The Bones of Mother Earth:
Current Threats to the Land and Culture of Two American Indian Tribes
By Loren Friend
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
August 30, 2009
[View a map that documents the travel of the "Community Cultural Contexts" class as it traveled from Billings, Montana to Pablo, Montana learning about American Indian culture and participated in BuildaBridge's "Arts for Hope" camp on the Flathead Indian Reservation. Specifically, sites with relevance to the study of geography, environment, and culture are noted. View Community Cultural Contexts in a larger map.]
Montana is home to twelve recognized American Indian tribes who have tribal lands on seven reservations. However, many of the reservations on which the American Indian tribes have homelands today are not where their ancestors were located historically. The Crow, who now have a reservation in south-central Montana just east of Billings, roamed the Great Plains and parts of what is now Canada before European settlers came to the area (Arzoz, 2004). The Flathead Reservation, located in northwestern Montana between Missoula and Kalispell on Route 93, is home to the Salish, Kootenai, and Pend d’Oreille who originally inhabited western Montana, parts of Idaho, British Columbia, and Wyoming (Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, 2004). American Indians began to be placed on reservations, usually outside of their native lands, once westward expansion began. The United States claimed this was to protect settlers and American Indians but it was also largely to accommodate settlers as they pushed west searching for gold and desirable lands. This had a considerable effect of American Indian people and culture. In Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, we see the historical consequences of separating Native peoples from their homelands and ways of life. In discussing the removal of the Navahos from Fort Canby to the Bosque Redondo, Dee Brown (1970) writes, “The Navahos had the fortitude to bear freezing weather, hunger, dysentery, jeers of soldiers, and the hard three-hundred-mile journey, but they could not bear the homesickness, the loss of their land” (p. 28). In addition to the lost of land, these people suffered from settlers occupying lands the American Indians were allotted and violating it through the building of roads and rail systems. Thus, threatening their way of life. Just as force, violence, trickery, and deceit threatened tribal lands and culture in the 1800s, a number of issues connected to geography and the environment affect the well-being and cultures of these tribes today.
In August 2009, Eastern University graduate students in “Community Cultural Contexts” had the opportunity to travel across Montana from Billings to Pablo learning about American Indian culture. During this journey we paid a visit to the Crow Reservation, spent a week on the Flathead Reservation, and visited a number of contemporary art galleries and knowledgeable people along the way. However, it was in the galleries where the American Indians’ continued connection to nature and the environment was most apparent. In Bozeman, at the Indian Uprising Gallery, many of the pieces focused on animals that have special significance within the culture. A friend of the owner explained the meaning of a number of these animals: the turtle as Mother Earth; the eagle as wisdom; and, the buffalo as life or abundance. Helena’s Holter Museum had an exhibition by Corwin Clairmont in which many pieces criticized the disregard for and mistreatment of the land and nature. Minimalist works by Anne Applebee featured at the Missoula Art Museum used the basic colors of the Medicine Wheel which represent the four Cardinal Directions and are connected to the four directions of life (EarthKeepers, n.d.). These examples of contemporary art done by American Indian artists exemplify the continued importance of and concern for the land and nature within American Indian culture.
What was demonstrated through art was corroborated in discussions with individuals who connected respect for nature to issues affecting American Indian communities. On the drive from Billings to Bozeman on U.S. I-90 I saw something easily recognizable to me as a West Virginian—coal. Once we reached Bozeman, we headed to Montana State University where we met with a number of people in the Native American Studies Department who talked on a number of issues. Among these people was Bill Yellowtail, a former Regional Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency and a member of the Crow Tribe, who brought to light issues surrounding coal mining operations like the one I had seen on the way there. He explained that strip mining, while providing economic benefit, goes largely against American Indian beliefs such as the preservation of nature. He exemplified this concern through the telling of an American Indian prophecy that warns against disturbing the bones of Mother Earth. He likened the mining of coal to the disturbing of Mother Earth’s bones.
One mine which threatens those bones is the Sarpy Coal Mine just north of the Crow Reservation. However, it is just one part of a deposit that lies underneath the reservation and is one of the nation’s largest deposits of strippable low sulfur coal (About the Apsáalooke, 2008). The U.S. Department of the Interior and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality recently conducted a study to examine the impact of a proposed extension to the mine. Some of the findings were that coal mining in this area would compromise air and groundwater quality and would threaten wildlife if in an area inhabited by two endangered species. In addition, strip mining would disrupt 30 of the 65 cultural sites at the proposed location. As previously mentioned, respect for nature and good stewardship of the environment are closely tied to American Indian religious and cultural belief systems. Coal mining threatens the enactment of those values and would thus seem to be something undesirable to the Crow Tribe. However, the issue is not that simple. While coal mining is undesirable for its threat to the religious and cultural fabric of the Crow community, it provides much needed economic resources. The Crow Tribe holds the mineral rights to the land which means that they receive all royalties and production taxes from the mining of the coal (WWC Engineering, 2008). The mining operation would also most likely provide jobs for people in an area where the unemployment rate is 46.5 percent as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (Montana Department of Commerce, 2008).
As a West Virginian I can relate to the inner turmoil caused by the complicated matrix of coal mining. It is often difficult to find the balance between protecting the environment while also protecting jobs and the stability of the economy. While West Virginians love the mountains in which they live and the resources which they provide in terms of wild game, fish, and recreation, many of them depend on the coal within those mountains that has become the backbone of the state’s economy. To reduce or halt coal mining in the state would mean to preserve the natural landscape and the resources it offers but at the same time would remove the only means of survival for many families in an already poverty stricken region. It is a heart wrenching position to be in where one must choose between a healthy environment to live in and a way to provide for one’s basic needs. The situation of the Crow people is very similar but is even further compounded by their religious beliefs that are also tied to the preservation of the land. It is a social, religious, and economic web that will not easily be navigated.
In northwestern Montana on the Flathead Indian Reservation the issue surrounding land and environment that became most apparent was non-tribal ownership of lands within the reservation. We were first introduced to this issue when we view a piece by artist Corwin Clairmont, a member of the Flathead Nation, in Helena’s Holter Museum (right). Clairmont’s installation focuses on land ownership on the Flathead Reservation. It is an open door with the door frame encompassing real estate listings centered around a digital photo frame that has a slideshow of the natural landscape of the reservation. On the door are maps that document the status of ownership of land within the reservation from the time that the reservation was established by the Hellgate Treaty in 1855 until 1935. Around the doorframe are flashing Christmas lights, in front is a welcome mat, and beside is a Christmas tree. The piece discusses the steady sale of desirable land within the reservation to non-Indian people who traded in the natural beauty of land for the commercialism of the wider American society and who largely disregard the land. The outsiders brought in aspects of their culture that disregarded that of the Native peoples, took away lands that were promised them, and threatened the environment that these tribes hold dear.
Upon viewing the maps it is interesting to notice that dramatic change in land ownership and which lands became privately owned. When the Hellgate Treaty was signed the entirety of the reservation belonged to the tribe (above). However, the map of the reservation that documents land ownership between 1922 and 1935 shows that only about a fourth of the land within the reservation was tribally owned, with the majority of it claimed by homesteaders (below). The homesteaders had control of the most desirable lands which included the land around Flathead Lake and the land in the central part of the reservation—land that was mostly plains in contrast to the uninhabitable outlying mountains. Homesteading on the reservation came about as a result of the Dawes Act of 1887. This act attempted to fragment American Indian lands and anglicanize American Indians through private ownership of property and the practice of farming so that they would better integrate into the population. In order to do this the government divided the reservation into allotments and gave those allotments to individuals registered with the tribe. Often the allotments reserved for the Indians were lands that were undesirable and ill-suited for farming. For these reasons and because many American Indian peoples had limited knowledge of farming, they were often forced to sell their lands to non-American Indians (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.). In addition, Article Five of the act also stipulated that reservation lands not allotted to American Indians could be bought by the U.S. government and “held by the United States for the sole purpose of securing homes to actual settlers and shall be disposed of by the United States to actual and bona fide settlers only tracts not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres to any one person, on such terms as Congress shall prescribe” (Dawes Act, 1887).
Later in the trip I had opportunity to view a current land status map and talk briefly with Corwin Clairmont about non-tribal ownership of land. The 2009 land status map shows that some of the land that was claimed by homesteaders in the most current land status map in Clairmont’s installation is now owned by the tribe (right). This is an encouraging sign. Most of this is occurring through purchase which raises a question of justice and whether the tribe should have to pay for the return of land that was taken from them through maneuvers by the federal government. Interestingly, something that has hurt that government—the current economic crisis—has decreased the price of lands, allowing the tribe to buy back more. Nevertheless, a great deal of the land once owned by homesteaders, including the land around Flathead Lake, is now “fee” land. Clairmont explained that fee land is that which is privately owned. This does not necessarily mean that it is owned by non-Indians but there are other issues surrounding private ownership of land by tribal members within the reservation.
According to Clairmont, who is himself a private land owner on the reservation, tribal members who own land privately must pay taxes on their property whereas tribal members who live on tribal-owned lands do not. He has been paying the taxes on his property in protest while appealing to the federal government for tax exemption as a tribal member living within the reservation. One issue that Clairmont cited as arising from the private ownership of reservation land in general is that owners of this land do not have to abide by the tribal law or conform to tribal standards of land stewardship. Tribal standards for the care of the land are often more stringent than federal meaning that private owners may legally put chemicals and other substances on their land that the tribal would deem as detrimental to the soil including mineral deposits and to groundwater. Doing so does not just affect the soil or water quality with in the privately owned land but also that of any land that is connected to that water system. This connects back to Clairmont’s piece in his use of Christmas decorations to represent the disregard that many non-Indian land owners have for the land and American Indian values.
The issue of tribal law versus federal law that came up in my discussion with Corky was also brought to our attention by David Spear, a non-American Indian resident who works with youth on the reservation and was an “artist on call” during the BuildaBridge “Arts for Hope” camp on the Flathead Reservation. Spear described the reservation as unique in that it is integrated, meaning that there are a significant number of non-Indian people living on the reservation. Due to this, there are two authorities—tribal and U.S. Federal government. He provided the simplified explanation that tribal members and tribal lands fall under the jurisdiction of tribal law and tribal authority. Non-tribal members and privately owned or government owned land falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government. So, depending on who you are and what crime you committed, you could be held accountable by either of these authorities. Spear explained that jurisdiction can become very complicated and has led to inability to hold some people accountable for their crime or offense. One common example of this is “rez runners” or non-tribal members evading payment of speeding tickets given on the reservation by the tribal police. With the lack of accountability, there is ample opportunity for these and other, more grievous types of injustices to occur.
The current issues which threaten the land and culture of American Indians may not be easily identifiable by those who are not familiar with their culture or beliefs. Some may identify coal mining on the reservation merely as an environmental issue but may not recognize that for Crow Tribe it is a complicated issue that goes beyond environmental concern. For them it is something that is in opposition to their social and religious values but simultaneously an important economic resource. Outsiders to the Flathead Reservation, and perhaps some within, might not see private ownership of land within the reservation, especially by non-American Indians, as a justice issue. However, this is the legacy of the Dawes Act which sought to make American Indians what they were not and to take away what little land they were left with after settlers and the United States government took what they wanted of their extensive hunting and camping grounds. American Indian lands and culture continue to be threatened today in old ways and in new. It is important that we, as a people living in the United States, recognize these and other similar issues and raise awareness so that the lands and culture of American Indians will no longer be threatened by the ignorance and disregard of those who inhabit or have taken an interested in their lands.
One way in which awareness can be raised in the situation on the Crow reservation is to open and/or maintain a strong line of communication between the tribe and the entities that pursue mining or regulate it. The tribal leaders and members should have input into decisions associated with the disruption of the natural landscape. This could occur in a town meeting type format where each group is represented and given voice. It would important that the tribe have a legal representative present to guard their rights concerning the land. On the Flathead Reservation one solution to the issue concerning accountability to violators of the two laws on the reservation would to be to establish a coalition between the two where they help hold accountable offenders of either law. For example, if someone receives a speeding ticket from the tribal police and they try to evade the ticket, then the tribe can go to the coalition to seek support from the federal government in obtaining payment for the ticket. There needs to be a sense of mutual respect and interconnectedness for the optimal functioning of both authorities. A potential solution for non-tribal ownership of tribal lands would be to hold the federal government accountable for purchasing lands owned by non-tribal members as they become available and returning them to the tribe. This would occur to the extent that the tribe desires. If the tribe wishes to maintain some percentage of land as privately owned by non-tribal members then they may have the choice to do so. Another solution could be to waive taxes for privately owned land of tribal members and to direct taxes drawn from property owned by non-tribal members within the reservation to the tribe. In addition, standards governing the care of the environment within the reservation, whether on tribal or privately owned land, must match those of the tribe. The main goal in these solutions is a sense of restorative justice and respect for the tribe.
Appendix A
Link to map of travel:
Appendix B
Residence of Art Camp Participants
|
City |
Number of Students |
|
Arlee |
8 |
|
Big Arm |
1 |
|
Charlo |
2 |
|
Elmo |
3 |
|
Pablo |
5 |
|
Polson |
5 |
|
Ronan |
8 |
|
St. Ignatius |
1 |
|
Total Number of Students on Day of Count |
33 |
References
About the Apsáalooke. (2008). Retrieved August 19, 2009, from http://www.crowtribe.com/about.htm
Arzoz, A. (2004). The Crow. Retrieved August 12, 2009, from http://www.peoplesoftheworld.org/text?people=Crow
Brown, D. (1970). Bury my heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian history of the American West. New York: Henry Holt and Co.
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. (2004). A people of vision. Retrieved August 12, 2009, from http://www.cskt.org/
Dawes Act. (1887). Statutes at Large 24, 388-91, NADP Document A1887
EarthKeepers. (n.d.). Native American Medicine Wheel: Manoomin Project elder explains directions, colors. Retrieved August 25, 2009, from http://www.blip.tv/file/557641/
Montana Department of Commerce, Montana Department of Labor and Industry, and Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs. (2008). Demographic and economic information for the Crow Reservation. Retrieved August 12, 2009, from http://www.ourfactsyourfuture.org/admin/uploadedPublications/2685_Crow_RF08_Web.pdf
U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. (n.d.). Dawes Act (1887). Retrieved August 13, 2009, from http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=50
WWC Engineering. (2008). Draft-Environmental impact statement for the Absaloka Mine Crow Reservation south extension coal lease approval, proposed mine development plan, and related federal and state permitting actions. Retrieved August 12, 2009, from http://www.deq.state.mt.us/eis/Absaloka/Draft%20EIS%20Complete.pdf).
