued a federal lawsuit on Governor Stitt. Their argument focuses on this portion of the compact: “This Compact shall have a term which will expire on January 1, 2020, and at that time, if organization licensees or others are authorized to conduct electronic gaming in any form other than pari-mutuel wagering on live horse racing pursuant to any governmental action of the state or court order following the effective date of this Compact, the Compact shall automatically renew for successive additional fifteen-year terms.” Under this, the tribes believe that the compact should renew. The state government disagrees. It will be up to the federal courts to decide. The National Congress for American Indians, the Seminoles, and Muscogee Creek Nations have vocalized their support of the lawsuit. In the meantime, Gov. Stitt recommended to place the funds in escrow until the dispute was handled. However, Mike Hunter, the Attorney General stated that this was not possible. Tribal leaders have shown willingness to negotiate, but they want the Governor to honor the automatic renewal, remain respectful on the agreements made between Tribes, and honor the sovereign rights of Tribal Nations. 

Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr., along with 50 representatives from over 30 nations, speaks to media at the River Spirit Casino in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on Thursday, Dec. 19, 2019.
Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr., speaks to media at the River Spirit Casino in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on Thursday, Dec. 19, 2019. Photo by Tres Savage

Tribal gaming is one of the main sources of revenue for many federally recognized tribes. It is a critical driver of the economy because it generates 45% of all gaming revenue in the US. Since the passing of the IGRA in 1988, tribal gaming has grown from $121 million to over $32 billion in 2017. Revenue from tribal casinos provides careers, supports local businesses, and funds state, local, tribal government programs. This funding allows tribes to stimulate the economy, provide services such as housing, health care, education, and employment. 

Tribal gaming provides many opportunities for improving local infrastructure. In 2017, the Oklahoma Native Impact Study reported that Oklahoma tribes are responsible for 96,177 jobs, $13 billion in annual contribution to Oklahoma economy, and $4.6 billion in wages and benefits to Oklahoma workers.

If John Trudell was alive to comment on this issue, he would say, “Our ancestors fought for the right to do whatever they so choose on their homelands and territories.  Our tribal governments operate to serve the people and by demanding more from our tribes, we cannot provide for our people. The corporate greed that has permeated our state and federal government seeks to exploit our lands and bodies for profit. The very same government that occupies the lands of our peoples seeks payment for our occupation, when it is the government that should be paying for its occupancy. The rent is long overdue. The government, as an institution, operates to maintain a status quo. Those in power will remain in power while our people are perpetually subjected to economic enslavement.

These nations made an agreement and it is up to you [the state government] to uphold your end of the bargain. These nations seek to maintain a mutually beneficial relationship. If you have interests in these people, you must maintain a level of respect and integrity. By ignoring these nations, you are ignoring their rights as sovereign entities. This country was built on the backs of Indigenous peoples and it still relies on them today. This issue, for the government, is about making money. Meanwhile the issue for these nations is honoring your word. Respect and recognition sit at the center of our values. We have honored ours and we will continue to do so. It is up to you [the government] to do the same.”

Posted on

John Trudell – Leadership Qualities

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | OK Tribal Gaming Dispute | References

Inspiring

John Trudell was and continues to be an inspiration to Native American activists across the globe. He created an image and a brand that “made the spirit of the people stronger.” He was able to unite generations of Native Americans because his music and poetry drew on traditional Native American styles and themes that older generations could connect with, while incorporating modern characteristics that younger people could relate to as well. His music worked to preserve part of his cultural heritage and inspired people to connect deeper with their roots. Not only did he reach across the age gap, but across the gender gap as well. In his time with AIM John was constantly advocating for the voices of women to be heard, because he felt that they were so often lost in the crowd. He was a particularly strong advocate for the agency of his wife. After her death he made sure that people knew the amazing work that she had done, that her death was not simply defined by his work, but by her own advocacy for Native American rights and sovereignty as well.

Charismatic

People were inspired by John because they were drawn to him, he was powerful in the way that he could draw crowds when speaking at events. His charisma is what gathered the attention of federal agencies, and even frightened them and caused them to label him as dangerous. John did not back down from his beliefs or ideals and he challenged and criticized those who were lacking in upholding their own morals and beliefs. The US government was a main recipient of his criticism because he argued that they not only lacked care for their own people, but for the planet they lived on as well. During the Alcatraz occupation John fought to protect the rights of ALL Native Americans, and would not be paid off in order to back down from his beliefs. He burned an American flag on the steps of the FBI building because he said it was desecrated by the racism, classism and sexism that it represented. The American flag did not represent freedom in John’s eyes because not all were free.

Courageous

There were many instances in which John Trudell should have been afraid for his life, but nevertheless he upheld his values and kept fighting for what he knew was right. During the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s the FBI began a program called COINTEL, which aimed to shut down the movement, but when AIM began vamping up as a political player they shifted their focus to John Trudell himself. His active involvement in the Alcatraz occupation and other sit ins at Wounded Knee and the BIA placed a target on his back. The FBI feared John because of his ability to motivate and mobilize not only Native Americans, but non-natives as well, as seen at Wounded Knee. AIM was eventually labeled as a militant terrorist group at the Wounded Knee protests, which was a way to enable and excuse violence against the activists there. One of the more terrifying moments in his life came with the death of his wife, mother-in-law and three children after burning an American flag atop the FBI steps. Although the fire that killed his family was ruled as an accident, John was certain it was murder. This moment in time was a sure indicator that if someone could kill people as innocent as his family, they could surely kill him.

John Trudell FBI file
A page from John Trudell’s extensive FBI file, which lists the many “militant” activities he participated in while advocating for Native American rights.
Posted on

John Trudell – Biographical Timeline

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | OK Tribal Gaming Dispute | References

Posted on

Matika Wilbur – Ainu Sovereignty

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Ainu Sovereignty | References

The Ainu people are a small Indigenous nation located in Northern Japan. For centuries the Japanese government and citizens of Japan aggressively discriminated against the Ainu people while creating policies that forced them to assimilate. In 1899, the Japanese government enacted the Hokkaido Former Aborigines Protection Act essentially creating a legal way for the government to assimilate the Ainu people into Japanese society. For nearly a century, the Ainu people were forced to leave behind their traditions and culture and instead adopt those of the Japanese. Like boarding schools across the United States forced upon Native American children, Ainu children were forced to go to Japanese schools where they were taught the Japanese language and traditions rather than their own. The Ainu language and other important cultural practices were not allowed. Despite the fact that the goal of this act was for the Ainu to assimilate into society, many Japanese people still discriminated against all Ainu people, no matter how great an effort they made to cooperate and appear more Japanese. 

The Hokkaido Former Aborigines Protection Act was finally removed in 1997 and replaced with the Ainu Cultural Promotion Law. This law worked to promote the diversity that the Ainu culture brought to Japanese society. This forced both the local and national government to make efforts to promote and protect the Ainu culture. In 2007, the United Nations also made a declaration that outlined rights of Indigenous people, which Japan chose to agree to and support. Both these acts represent the apparent support that Japan had for creating a more inclusive and diverse population. The Japanese government recognized that their economy may see improvements by creating and supporting certain polices that mitigated the discrimination against the Ainu people.

Ainu people protesting
Ainu people protesting for their rights that the Japanese government have promised to uphold. Accessed via https://apjjf.org/2017/18/lewallen.html

In response to the acts the Japanese government adopted in opposition to assimilation, they chose to create a museum putting the Ainu people’s culture on display for everyone to see and learn from. This action at first appeared to many to be a great act to repair the poor relationships between the Ainu and Japanese. However, many Ainu people were very unhappy and actually in opposition to the purpose in which the museum, Upopoy, was meant to serve. While the government effectively displayed the Ainu culture, they still failed to help actually create programs to that helped the Ainu people. They failed to help increase jobs for the Ainu people, so many still remained in poverty even after the museum was built. The museum failed to actually provide any help to improve the lives and ensure the futures of the Ainu culture, most notably the future of their language. Almost as importantly, the government never out-right stated that their acts of assimilation and discrimination were wrong. This failure to apologize and admit to their wrong-doing goes to show that the intentions of the Japanese government were not to actually improve the livelihood of the Ainu, but instead improve their own economy and worldly appearance.

Matika Wilbur’s work and efforts as an Indigenous activist focuses on creating a new narrative and image of what an Indigenous person looks like and is. The many photographs she has taken during her travels across the United States for Project 562 has shown the diversity of Indigenous people. The pictures show people of all ages and different genders. With each photo, she attaches a statement describing the pictured individuals, including their jobs, families, activist efforts and various other unique attributes. Wilbur clearly shows through her images how powerful native people are and how giving them their own voices relays a stronger message than having non-native individuals attempt to interpret what is being said. During a Ted Talk she spoke at, she mentioned how the media represented native Americans through characters such as Tonto played by Johnny Depp and many different adaptations of the “brave” or “savage” Indian. Wilbur wants to change this imagery to make sure Indigenous people are represented correctly.

Image of a Tulalip family
Photograph taken by Matika Wilbur of a Tulalip family dressed in traditional regalia worn to prepare for their annual canoe journey. Wilbur took this photo for Project 562 to accurately represent Indigenous people around the country including the Tulalip nation. Accessed via http://www.project562.com/gallery/

Given Matika Wilbur’s avid pursuit for representation of Indigenous people in the United States, she would stand with the Ainu people in opposition of Upopoy. She would also oppose the actions of the Japanese government that clearly show their true negative intentions concerning the Ainu people’s future success. Wilbur’s main priority as an activist is to give the people she is supporting their own voice, rather than having the government or other majority groups speak for them. Given her clear perspective on what needs to happen in the United States with Native American representation, Matika Wilbur would fully support the Ainu’s efforts. She would completely agree that the Japanese government needs to take accountability for their prior actions while helping to support the education and job availability for the Ainu people.

Posted on

Katie John (Athabaskan) – Atlantic Salmon Farming

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Atlantic Salmon | References

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.

Posted on

Neville Bonner – Mauna Kea

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Mauna Kea | References

Courtesy of Travel Shack Summit Tours

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.

University of Hawaii, Institute for Astronomy

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.

Aaron Yoshino, Honolulu Magazine

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.

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

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.