Posted on

Tame Wairere Iti – Tibetan Language Erasure

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Tibetan Language Erasure | References

A key feature of cultures word-wide is their ability to relay information and intergenerational knowledge through a shared common language. Not only then is the language a core identity of a culture, but it becomes attached to all elements of a people as their vocabulary shapes the way that they interact with the surrounding world and others. In models of colonialism, language is often the first and most noticeable distinction between peoples, which is why it is often the first portion of a culture that is directly targeted. Language activism is a centuries-long tradition by Indigenous peoples, tied to protecting their identities, and is still present across hundreds of international movements.  

A street sign in Tibet showing how small the Tibetan language is.
A street sign in Tibet showing how small the Tibetan language is compared to the Chinese.

Language erasure is not only an institution of colonialism centered around dehumanizing a culture, it is additionally a deeply political process that is centered around the control of power. Following the occupation of Tibet by the Communist Chinese government in 1950, multiple policies and orders across the newly conquered state were enacted that actively discouraged the use of the Tibetan language. These laws were often indirect and subtly worded however their intended effect was wide-spread and difficult to reverse. The Chinese government used a diverse array of methods to limit the use of Tibetan, including exchanging Tibetan school books for ones provided by the government written in Chinese, changing all street signs and official documents to be only written in Chinese, prohibiting Tibetan from being used in official proceeding, and spreading a propaganda campaign that called Chinese the language of the future. It was not until the 1990’s that Tibetan activists became outspoken on the issue of language activism as it became apparent that the generation raised after Chinese occupation was more comfortable speaking Chinese than their own native language. However, as Tibetan awareness grew, the Chinese government began actively jailing and oppressing activists that sought to mobilize the populous. Even in the 21st Century little change has been realistically achieved by Tibetan demonstrations and several key leaders of the movement are currently imprisoned in China for actions taken against the authoritarian regime. 

A graph showing how Chinese is used in Tibetan media more than native languages.

Tame Wairere Iti has experienced restrictions of his own language and been involved in language activism since he was in primary school. Iti believed that the language was a part of being Maori and didn’t understand how a person could be one without the other. The principal of his school declared that no one was allowed to speak Maori and were to only use English. Tame and his close friends chose to stand up to his principal and continued to speak Maori in school for weeks even though he was punished for standing up for his culture. From a young age, Tame has clearly understood the connection between both culture and identity with language and the importance of keeping native languages alive. For these reasons, Tame Iti would side with the Indigenous peoples of Tibet and help them attain the freedom to speak whatever language through the implementation of his unique and effective activism strategies.

Tame Wairere Iti has consistently been involved in activism for the Maori language since his youth and would undoubtedly have a strong opinion on language politics. Tame Iti sees language as an extension of self that deserves to be protected and celebrated like any other aspect of one’s culture. Although Tame Iti carries a positive view of China and Communism, as he had previously traveled there during the 1973 Cultural Revolution, he is outspoken on the topic of equal and accessible Indigenous rights to speaking a native tongue. Tame Iti would likely respond to this event by encouraging people to speak and use Tibetan whenever they could in their daily lives, as well as help to set up large scale protests. Although New Zealand’s relationship with the Indigenous Maori has been historically very different from China with Tibet, there are enough similarities that Tame Iti would likely continue to advocate in a similar manner. Tame Iti has additionally shown that he is not opposed to using force to effectively execute his plans, and thereby deliver a strong and cohesive message. However, as of now, Tame Iti has primarily retreated from the public sphere, due to his multiple arrests in the early 2000s, and is now focusing more on activism through art. It is important to note that Tame Iti would likely not want to get heavily invested in this struggle as he has repeatedly stated that while he supports other Indigenous groups, he believes that, when they can, they need to find their own path to recognition. It is for all of these reasons that Tame Iti would both fully support and recognize the Indigenous Tibetan’s continuous struggle for language recognition.

Not only is the study of the relationship between identity, language, and culture deeply personal for many individuals, it requires a reexamination of ideas of progress and prosperity. Both Tibetan and Maori activists grapple with countries that see their languages as obsolete, and with being the minority population in a land that once solely belonged to them. Tame Iti has advocated since his youth for both language recognition and Pan-Indigenous unity which is why he would undoubtedly support Tibetan resistance against Chinese policies.

Posted on

Ramona Bennett – Biographical Timeline

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities |Little Shell Chippewa Recognition | References

Posted on

Jeanette Armstrong – Biographical Timeline

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

Posted on

Matika Wilbur – Biographical Timeline

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Ainu Sovereignty | References

Posted on

Leanne Betasamosake Simpson – Biographical Timeline

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Colonial Gender Violence | References

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

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

Billy Frank Jr. – Biographical Timeline

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Fishing Rights in Alaska | References

 

 

Posted on

Leanne Betasamosake Simpson – Colonial Gender Violence

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Colonial Gender Violence | References

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.