Public Lands and Native Americans in the Modern Era

2022 ◽  
pp. 563-574
SAGE Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 215824401774701 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Welch

The San Carlos Apache Tribe is a leading defender of Oak Flat, a large public campground on the western flanks of the Pinal Mountains east of Phoenix. Oak Flat is sacred to many Apaches and other Native Americans and is listed in the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. The Tribe is among the parties gravely concerned about the Resolution Copper Mine, a joint venture of Rio Tinto Group and BHP Billiton Ltd. to privatize and industrialize Oak Flat’s public lands and minerals. Archaeological sites, place names, stories, and ceremonial uses affirm the pre-1875 Apache occupation and ongoing significance of Oak Flat. Historical records reveal how mining proponents combined industrial and annihilationist propaganda to portray Apaches in the Pinal Mountains as subhuman impediments to civilization and profit. This inflammatory rhetoric ignited vigilante and military campaigns between 1859 and 1874 that killed over 380 Pinal Apaches—including many women and children—then confined survivors onto the San Carlos Reservation. Mining across Pinal Apache territory followed promptly, claiming additional Apache lands inside and outside reservation borders. The stark historical injustice of the Pinal Apache Genocide requires recognition and redress via the responsible governments and industries, including their successors today. The obvious first step is simple avoidance of further harm to Apaches and Oak Flat. Truth must be a hallmark for comprehensive cost–benefit assessments of proposed alterations of Indigenous homelands. Reconciliation must be a planning goal for any mining or other consumptive uses of Indigenous sacred sites.


2018 ◽  
Vol 62 (14) ◽  
pp. 2023-2036
Author(s):  
Donna Brown ◽  
Karen Branden ◽  
Ronald E. Hall

Following conquest by European settlers Native Americans internalized Euro-American traditions and ideals. Salient among such ideals was the internalization of a bias as pertains to skin color defined as colorism. Colorism is a quasi-manifestation of racism carried out by victim-group populations. Subsequently, light skin was idealized and dark skin denigrated. Initially the idealization of light skin was dramatically displayed in the school setting. Internal confrontations between Cherokee tribal members were frequent. In the modern era, per confrontations such idealization is exacerbated by the complexity of tribal membership. Said complexity is acted out where those of Euro-American (light-skinned) mixed blood are more favored compared with those of African American (dark-skinned) mixed blood. The accountability of the Euro-American influenced relative to the aforementioned confrontations must be addressed in the quest for resolution.


Author(s):  
Aby Sene-Harper ◽  
Rasul Mowatt ◽  
Myron Floyd

Public lands and the outdoor opportunities they afford are imbued with a long history of cultural and political contestations between the White settler colonial regime, Black and Native Americans. These contestations are grounded in starkly different values and beliefs systems pertaining to the landscape and human-nature relations. Despite the contestations, whiteness continues to dominate the narratives about public lands and its institutions. Furthermore, the ideology of wilderness - as a place of refuge, the antidote to urban living – remains the main frame of reference to explore outdoor experiences. Thus, as researchers continue to espouse this ideology of wilderness, they effectively suppress the experiences and values that African Americans and other people of color hold towards nature and historically shaped by their social and political realities. The history of slavery, post-slavery and Black dispossession, have conjured up innovative Black diasporic cultural practices of resistance, survival and self-determination. Through hidden outdoor spaces they have forged a culture of resistance, built social structures centered on African traditional practices, and engaged in alternative modes of environmental stewardship. The Black outdoors culture today have roots in this robust legacy of resistance and political struggle for self-determination and provide inspiration for outdoor recreation and environmental education programs that culturally and politically relevant to African Americans. In this paper we engage in an investigation on Black peoples’ political outlook of the outdoors and/or their political outlook on engagement with those spaces both historically and presently. In doing so, we first call attention to the need to critically examine diversity practices designed to accommodate a multi-cultural society and how they contribute to a cultural hegemony. We also review the history of research on outdoor experiences putting into sharper relief the Euro-centric values that dominate the analysis and maintain the cultural power of white racial identities. Finally, pulling from African American literary works, we propose Black-centered interpretations of nature centered on their cultural worldviews and political resistance against hegemonic models of dispossession, abstraction and commodification. The aim here is to advocate for the co-existence of multiple cultural imaginaries of nature defined by the social and political realities of different racialized people, thus responding to the call for different paradigms of outdoor recreation highlighted in this special issue.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Smith

In this essay, I examine the 2016 takeover of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The principal instigators of this occupation, the Bundy family of Nevada, pointed to federally owned public lands as the primary reason for their takeover, citing the allegedly unconstitutional government ownership of these lands. I contend that the Bundys’ arguments about public lands exemplify rhetorical strategies that further one of the primary ends of settler colonialism; the remaking of land into property to better support white settlers’ claims to that land. I hold that the Bundys remake land by defining the land’s meanings following the logics of settler colonialism in three specific ways: privatization, racialization, and erasure. First, I examine the family’s arguments about the constitutionality of federal land ownership to show how the Bundys define public lands as rightfully private property. Second, I examine the ways that the Bundys racialize land ownership and how, in conjunction with arguments about property rights, the family articulates land as the domain of white settlers. Third, I discuss how the Bundys further colonial logics of Native erasure. That is, the family defines land in ways that portray Native Americans as having never been on the land, and as not currently using the land. I argue that these three processes render meanings of land––as private property, colonized, and terra nullius––that rhetorically further the operation of settler colonialism.


2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Focella ◽  
Jessica Whitehead ◽  
Jeff Stone ◽  
Stephanie Fryberg ◽  
Rebecca Covarrubias

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document