Discover the lingering shadows of the Doctrine of Discovery as we journey through the historical and modern challenges Indigenous nations face, particularly in safeguarding sacred sites like Bears Ears. Joined by Patrick Gonzalez-Rogers of the Yale School of Environment, Philip P. Arnold Arnold from the Skä•noñh Great Law Peace Center, and Sandy Bigtree of the Mohawk Nation, we unearth the cultural significance these lands hold and the urgency for conservation efforts that honor Indigenous spirituality and sovereignty. Our conversation reveals the depths of exploitation that persist while advocating for policies that truly respect the voices and rights of Native American communities.
Embrace a future where humanity and nature coexist in harmony as we draw upon the wisdom of Indigenous environmental stewardship. By acknowledging the interconnectedness of all life, we challenge the prevailing narrative of human dominance over the natural world. Delving into traditional ecological knowledge, we discuss how reshaping our environmental laws and policies through Indigenous perspectives can lead to sustainable solutions that cherish the Earth for future inhabitants. Our discourse, informed by the richness of Native American philosophies, paints a vision of resource management that nurtures rather than depletes.
In the spirit of healing and justice, we examine the transformative potential of restorative justice and land reparations in mending the wounds left by centuries of colonial policies. We highlight the importance of concrete measures, like land return by religious denominations, as steps towards genuine restitution for Indigenous communities. Our dialogue with historians, attorneys, and thought leaders at Yale opens up discussions on legal and political strategies for righting historical wrongs. As we share insights from conversations with bishops, we sense an emerging willingness to turn apologies into action—signaling a hopeful shift toward reconciliation and balance. Join us as we honor these crucial narratives and the pursuit of a more equitable future.
View the transcript and show notes at podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org. Learn more about the Doctrine of Discovery on our site DoctrineofDiscovery.org.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Hello and welcome to the Mapping the Doctrine of
Discovery podcast.
The producers of this podcastwould like to acknowledge with
respect the Onondaga Nationfirekeepers of the Haudenosaunee
, the indigenous peoples onwhose ancestral lands Syracuse
University now stands, and nowintroducing your hosts, phil
(00:27):
Arnold and Sandy Bigtree.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Welcome back to Mapping the Doctrine of
Discovery.
My name's Phil Arnold.
I'm faculty in the Departmentof Religion at Syracuse
University and core faculty inNative American Indigenous
Studies and the foundingdirector of the Scano Great Law
Peace Center.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
And I'm Sandy Bigtree , a citizen of the Mohawk Nation
at Akwesasne, and I'm on thecollaborative for the Scano
Center and the Board of theIndigenous Values Initiative.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
And we're coming to you today, sponsored by the
Henry Luce Foundation, and wereally appreciate their
continued support for thisimportant conversation we're
having Today.
We're super happy to havePatrick Gonzalez-Rogers join us,
and Patrick was kind enough toinvite Sandy and myself out to
(01:27):
Yale to give a presentation tohis class you know last year and
I think we really we really gotto know a lot of good people
there.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
The students were so engaged and well informed, so it
was really one of our betterexperiences with such
interaction from the students.
Good job.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Yeah, and so, patrick , I'll just let you introduce
yourself.
You know you can talk aboutwhat you're doing there at
Harvard, or sorry?
Yeah, oh, my gosh, I'm sorry tomake that mistake.
Yeah.
Bite your tongue what you'redoing out there in Yale.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
Yeah, just begin yeah .
Speaker 2 (02:07):
And then and then, and let us know what your work
is currently.
Speaker 4 (02:13):
Yeah, so Pat Gonzalez Rogers.
I'm a faculty at the YaleSchool of Environment.
I teach a class this semesteraround tribal natural resources
and sovereignty and I think it'sworthwhile to just explain a
bit about my background sopeople have a context to how I
(02:34):
come about a lot of this.
So, previous to Yale, I was theinaugural executive director of
the Bears Ears IntertribalCoalition and have previously
held more than a few jobs withinthe federal kind of apparatus,
mainly along the lines of beingthe Senior Native Advisor for
(02:59):
several federal agencies.
But I've also served as theAssistant General Counsel to the
US Senate Indian AffairsCommittee and the Director of
Federal Relations for the Officeof Hawaiian Affairs.
That said, while I do most of mywork within Indian country, I
always am clear I'm not NativeAmerican, I am Indigenous, I'm
(03:21):
on my mom's side, both Tagalog,which is the largest indigenous
group to the Philippines, aswell as being Samoan.
So you know, a lot of my work isreally within the intersect and
kind of construct ofconservation and environmental
issues, hence the Bears EarsIntertribal Coalition.
(03:45):
But you know, one of thefoundational pieces as I present
the history of Indian law andpolicy and again this is within
the context of the School ofEnvironment is to really set a
foundation towards those thingsthat really set up the
(04:05):
underpinnings and cornerstonesto contemporary policy.
And I think it comes as asurprise to many that the
doctrine of discovery is notjust this kind of historical
affectation.
It is living with us today andis quite prominent towards how
(04:27):
we view, operate and implementmany of the aspects of the
federal trust relationship whichare at the primacy to the
government-to-governmentrelationship, how every tribe
conducts its business, and so Isay that as a kind of a bit of
(04:47):
framing for the rest of ourconversation today, that's very
helpful, thank you.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Well, it's really difficult when, under the
doctrines of discovery,colonists came into our
territories and targeted sacredplaces.
In Mexico, many of the sacredpyramids were leveled and the
rubble was actually used toconstruct churches so they could
shift the spiritual control ofthe narrative there in those
(05:19):
places.
So we see that with MountRushmore, those mountains were
sacred to the Lakota, and thenBears Ears as well.
Right?
Speaker 2 (05:30):
And many other sites all over the country.
Yeah, maybe you could talkabout Bears Ears and help fill
in our audience what's going onthere.
You know historically and thenrecently.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
Yeah, let me just take a step backwards here.
Let me just take a stepbackwards here, and this is kind
of a foundational piece formaybe some of the listeners that
may not have the kind ofbackground to see how
problematic this is.
So we have the doctrine ofdiscovery right, and Phil,
(05:59):
you're a much, much more eruditeand nuanced expert.
But in many ways the doctrineof discovery is the template of
modern genocide.
It is one, the conquering oflands.
Then two, saying that yourparticular theology, your God,
is flaccid, it is insufficient.
Let me replace it.
(06:20):
And then telling the people toassimilate, and then telling the
people to assimilate, and thenfollowed by violence, the
violence about snatchingchildren away from their
immediate family, the sexualassault of the women, and then
doing this under the kind ofguise that we have something
better to offer.
(06:40):
Right, and I think we've seenthis play out in a kind of a
contemporary global aspect did a180 pivot and said we're now
(07:03):
going to offer up Indian landsto private concerns and you can
buy them.
But what many people do notknow is they had these
intermediaries, and theseintermediaries were not
objective or balanced and inmany times they were just
crooked.
But the biggest contingency ofthose intermediaries were
(07:27):
churches.
They were Christiandenominations that then stepped
in the road because they wantedto create land bases and still
go about the business ofproselytizing native people.
And so in this period which,you know, you don't have to be a
liberal or a conservative oranything in between was a very
(07:51):
unproductive period in whichmillions of acres were lost by
tribal communities, but thebiggest benefactors were the
Christian denominations, becausethey stepped in and then
assumed the role of bothnegotiations as well as
acquiring lands for their ownvested interests.
(08:11):
And so now you again have thiscontinual kind of methodical
process of taking away the realspiritual and theological kinds
of values from these Nativecommunities.
And so let's fast forward.
When we think about the BearsEars, in many ways what we're
(08:34):
trying to say is not only aretribes really valuable,
productive and efficient landstewards.
By advancing and elevatingtribes as a co-manager to a
national monument, you arereally exercising this really
(08:55):
profound force multiplier.
And the other elements of thatforce multiplier is having
traditional and native waysinstruct the land management
plan, which invariably allow fora greater birth of cultural and
native practice on thelandscape.
The problem, as both Sandy andPhil know, is we view all of
(09:19):
this within the Westernconstruct of law right, and so
the thing that has kind ofplagued us all these years is
this really nebulous term calledsubstantial burden.
But that substantial burden, iesubstantial burden for that
(09:40):
community to worship, is definedby Western standards and
largely by a Judeo-Christiankind of instruction to all that.
And I would say to all mybrethren in Judaism it's largely
Christian and very littleJudaism on that, so it is a
(10:03):
Christian construct to whatcreates a substantial burden and
why that's so important to theconversation is from a native
kind of perspective.
We are not trying to makespecific identification of a
nave, of a stained window, of aconfessional, of a pew.
(10:25):
The entrance to a landscapelike the Bears Ears, which is
incredibly vast, is the gullythat you walk in through a creek
, the mesa that you climb, theenclosure that you get to has an
equanimity to it and thatequanimity creates the
(10:47):
sacredness.
Now that same kind ofsensibility is incredibly
valuable from a conservation,because now we are not trying to
protect a 20 by 20 space, weare trying to protect a 15 mile
radius relative to it.
But what it says is allelements are sacred, they are
(11:12):
just as meaningful to where theactual kind of ceremony or
practice might be, and so, froma Western perspective, what they
really want to do is createconsistency and durability, but
they also want to be reallyspecific, right?
So they want to say, oh, theoverhang is important, so let's
(11:32):
just protect that.
And the reality is, the totalityof landscape is the thing that
creates this element to nativepeople in which they want to
protect, and so I think thebetter way to think about it is,
if you had an entryway to asynagogue, you wouldn't defecate
(11:53):
on it, you wouldn't havegraffiti on it, and the entryway
is just as important as theinner sanctum.
And so we need to look at thetotality, but also the
sensibility of the people thatactually worship, and so, in
many ways, the Bears Ears is agreat manifestation of that,
(12:13):
because it allows the fivetribes involved to not only have
their particular idiosyncraticsensibility because not all
tribes are you know, this is notmonolithic but it also then
allows us to protect thelandscape in a much more
comprehensive way.
(12:34):
So, in many ways, you'regetting a twofer off of that.
You're protecting the totallandscape and you're protecting
everything inside of that.
I just discovered that was theUtah delegation.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
That was so valuable, pat.
I really appreciate that wholekind of exposition of really the
problem of religion.
I'd say I mean a problem ofdefining religion into kind of
narrow Western sort of frameworkthat we have in the academic
(13:23):
study of religion.
How do Indigenous people reallyparticipate in that worldview?
It doesn't fit and this is whyso many of our Supreme Court
cases over the last 40 yearsreally don't have any teeth when
it comes to defending thesesacred places.
Right, if you look at federalIndian law, the American Indian
(13:47):
Religious Freedom Act really hasnot helped in protecting these
sacred places and I'm wonderingif that's kind of what we're
dealing with when it comes tothe kind of fallout around
sacred places like the BearsEars, you know.
I mean the integrity of alandscape has to be present,
(14:10):
it's not just a single spotwhere they might perform
ceremonies at certain times ofthe year.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
It's a reciprocal relationship with the natural
world.
The natural world is areciprocal engagement.
Speaker 4 (14:25):
Yeah, and so, Sandy, I think you make the perfect
segue.
You know, to me another greatexample is Mauna Kea is sacred
in many different ways forNative Hawaiians, including.
It is the place where they doburials.
(14:47):
But it also is representativeof this dynamic of Stop for a
sec, we can edit that out.
Okay, one second, just let it.
Hey, I'm on an interview rightnow, yeah, yeah, speaking of
(15:32):
religion and Jehovah Witness,they must have heard something,
so you know where I was going togo with.
This is Mauna Kea.
Also represents thistriangulation that is really
reflective in many Nativetheologies, but for Native
(15:52):
Hawaiians it is Keakua, godright, kekanaka, the people, and
aina, the land.
And so this representation onhow it has equilibrium just go
(16:48):
to the other side of themountain, or why don't you just
find some alternative so thatsubstantial burden again is
defined by their kind of whatthey think is a burden and not
viewing it again in the totalityof what that means to the
people?
And all these relationshipsreally kind of define their
spirituality.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Well, that's great.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
Western religions are more ideological.
They're not in thisrelationship with the natural
world and in contact.
I mean, it was crucial topenetrate this way of life and
you talk about tribalgovernments today this way of
life and you talk about tribalgovernments today.
Many of those tribal chiefscame through the Bureau of
(17:23):
Indian Affairs system, but theywere selected predominantly
because those were childrenwho'd gone through the boarding
school experience and had a lotof their culture stripped from
them.
So it's a very complicated, youknow, series of problems in
Indian country today because ofthe wrath of colonialism and
(17:47):
what it did culturally.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
I think, too, what you're describing also is, you
know, blatantly apparent.
The doctrine of discovery isblatantly apparent in our
environmental laws and policies,right?
So the way that we tend toregard the natural world is as
(18:11):
resource rather than as relation, right?
And so I think what you'redescribing here is also a kind
of worldview that impacts thesesacred places, you know, like
Bears, Ears and other spotsOnondaga Lake, for example and I
(18:32):
wonder if you see that there'sa relationship between the
doctrine of discovery andenvironmental law and policy.
Speaker 4 (18:41):
Yeah, most certainly right.
So you know, the doctrine ofdiscovery is the extension of a
Western European sensibility,but the introduction of the
legal fiction of private landownership.
And so, from a Nativeperspective, you know, we are
all, in most instances, merelystewards, right, we are
(19:05):
custodians of the land.
And one of the first things,you know, I talked to the
students about and I said you donot have to be Native.
But if you ask me, one thing onhow you can be a better steward
is to revisit your relationshipwith both land, water and, to a
certain extent, sentientobjects.
(19:27):
And when you view them as anextension of yourself, right, it
becomes much more intimate.
And by taking care of thesethings we are essentially taking
care of ourselves, right.
But I also think, you know, in akind of a political kind of
(19:50):
correctness, we have now saidthat man is the problem.
But you know from, I think,from an indigenous perspective,
when you have this concept thatland and water and extension of
yourself, you then can also sayman can also be part of the
solution, and you do notbifurcate this, right, because
(20:14):
we are a part of this, we are apart of this, and so we can then
add to it and not just be, youknow, looking from it from just
an academic window or a kind ofa non-interested, you know,
pedestrian perspective, and soit compels us in a way that we
(20:35):
can be much more engaged, and Ithink our relationships with
land and water then become both,you know, figuratively, as well
as literally, much healthier.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
Yeah, I wondered about that.
I mean, as you were speaking,what would it look like to have
environmental law and policy?
I mean, you've worked inWashington at a kind of urgent
moment when students and othersare really trying to think of a
(21:26):
different way that we can be,that we can exist in this world,
right, that human beings needto be in a better kind of
relationship with one another,but also with the earth.
You know, as Taradaho Sid Hillsays here in Haudenosaunee
(21:48):
territory, peace is onlyestablished when human beings
are in proper relationship tothe natural world.
So this isn't a kind ofpuritanical notion or something
that follows John Muir orsomebody where you know the
natural world has to be, remainuntouched by humans.
(22:11):
Rather, it's a different way ofthinking about economics, of
sane use of the earth, right?
So I wonder Engagement, yeah,engagement with the earth.
So how do you see, as somebodywho's training students in this
(22:32):
area, how do you see us movingforward with a new set of values
?
Us moving forward, you know,with a new set of values.
Speaker 4 (22:46):
Well, I think the biggest thing that you know
comes to mind when I think aboutconservation from an indigenous
perspective and really drivenby that kind of precept, is
durability and sustainability.
We use those as buzzwords rightnow, but in reality Native
people knew that all naturalresources have a limitation, and
(23:08):
that's not to say Native peoplewere perfect in every instance.
But because of traditionalknowledge in at least one corner
is steeped in the observationalknowledge of what occurs over
generations and decades, theywere able to acquire information
that they could then pass downto say if you did this, you may
(23:33):
have the utilization of awaterway for 20 or 30 years, but
if you did it this other way,it might be indefinite into the
future, and so it reallyhallmarks that.
You know, while people hearthese terms like seven and eight
(23:54):
generations out, it was at thekind of seven and eight
generations out.
It was at the kind of you know,the foundation of how they
thought about conservation andthe environment, because they
knew they had to pass that down,and so it in many ways dilutes
the kind of oh, you know what Icall shooting for Q4.
(24:16):
And that is.
Oh, you know what I callshooting for Q4, and that is,
can we make a profitability outof this?
And then we will regroup andthink about the future of
everyone else.
And so instead, what you'resaying is our primary kind of
goal is to preserve and pass itdown better, and when you have
(24:40):
that as your initial goal, youthen are really in this kind of
mode of real conservation andbeing stewards of the land, and
so the first thing I think aboutin that is that that is a very
durable way to manage lands andwaters, and I'm rather certain
(25:05):
the paradigms and models that weuse now relative to most
extraction, people cannot saywith a straight face, there is a
durability and sustainabilityto it.
Straight face, there is adurability and sustainability to
it.
They're looking at such kind ofsmall like elements of time on
how they want to utilize it, andit usually has some profit
(25:28):
margin or a dividend or a sharekind of incentive to it, which
really then confuse theobjectives of conservation and
environment.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
Do you need help catching up on today's topic or
do you want to learn more aboutthe resources mentioned?
If so, please check our websiteat
podcastdoctrineofdiscoveryorgfor more information and, if you
like this episode, review it onApple, Spotify or wherever you
listen to podcasts.
And now back to theconversation.
Speaker 3 (26:05):
When you interject that the earth is regenerative,
it's ever-changing.
Species die, species are born.
It's a whole differentconnection to the earth.
You can foretell what kind offish will appear in the stream
when they breed, by a certainwildflower that may be blooming
(26:28):
I mean the Haudenosaunee, forexample, had this language, as
all Native people do.
You know the world speaks tothem and how things are changing
and the rhythms and times,which are not according to a
calendar, but they're accordingto these cycles of life.
So it's so interactive and it'sreally hard to say.
You can manage anything, butyou need to tap into that
(26:51):
regenerative machine of creationthat we're part of.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
Right, right yeah.
Speaker 4 (26:59):
So, you know, one of the things and I haven't got to
both of you and I was going tokind of tell you about is so one
of the things that I'm workingwith at Yale now is doing
something, probably in the fallwhere we would bring folks like
yourself, but also with otherpeople that you know may be more
(27:22):
based from the historical, butalso attorneys, to see if there
is not a legal remedy, at leastfor tribes in the US as well as
Alaska Natives, relative to thedoctrine of discovery, I think
we have had really robustdiscussions that really kind of
(27:46):
provide a summation on theimplications and what we are now
living with.
The thing that we have not doneis figure out is there a way to
confront the involveddenominations on restoring
(28:08):
tribal nations?
And the reason why I say thatis this is really.
I think about it in a fairlysimplistic way, as I do most
things, I'm not the most nuancedthinker, but it is like an
apology, right, it is, I amsorry.
Two, this will not happen again.
(28:29):
But three, and this is, youknow, analogous to restorative
justice, which is a Christianprecept to all of these
denominations.
How can I make you whole?
And so, while Mennonites,quakers and even the Catholic
Church have apologized.
They have not satisfied thatthird element, which is probably
(28:51):
the most important how have Imade these other parties whole
for actions that I am culpablefor?
And so the convening would beto really kind of put in the
thinkers of this world and maybeto get audience with these
denominations to say is it therea pathway?
(29:12):
Now, the reason I mentionedthis one this is kind of your
guy's life work, so I would likeyour engagement.
But the other portion is portionis.
I think if we can get thedenominations, especially the
(29:33):
Mennonites and Quakers, to move,it might create leverage to the
Catholic Church.
All of that is important.
But I also think there's anorganic, natural kind of segue
to land back.
All of these denominations havelarge land holdings, and so if
they're talking about are weever going to make Indian
country totally whole no, that'snot possible, it's too vast
(29:56):
amount.
But can they do in some waystart returning lands, because
we now have the apparatus to do?
Can we start this conversationBecause really, at the end of
(30:36):
the day, relative to your owndoctrinaire, you have not
satisfied what is required.
What do you think about that?
I mean to reverse the role ofthe interviewing.
Speaker 3 (30:49):
Phil and Sandy Absolutely Returning land to
Indigenous people who understandthis proper relationship is
only going to free up the landand help everybody to begin
recovering from thisdisconnection that's been dumped
on everybody throughcolonialism and the church.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
Unfortunately, you were not part of our Doctrine of
Discovery conference lastDecember and you should have
been, but we had lawyers thereand their whole orientation now
is how do you put before theSupreme Court the doctrine of
(31:34):
discovery Maybe not this SupremeCourt, but you know, how do you
test the doctrine of discovery,which, as we know, is part of
property law, Doctrine ofDiscovery, which, as we know, is
part of property law.
The other part of what we didat the conference was we had a
bishops panel where Lutheran,Episcopalian and Catholic
(31:59):
bishops were on the stage infront of all these indigenous
peoples and then they wereresponded to by Haudenosaunee
leaders, a clan mother andsomeone who sat on the chief's
council for 25 years, andessentially what came up was
exactly what you're talkingabout, Pat.
(32:21):
Was that essentially okay?
Apologies are great.
We've had over 350 you knowrepudiations of the doctrine of
discovery.
Now, what you know?
Now, what are we going to do?
It's a little like ouruniversities giving land
acknowledgements, you know andthen no, and then now?
(32:42):
what do we do now?
What are you going to do aboutit?
Sort of thing.
Speaker 4 (32:46):
Yeah, you make, as always, phil, a very nuanced
point, and so the more I thinkabout this.
But I would like the conveningto really instruct it, as
opposed to, you know, some kindof guttural instinct, but my
sense is it is less legal andmore political.
(33:07):
Right, there's a kind of apolitical thing that must occur,
and so I agree with everythingyou say.
But I think, like everything,we need to then really approach
this from an iterative processand then set the stage for a
(33:27):
dialogue that continues on thedialogue that you have and
saying, all right, it might be ahard toll to kind of if you're
thinking about you knowaterallykind of agree, this is the right
thing to do, that's what theydid.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
So the bishops in the Q&A in that panel basically
admitted yes, that's what we'redoing, those are the next steps.
We are going to return land tothe Onondaga Nation, right.
So we got those verbal assentto what the next steps are going
(34:19):
to be.
So I think that's what you'redescribing as a kind of
political shift, but that's alsoa kind of value shift within
these Christian denominations,right, and it's across the board
.
And these are big denominations, you know, these are mainline
churches, you know so.
And, as you say, they havemajor land holdings across the
(34:41):
country and it goes right backto the early colonial period
where they are the, as you said,the intermediaries between the
evangelical or themissionization of Native people
and the state right, the statetakeover.
(35:01):
So I think we have a basis forthe kind of convening that
you're suggesting there, pat.
I think there's really somereal possibilities.
Speaker 4 (35:14):
And I think there's an inflection point, and this is
how I'll bring in back theBears Ears.
The inflection point of theBears Ears is one of competency,
and it's not that we needed thevalidation of the federal
government or this kind ofWestern construct, but the
(35:34):
federal trust relationship,right, is one really saying
tribes are not competent?
It is as if the federalgovernment is viewing tribes as
if they're Britney Spears.
Right, you cannot makedecisions.
If it's a big thing, you got torun back to Papa and we got to
decide for you.
Now there's a little wrinkle tothis and both you and Sandy
(35:58):
know this.
So, while they're doing thisand preaching assimilation, the
single biggest feature ofassimilation they did not give
to tribes is fee, simpleownership over the lands.
So the single biggest componentto acquiring legacy wealth was
then not given to tribes whilethey're still talking all this
BS that you should assimilate.
(36:20):
So they basically say you allneed to drive a car, but I'm not
giving you any carburetor ornor will I give you any
cylinders in the car.
Right, they just want to giveyou the thing.
But I'll go back to this kindof belabored point.
When they said the tribesshould be co-managers, they were
(36:42):
really saying is we trust thecompetency of tribes?
Is we trust the competency oftribes?
And so it elevates it in a way,now that we can go on these
other kind of attendant issuesthat are related to the doctrine
of discovery, and what happenedthrough these many
denominations is to say you knowyou should give back these
(37:06):
lands because we've always knownthis, but we're incredible
stewards and custodians of landsand they will be well taken
care of, Maybe even better takencare of than under your
particular leadership.
Historical kind of recognitionof tribes being the first
(37:30):
co-managers of a nationalmonument, I think gives momentum
to these other movements thathave land back as part of their
narrative no-transcript but thatis not the case where we are
(38:02):
from.
Speaker 3 (38:05):
So I have to just clarify the Onondaga.
They never fell under thatcontrol.
The FBI will not step foot ontheir territory unless they get
permission or any police.
There's no police state,there's no taxes, there's no
prisons.
Speaker 2 (38:24):
So I mean.
So we have a model here, Ithink, and even though recently
there was the return of athousand acres of land, the
trust relationship is somethingthat the Onondaga will not enter
(38:53):
into with the federalgovernment.
They say essentially, eitheryou're returning land or you're
not, I mean, and it becomes partof our nation, or it doesn't.
So there are steps that eachindividual case will have to be
considered, but I think gettingChristian denominations in this
(39:17):
post-doctrine of discoverymoment is a really good idea in
these conversations about thereturn of land.
I'm very excited about this.
Speaker 3 (39:29):
Post-era.
Post-era.
Speaker 2 (39:30):
Post-era yeah.
Speaker 4 (39:35):
Yeah, and it's something that I think, like so
many things that have a kind ofpolitical context, is, you know,
sometimes you're just in theright place at the right time,
and while it may have nothing todo with the you know the topic
of the doctrine of discovery Ithink about during the Obama
(39:57):
administration, where therebecame an opening that was very
kind of apparent and vivid, inwhich he then could put into law
about the legal rights for gaypeople in their communities, and
so some of this is toconstantly be on the vigil that
(40:18):
we're creating a momentum,because when that opening
appears it's not something thatwe've planned but we've been
(40:45):
prepared for, and so, in reality, what I'm taking is, you know,
the kind of conference that youdid and then continuing answers
at once, but it may instructthat we need to create an
organization that is doing this24-7 and having, you know, these
kinds of conversations with allof these denominations, because
(41:11):
I do think in some ways we'remuch closer than we have ever
been, and so this is all kind ofcompounding through everyone's,
both education as well asadvocating through many
conversations and doing our ownkind of advocacy.
Speaker 2 (41:34):
Yeah, and I think it's such an important lesson
really for students.
I mean, you know, we'retraining the next generation of,
you know, indigenous advocatesfor the environment, for the
natural world, and I think, asyou say, religion needs to step
(42:01):
up, or these Christiandenominations need to step up
and really make a difference,because what we're facing,
what's coming, is really goingto be catastrophic if we don't
start changing our practicesquickly.
So, yeah, I think there is alsothe urgency of the moment, as
(42:23):
well as the kind of opportunitythat has been handed us by
previous people working on theseissues.
Speaker 4 (42:32):
Right, you know, and I think about this, and I think
that you know, many people don'trealize how Native communities
have pride, not equally, butthey have pride in being an
American.
Pride not equally, but theyhave pride in being an American.
They have pride in thecommunity they're from.
(42:59):
But the kind of greaterlandscape in which they're
involved, and I can't help butthink about the turmoil of the
kind of challenge of thosefeelings.
Right, you're here, but you'realso under the foot of something
, and this foot in some ways youstill have love and pride for.
And I think about, you know thewords he was not native but
(43:21):
they're still prescient words ofFrederick Douglass.
He was in these series ofconversations back in the day
with someone actually in, if I'mnot mistaken, in Belfast, and
he writes in thinking of America.
I sometimes find myself admiringher bright blue sky, her grand
(43:41):
old woods, her fertile fields,her beautiful rivers, her mighty
lakes and star-crownedmountains.
But my rapture is soon checked,my joy is soon turned to
mourning when I remember thatall is cursed with the infernal
actions of slave-holding,robbery and wrong.
When I remember, with thewaters of her noblest rivers,
(44:11):
the tears of my brethren areborne to the ocean, disregarded
and forgotten, and that her mostfertile fields drink daily of
the warm blood of my outragedsisters, I am filled with
unutterable loathing.
You know that conflict is thething.
That, on a personal level, iswhat we're trying to do, right?
We try to reconcile theserelationships, and so we have to
(44:37):
prompt the other party to dothe right thing.
Speaker 3 (44:42):
And to really know equity and freedom.
Speaker 4 (44:45):
Exactly, exactly, sandy.
Speaker 3 (44:47):
And that was integrated into this whole
forming of this nation when theymet with Haudenosaunee Loyani,
the men of the good mind.
We don't have a hierarchy ofchiefs.
It's all about integration andcoming together and thought and
purpose and living in properrelationships.
So everybody has that hope, butwe've not experienced freedom
(45:11):
and equity yet, right.
Speaker 2 (45:15):
What a great way to end our conversation.
Pat, Really really appreciateyou and all you're doing there,
and we hope we can continue thisconversation into the future.
Speaker 4 (45:27):
We will.
I appreciate you guys and we'llbe talking soon.
Speaker 3 (45:31):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (45:36):
The producers of this podcast were Adam DJ Brett and
Jordan Lone Colon.
Our intro and outro is socialdancing music by Oris Edwards
and Regis Cook.
This podcast is funded incollaboration with the Henry
Luce Foundation, syracuseUniversity and Hendricks Chapel
and the Indigenous ValuesInitiative.
If you like this episode,please check out our website and
(45:57):
make sure to subscribe.
Hello and welcome to the Mapping the Doctrine of
Discovery podcast.
The producers of this podcastwould like to acknowledge with
respect the Onondaga Nationfirekeepers of the Haudenosaunee
, the indigenous peoples onwhose ancestral lands Syracuse
University now stands, and nowintroducing your hosts, phil
(00:27):
Arnold and Sandy Bigtree.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Welcome back to Mapping the Doctrine of
Discovery.
My name's Phil Arnold.
I'm faculty in the Departmentof Religion at Syracuse
University and core faculty inNative American Indigenous
Studies and the foundingdirector of the Scano Great Law
Peace Center.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
And I'm Sandy Bigtree , a citizen of the Mohawk Nation
at Akwesasne, and I'm on thecollaborative for the Scano
Center and the Board of theIndigenous Values Initiative.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
And we're coming to you today, sponsored by the
Henry Luce Foundation, and wereally appreciate their
continued support for thisimportant conversation we're
having Today.
We're super happy to havePatrick Gonzalez-Rogers join us,
and Patrick was kind enough toinvite Sandy and myself out to
(01:27):
Yale to give a presentation tohis class you know last year and
I think we really we really gotto know a lot of good people
there.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
The students were so engaged and well informed, so it
was really one of our betterexperiences with such
interaction from the students.
Good job.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Yeah, and so, patrick , I'll just let you introduce
yourself.
You know you can talk aboutwhat you're doing there at
Harvard, or sorry?
Yeah, oh, my gosh, I'm sorry tomake that mistake.
Yeah.
Bite your tongue what you'redoing out there in Yale.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
Yeah, just begin yeah .
Speaker 2 (02:07):
And then and then, and let us know what your work
is currently.
Speaker 4 (02:13):
Yeah, so Pat Gonzalez Rogers.
I'm a faculty at the YaleSchool of Environment.
I teach a class this semesteraround tribal natural resources
and sovereignty and I think it'sworthwhile to just explain a
bit about my background sopeople have a context to how I
(02:34):
come about a lot of this.
So, previous to Yale, I was theinaugural executive director of
the Bears Ears IntertribalCoalition and have previously
held more than a few jobs withinthe federal kind of apparatus,
mainly along the lines of beingthe Senior Native Advisor for
(02:59):
several federal agencies.
But I've also served as theAssistant General Counsel to the
US Senate Indian AffairsCommittee and the Director of
Federal Relations for the Officeof Hawaiian Affairs.
That said, while I do most of mywork within Indian country, I
always am clear I'm not NativeAmerican, I am Indigenous, I'm
(03:21):
on my mom's side, both Tagalog,which is the largest indigenous
group to the Philippines, aswell as being Samoan.
So you know, a lot of my work isreally within the intersect and
kind of construct ofconservation and environmental
issues, hence the Bears EarsIntertribal Coalition.
(03:45):
But you know, one of thefoundational pieces as I present
the history of Indian law andpolicy and again this is within
the context of the School ofEnvironment is to really set a
foundation towards those thingsthat really set up the
(04:05):
underpinnings and cornerstonesto contemporary policy.
And I think it comes as asurprise to many that the
doctrine of discovery is notjust this kind of historical
affectation.
It is living with us today andis quite prominent towards how
(04:27):
we view, operate and implementmany of the aspects of the
federal trust relationship whichare at the primacy to the
government-to-governmentrelationship, how every tribe
conducts its business, and so Isay that as a kind of a bit of
(04:47):
framing for the rest of ourconversation today, that's very
helpful, thank you.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Well, it's really difficult when, under the
doctrines of discovery,colonists came into our
territories and targeted sacredplaces.
In Mexico, many of the sacredpyramids were leveled and the
rubble was actually used toconstruct churches so they could
shift the spiritual control ofthe narrative there in those
(05:19):
places.
So we see that with MountRushmore, those mountains were
sacred to the Lakota, and thenBears Ears as well.
Right?
Speaker 2 (05:30):
And many other sites all over the country.
Yeah, maybe you could talkabout Bears Ears and help fill
in our audience what's going onthere.
You know historically and thenrecently.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
Yeah, let me just take a step backwards here.
Let me just take a stepbackwards here, and this is kind
of a foundational piece formaybe some of the listeners that
may not have the kind ofbackground to see how
problematic this is.
So we have the doctrine ofdiscovery right, and Phil,
(05:59):
you're a much, much more eruditeand nuanced expert.
But in many ways the doctrineof discovery is the template of
modern genocide.
It is one, the conquering oflands.
Then two, saying that yourparticular theology, your God,
is flaccid, it is insufficient.
Let me replace it.
(06:20):
And then telling the people toassimilate, and then telling the
people to assimilate, and thenfollowed by violence, the
violence about snatchingchildren away from their
immediate family, the sexualassault of the women, and then
doing this under the kind ofguise that we have something
better to offer.
(06:40):
Right, and I think we've seenthis play out in a kind of a
contemporary global aspect did a180 pivot and said we're now
(07:03):
going to offer up Indian landsto private concerns and you can
buy them.
But what many people do notknow is they had these
intermediaries, and theseintermediaries were not
objective or balanced and inmany times they were just
crooked.
But the biggest contingency ofthose intermediaries were
(07:27):
churches.
They were Christiandenominations that then stepped
in the road because they wantedto create land bases and still
go about the business ofproselytizing native people.
And so in this period which,you know, you don't have to be a
liberal or a conservative oranything in between was a very
(07:51):
unproductive period in whichmillions of acres were lost by
tribal communities, but thebiggest benefactors were the
Christian denominations, becausethey stepped in and then
assumed the role of bothnegotiations as well as
acquiring lands for their ownvested interests.
(08:11):
And so now you again have thiscontinual kind of methodical
process of taking away the realspiritual and theological kinds
of values from these Nativecommunities.
And so let's fast forward.
When we think about the BearsEars, in many ways what we're
(08:34):
trying to say is not only aretribes really valuable,
productive and efficient landstewards.
By advancing and elevatingtribes as a co-manager to a
national monument, you arereally exercising this really
(08:55):
profound force multiplier.
And the other elements of thatforce multiplier is having
traditional and native waysinstruct the land management
plan, which invariably allow fora greater birth of cultural and
native practice on thelandscape.
The problem, as both Sandy andPhil know, is we view all of
(09:19):
this within the Westernconstruct of law right, and so
the thing that has kind ofplagued us all these years is
this really nebulous term calledsubstantial burden.
But that substantial burden, iesubstantial burden for that
(09:40):
community to worship, is definedby Western standards and
largely by a Judeo-Christiankind of instruction to all that.
And I would say to all mybrethren in Judaism it's largely
Christian and very littleJudaism on that, so it is a
(10:03):
Christian construct to whatcreates a substantial burden and
why that's so important to theconversation is from a native
kind of perspective.
We are not trying to makespecific identification of a
nave, of a stained window, of aconfessional, of a pew.
(10:25):
The entrance to a landscapelike the Bears Ears, which is
incredibly vast, is the gullythat you walk in through a creek
, the mesa that you climb, theenclosure that you get to has an
equanimity to it and thatequanimity creates the
(10:47):
sacredness.
Now that same kind ofsensibility is incredibly
valuable from a conservation,because now we are not trying to
protect a 20 by 20 space, weare trying to protect a 15 mile
radius relative to it.
But what it says is allelements are sacred, they are
(11:12):
just as meaningful to where theactual kind of ceremony or
practice might be, and so, froma Western perspective, what they
really want to do is createconsistency and durability, but
they also want to be reallyspecific, right?
So they want to say, oh, theoverhang is important, so let's
(11:32):
just protect that.
And the reality is, the totalityof landscape is the thing that
creates this element to nativepeople in which they want to
protect, and so I think thebetter way to think about it is,
if you had an entryway to asynagogue, you wouldn't defecate
(11:53):
on it, you wouldn't havegraffiti on it, and the entryway
is just as important as theinner sanctum.
And so we need to look at thetotality, but also the
sensibility of the people thatactually worship, and so, in
many ways, the Bears Ears is agreat manifestation of that,
(12:13):
because it allows the fivetribes involved to not only have
their particular idiosyncraticsensibility because not all
tribes are you know, this is notmonolithic but it also then
allows us to protect thelandscape in a much more
comprehensive way.
(12:34):
So, in many ways, you'regetting a twofer off of that.
You're protecting the totallandscape and you're protecting
everything inside of that.
I just discovered that was theUtah delegation.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
That was so valuable, pat.
I really appreciate that wholekind of exposition of really the
problem of religion.
I'd say I mean a problem ofdefining religion into kind of
narrow Western sort of frameworkthat we have in the academic
(13:23):
study of religion.
How do Indigenous people reallyparticipate in that worldview?
It doesn't fit and this is whyso many of our Supreme Court
cases over the last 40 yearsreally don't have any teeth when
it comes to defending thesesacred places.
Right, if you look at federalIndian law, the American Indian
(13:47):
Religious Freedom Act really hasnot helped in protecting these
sacred places and I'm wonderingif that's kind of what we're
dealing with when it comes tothe kind of fallout around
sacred places like the BearsEars, you know.
I mean the integrity of alandscape has to be present,
(14:10):
it's not just a single spotwhere they might perform
ceremonies at certain times ofthe year.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
It's a reciprocal relationship with the natural
world.
The natural world is areciprocal engagement.
Speaker 4 (14:25):
Yeah, and so, Sandy, I think you make the perfect
segue.
You know, to me another greatexample is Mauna Kea is sacred
in many different ways forNative Hawaiians, including.
It is the place where they doburials.
(14:47):
But it also is representativeof this dynamic of Stop for a
sec, we can edit that out.
Okay, one second, just let it.
Hey, I'm on an interview rightnow, yeah, yeah, speaking of
(15:32):
religion and Jehovah Witness,they must have heard something,
so you know where I was going togo with.
This is Mauna Kea.
Also represents thistriangulation that is really
reflective in many Nativetheologies, but for Native
(15:52):
Hawaiians it is Keakua, godright, kekanaka, the people, and
aina, the land.
And so this representation onhow it has equilibrium just go
(16:48):
to the other side of themountain, or why don't you just
find some alternative so thatsubstantial burden again is
defined by their kind of whatthey think is a burden and not
viewing it again in the totalityof what that means to the
people?
And all these relationshipsreally kind of define their
spirituality.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Well, that's great.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
Western religions are more ideological.
They're not in thisrelationship with the natural
world and in contact.
I mean, it was crucial topenetrate this way of life and
you talk about tribalgovernments today this way of
life and you talk about tribalgovernments today.
Many of those tribal chiefscame through the Bureau of
(17:23):
Indian Affairs system, but theywere selected predominantly
because those were childrenwho'd gone through the boarding
school experience and had a lotof their culture stripped from
them.
So it's a very complicated, youknow, series of problems in
Indian country today because ofthe wrath of colonialism and
(17:47):
what it did culturally.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
I think, too, what you're describing also is, you
know, blatantly apparent.
The doctrine of discovery isblatantly apparent in our
environmental laws and policies,right?
So the way that we tend toregard the natural world is as
(18:11):
resource rather than as relation, right?
And so I think what you'redescribing here is also a kind
of worldview that impacts thesesacred places, you know, like
Bears, Ears and other spotsOnondaga Lake, for example and I
(18:32):
wonder if you see that there'sa relationship between the
doctrine of discovery andenvironmental law and policy.
Speaker 4 (18:41):
Yeah, most certainly right.
So you know, the doctrine ofdiscovery is the extension of a
Western European sensibility,but the introduction of the
legal fiction of private landownership.
And so, from a Nativeperspective, you know, we are
all, in most instances, merelystewards, right, we are
(19:05):
custodians of the land.
And one of the first things,you know, I talked to the
students about and I said you donot have to be Native.
But if you ask me, one thing onhow you can be a better steward
is to revisit your relationshipwith both land, water and, to a
certain extent, sentientobjects.
(19:27):
And when you view them as anextension of yourself, right, it
becomes much more intimate.
And by taking care of thesethings we are essentially taking
care of ourselves, right.
But I also think, you know, in akind of a political kind of
(19:50):
correctness, we have now saidthat man is the problem.
But you know from, I think,from an indigenous perspective,
when you have this concept thatland and water and extension of
yourself, you then can also sayman can also be part of the
solution, and you do notbifurcate this, right, because
(20:14):
we are a part of this, we are apart of this, and so we can then
add to it and not just be, youknow, looking from it from just
an academic window or a kind ofa non-interested, you know,
pedestrian perspective, and soit compels us in a way that we
(20:35):
can be much more engaged, and Ithink our relationships with
land and water then become both,you know, figuratively, as well
as literally, much healthier.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
Yeah, I wondered about that.
I mean, as you were speaking,what would it look like to have
environmental law and policy?
I mean, you've worked inWashington at a kind of urgent
moment when students and othersare really trying to think of a
(21:26):
different way that we can be,that we can exist in this world,
right, that human beings needto be in a better kind of
relationship with one another,but also with the earth.
You know, as Taradaho Sid Hillsays here in Haudenosaunee
(21:48):
territory, peace is onlyestablished when human beings
are in proper relationship tothe natural world.
So this isn't a kind ofpuritanical notion or something
that follows John Muir orsomebody where you know the
natural world has to be, remainuntouched by humans.
(22:11):
Rather, it's a different way ofthinking about economics, of
sane use of the earth, right?
So I wonder Engagement, yeah,engagement with the earth.
So how do you see, as somebodywho's training students in this
(22:32):
area, how do you see us movingforward with a new set of values
?
Us moving forward, you know,with a new set of values.
Speaker 4 (22:46):
Well, I think the biggest thing that you know
comes to mind when I think aboutconservation from an indigenous
perspective and really drivenby that kind of precept, is
durability and sustainability.
We use those as buzzwords rightnow, but in reality Native
people knew that all naturalresources have a limitation, and
(23:08):
that's not to say Native peoplewere perfect in every instance.
But because of traditionalknowledge in at least one corner
is steeped in the observationalknowledge of what occurs over
generations and decades, theywere able to acquire information
that they could then pass downto say if you did this, you may
(23:33):
have the utilization of awaterway for 20 or 30 years, but
if you did it this other way,it might be indefinite into the
future, and so it reallyhallmarks that.
You know, while people hearthese terms like seven and eight
(23:54):
generations out, it was at thekind of seven and eight
generations out.
It was at the kind of you know,the foundation of how they
thought about conservation andthe environment, because they
knew they had to pass that down,and so it in many ways dilutes
the kind of oh, you know what Icall shooting for Q4.
(24:16):
And that is.
Oh, you know what I callshooting for Q4, and that is,
can we make a profitability outof this?
And then we will regroup andthink about the future of
everyone else.
And so instead, what you'resaying is our primary kind of
goal is to preserve and pass itdown better, and when you have
(24:40):
that as your initial goal, youthen are really in this kind of
mode of real conservation andbeing stewards of the land, and
so the first thing I think aboutin that is that that is a very
durable way to manage lands andwaters, and I'm rather certain
(25:05):
the paradigms and models that weuse now relative to most
extraction, people cannot saywith a straight face, there is a
durability and sustainabilityto it.
Straight face, there is adurability and sustainability to
it.
They're looking at such kind ofsmall like elements of time on
how they want to utilize it, andit usually has some profit
(25:28):
margin or a dividend or a sharekind of incentive to it, which
really then confuse theobjectives of conservation and
environment.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
Do you need help catching up on today's topic or
do you want to learn more aboutthe resources mentioned?
If so, please check our websiteat
podcastdoctrineofdiscoveryorgfor more information and, if you
like this episode, review it onApple, Spotify or wherever you
listen to podcasts.
And now back to theconversation.
Speaker 3 (26:05):
When you interject that the earth is regenerative,
it's ever-changing.
Species die, species are born.
It's a whole differentconnection to the earth.
You can foretell what kind offish will appear in the stream
when they breed, by a certainwildflower that may be blooming
(26:28):
I mean the Haudenosaunee, forexample, had this language, as
all Native people do.
You know the world speaks tothem and how things are changing
and the rhythms and times,which are not according to a
calendar, but they're accordingto these cycles of life.
So it's so interactive and it'sreally hard to say.
You can manage anything, butyou need to tap into that
(26:51):
regenerative machine of creationthat we're part of.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
Right, right yeah.
Speaker 4 (26:59):
So, you know, one of the things and I haven't got to
both of you and I was going tokind of tell you about is so one
of the things that I'm workingwith at Yale now is doing
something, probably in the fallwhere we would bring folks like
yourself, but also with otherpeople that you know may be more
(27:22):
based from the historical, butalso attorneys, to see if there
is not a legal remedy, at leastfor tribes in the US as well as
Alaska Natives, relative to thedoctrine of discovery, I think
we have had really robustdiscussions that really kind of
(27:46):
provide a summation on theimplications and what we are now
living with.
The thing that we have not doneis figure out is there a way to
confront the involveddenominations on restoring
(28:08):
tribal nations?
And the reason why I say thatis this is really.
I think about it in a fairlysimplistic way, as I do most
things, I'm not the most nuancedthinker, but it is like an
apology, right, it is, I amsorry.
Two, this will not happen again.
(28:29):
But three, and this is, youknow, analogous to restorative
justice, which is a Christianprecept to all of these
denominations.
How can I make you whole?
And so, while Mennonites,quakers and even the Catholic
Church have apologized.
They have not satisfied thatthird element, which is probably
(28:51):
the most important how have Imade these other parties whole
for actions that I am culpablefor?
And so the convening would beto really kind of put in the
thinkers of this world and maybeto get audience with these
denominations to say is it therea pathway?
(29:12):
Now, the reason I mentionedthis one this is kind of your
guy's life work, so I would likeyour engagement.
But the other portion is portionis.
I think if we can get thedenominations, especially the
(29:33):
Mennonites and Quakers, to move,it might create leverage to the
Catholic Church.
All of that is important.
But I also think there's anorganic, natural kind of segue
to land back.
All of these denominations havelarge land holdings, and so if
they're talking about are weever going to make Indian
country totally whole no, that'snot possible, it's too vast
(29:56):
amount.
But can they do in some waystart returning lands, because
we now have the apparatus to do?
Can we start this conversationBecause really, at the end of
(30:36):
the day, relative to your owndoctrinaire, you have not
satisfied what is required.
What do you think about that?
I mean to reverse the role ofthe interviewing.
Speaker 3 (30:49):
Phil and Sandy Absolutely Returning land to
Indigenous people who understandthis proper relationship is
only going to free up the landand help everybody to begin
recovering from thisdisconnection that's been dumped
on everybody throughcolonialism and the church.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
Unfortunately, you were not part of our Doctrine of
Discovery conference lastDecember and you should have
been, but we had lawyers thereand their whole orientation now
is how do you put before theSupreme Court the doctrine of
(31:34):
discovery Maybe not this SupremeCourt, but you know, how do you
test the doctrine of discovery,which, as we know, is part of
property law, Doctrine ofDiscovery, which, as we know, is
part of property law.
The other part of what we didat the conference was we had a
bishops panel where Lutheran,Episcopalian and Catholic
(31:59):
bishops were on the stage infront of all these indigenous
peoples and then they wereresponded to by Haudenosaunee
leaders, a clan mother andsomeone who sat on the chief's
council for 25 years, andessentially what came up was
exactly what you're talkingabout, Pat.
(32:21):
Was that essentially okay?
Apologies are great.
We've had over 350 you knowrepudiations of the doctrine of
discovery.
Now, what you know?
Now, what are we going to do?
It's a little like ouruniversities giving land
acknowledgements, you know andthen no, and then now?
(32:42):
what do we do now?
What are you going to do aboutit?
Sort of thing.
Speaker 4 (32:46):
Yeah, you make, as always, phil, a very nuanced
point, and so the more I thinkabout this.
But I would like the conveningto really instruct it, as
opposed to, you know, some kindof guttural instinct, but my
sense is it is less legal andmore political.
(33:07):
Right, there's a kind of apolitical thing that must occur,
and so I agree with everythingyou say.
But I think, like everything,we need to then really approach
this from an iterative processand then set the stage for a
(33:27):
dialogue that continues on thedialogue that you have and
saying, all right, it might be ahard toll to kind of if you're
thinking about you knowaterallykind of agree, this is the right
thing to do, that's what theydid.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
So the bishops in the Q&A in that panel basically
admitted yes, that's what we'redoing, those are the next steps.
We are going to return land tothe Onondaga Nation, right.
So we got those verbal assentto what the next steps are going
(34:19):
to be.
So I think that's what you'redescribing as a kind of
political shift, but that's alsoa kind of value shift within
these Christian denominations,right, and it's across the board
.
And these are big denominations, you know, these are mainline
churches, you know so.
And, as you say, they havemajor land holdings across the
(34:41):
country and it goes right backto the early colonial period
where they are the, as you said,the intermediaries between the
evangelical or themissionization of Native people
and the state right, the statetakeover.
(35:01):
So I think we have a basis forthe kind of convening that
you're suggesting there, pat.
I think there's really somereal possibilities.
Speaker 4 (35:14):
And I think there's an inflection point, and this is
how I'll bring in back theBears Ears.
The inflection point of theBears Ears is one of competency,
and it's not that we needed thevalidation of the federal
government or this kind ofWestern construct, but the
(35:34):
federal trust relationship,right, is one really saying
tribes are not competent?
It is as if the federalgovernment is viewing tribes as
if they're Britney Spears.
Right, you cannot makedecisions.
If it's a big thing, you got torun back to Papa and we got to
decide for you.
Now there's a little wrinkle tothis and both you and Sandy
(35:58):
know this.
So, while they're doing thisand preaching assimilation, the
single biggest feature ofassimilation they did not give
to tribes is fee, simpleownership over the lands.
So the single biggest componentto acquiring legacy wealth was
then not given to tribes whilethey're still talking all this
BS that you should assimilate.
(36:20):
So they basically say you allneed to drive a car, but I'm not
giving you any carburetor ornor will I give you any
cylinders in the car.
Right, they just want to giveyou the thing.
But I'll go back to this kindof belabored point.
When they said the tribesshould be co-managers, they were
(36:42):
really saying is we trust thecompetency of tribes?
Is we trust the competency oftribes?
And so it elevates it in a way,now that we can go on these
other kind of attendant issuesthat are related to the doctrine
of discovery, and what happenedthrough these many
denominations is to say you knowyou should give back these
(37:06):
lands because we've always knownthis, but we're incredible
stewards and custodians of landsand they will be well taken
care of, Maybe even better takencare of than under your
particular leadership.
Historical kind of recognitionof tribes being the first
(37:30):
co-managers of a nationalmonument, I think gives momentum
to these other movements thathave land back as part of their
narrative no-transcript but thatis not the case where we are
(38:02):
from.
Speaker 3 (38:05):
So I have to just clarify the Onondaga.
They never fell under thatcontrol.
The FBI will not step foot ontheir territory unless they get
permission or any police.
There's no police state,there's no taxes, there's no
prisons.
Speaker 2 (38:24):
So I mean.
So we have a model here, Ithink, and even though recently
there was the return of athousand acres of land, the
trust relationship is somethingthat the Onondaga will not enter
(38:53):
into with the federalgovernment.
They say essentially, eitheryou're returning land or you're
not, I mean, and it becomes partof our nation, or it doesn't.
So there are steps that eachindividual case will have to be
considered, but I think gettingChristian denominations in this
(39:17):
post-doctrine of discoverymoment is a really good idea in
these conversations about thereturn of land.
I'm very excited about this.
Speaker 3 (39:29):
Post-era.
Post-era.
Speaker 2 (39:30):
Post-era yeah.
Speaker 4 (39:35):
Yeah, and it's something that I think, like so
many things that have a kind ofpolitical context, is, you know,
sometimes you're just in theright place at the right time,
and while it may have nothing todo with the you know the topic
of the doctrine of discovery Ithink about during the Obama
(39:57):
administration, where therebecame an opening that was very
kind of apparent and vivid, inwhich he then could put into law
about the legal rights for gaypeople in their communities, and
so some of this is toconstantly be on the vigil that
(40:18):
we're creating a momentum,because when that opening
appears it's not something thatwe've planned but we've been
(40:45):
prepared for, and so, in reality, what I'm taking is, you know,
the kind of conference that youdid and then continuing answers
at once, but it may instructthat we need to create an
organization that is doing this24-7 and having, you know, these
kinds of conversations with allof these denominations, because
(41:11):
I do think in some ways we'remuch closer than we have ever
been, and so this is all kind ofcompounding through everyone's,
both education as well asadvocating through many
conversations and doing our ownkind of advocacy.
Speaker 2 (41:34):
Yeah, and I think it's such an important lesson
really for students.
I mean, you know, we'retraining the next generation of,
you know, indigenous advocatesfor the environment, for the
natural world, and I think, asyou say, religion needs to step
(42:01):
up, or these Christiandenominations need to step up
and really make a difference,because what we're facing,
what's coming, is really goingto be catastrophic if we don't
start changing our practicesquickly.
So, yeah, I think there is alsothe urgency of the moment, as
(42:23):
well as the kind of opportunitythat has been handed us by
previous people working on theseissues.
Speaker 4 (42:32):
Right, you know, and I think about this, and I think
that you know, many people don'trealize how Native communities
have pride, not equally, butthey have pride in being an
American.
Pride not equally, but theyhave pride in being an American.
They have pride in thecommunity they're from.
(42:59):
But the kind of greaterlandscape in which they're
involved, and I can't help butthink about the turmoil of the
kind of challenge of thosefeelings.
Right, you're here, but you'realso under the foot of something
, and this foot in some ways youstill have love and pride for.
And I think about, you know thewords he was not native but
(43:21):
they're still prescient words ofFrederick Douglass.
He was in these series ofconversations back in the day
with someone actually in, if I'mnot mistaken, in Belfast, and
he writes in thinking of America.
I sometimes find myself admiringher bright blue sky, her grand
(43:41):
old woods, her fertile fields,her beautiful rivers, her mighty
lakes and star-crownedmountains.
But my rapture is soon checked,my joy is soon turned to
mourning when I remember thatall is cursed with the infernal
actions of slave-holding,robbery and wrong.
When I remember, with thewaters of her noblest rivers,
(44:11):
the tears of my brethren areborne to the ocean, disregarded
and forgotten, and that her mostfertile fields drink daily of
the warm blood of my outragedsisters, I am filled with
unutterable loathing.
You know that conflict is thething.
That, on a personal level, iswhat we're trying to do, right?
We try to reconcile theserelationships, and so we have to
(44:37):
prompt the other party to dothe right thing.
Speaker 3 (44:42):
And to really know equity and freedom.
Speaker 4 (44:45):
Exactly, exactly, sandy.
Speaker 3 (44:47):
And that was integrated into this whole
forming of this nation when theymet with Haudenosaunee Loyani,
the men of the good mind.
We don't have a hierarchy ofchiefs.
It's all about integration andcoming together and thought and
purpose and living in properrelationships.
So everybody has that hope, butwe've not experienced freedom
(45:11):
and equity yet, right.
Speaker 2 (45:15):
What a great way to end our conversation.
Pat, Really really appreciateyou and all you're doing there,
and we hope we can continue thisconversation into the future.
Speaker 4 (45:27):
We will.
I appreciate you guys and we'llbe talking soon.
Speaker 3 (45:31):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (45:36):
The producers of this podcast were Adam DJ Brett and
Jordan Lone Colon.
Our intro and outro is socialdancing music by Oris Edwards
and Regis Cook.
This podcast is funded incollaboration with the Henry
Luce Foundation, syracuseUniversity and Hendricks Chapel
and the Indigenous ValuesInitiative.
If you like this episode,please check out our website and
(45:57):
make sure to subscribe.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.