Troy, NY Map - 1858

Troy, NY Map - 1845

Clash of cultures: Uprising at Akwesasne

Abstract

This dissertation proposes a new premise for the increasing conflict that led to the uprising and death in 1990 on the Akwesasne (St. Regis Indian) Reservation. The author argues that it was how the governments of United States, Canada, Ontario and Québec provinces, and especially New York State communicated and interacted culturally with each other and the Mohawks of Akwesasne that led to the violence. The long-held explanation for the hostility on the reservation is that the bureaucratic differences and lack of cooperation between the two countries were responsible. This document explains that the root causes of the conflict were subtler and that the United States and Canadian jurisdictional communications with the Mohawks were culturally insensitive and confusing, and that the New York State government acted too late to stem the escalating conflict. The writer used historical methodology and reviewed twelve hundred written sources, including newspaper articles and eyewitness accounts; of these, approximately seven hundred sources satisfied historical research criteria. These sources show that during 1989, the governments of United States, Canada, Ontario and Québec provinces, and particularly New York State, ignored repeated requests from the elected tribal governments for assistance to address the intensifying conflict on the United States' side of the reservation. By 1990, the various governments recognized the seriousness of the situation, but New York State, which had the greatest ability to act, did not do so until after the exacerbation of violence led to deaths. New York State ignored the tribal government's pleas for help in curbing and stopping the violence at Akwesasne until it was too late. It was the lack of culturally appropriate communication that caused the uprising and deaths.

Rugenstein, Ernest Richard, IV, Ph.D., Union Institute and University, 2009, 227 pages; AAT 3395015

Order a copy: http://bit.ly/boDIKQ

Foiled again: Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Looking at the latest news we find ourselves confronted with the combined truth of rhetoric and propaganda. The United States is one of the biggest proponents of the rights of humans. Human Rights are part of the US national conversation. In fact certain human rights are so important in the US that they are mandated in the Bill of Rights, the first amendments to the US Constitution. The idea of human rights is not just considered domestically but US foreign policy is guided by the idea of people having inalienable rights. Yet we find that in a practical sense the US concern over human rights is not so important. We talk a good game about the abuses of China and yet we don’t have any problems trading with them. The concerns for the rights of women are important to the US as long as it doesn’t impinge on our access to oil and profits.

Don’t get me wrong the US is by far more benevolent toward the rights of people than many regimes around the world. But still, let’s not kid ourselves, just because you aren’t the biggest bully in the school doesn’t mean you’re not a bully. It just means there are those that are worse. That doesn’t excuse the minor bully’s behavior. From the US take over of Hawaii in 1896 through the military occupation of the Philippines (via Spanish-American War) to the diplomatic imperialism of the ‘Open Door Policy’ in China, the US has shown its nature. Let’s just say that in a game of RISK you wouldn’t trust the US player.

Human rights in the US are tricky to understand. Most of the treaties made with recognized nations of Native Americans have been abrogated in some way. In fact the US has gone so far as to try to disband and unrecognize tribes. Originally, Indians were placed on reservations to marginalize them and later this was combined with trying to assimilate their children to eradicate the culture altogether. Overall, little has changed. Certainly since the beginnings of Red Power and the American Indian Movement of the late 1960s Native Americans have regained some of what they have lost. However, we find many complaints about treatment by Native groups concerning interaction with the federal government and its subordinates. An example of this is a Mohawk powerboat that was run-down by the US Coast Guard and Border Patrol. The boat and its two male crew were traveling from one portion of the Akwesasne Reservation to another. The reservation is divided by the US and Canadian border, which is not recognized by the Indians. During the night a Mohawk boat, going between points on the reservation, was chased, first by the RCMP, and in the end rammed by a US Coast Guard ship. The ramming of the Mohawk boat injured its two passengers. One of the Mohawks is currently paralyzed. There was no contraband found or in fact alleged. This is a case where Native rights are being ignored by the US, a situation where laws and rules are imposed on a sovereign people with no regard to ancient and historic rights or land ownership.[1]

Just recently during another round of voting the United States refused to vote for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.[2] “On Sept. 13, 2007 the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to protect their lands and resources, and to maintain their unique cultures and traditions. About 370 million indigenous people live in the world.”[3] The US, Canada, and Australia have decided not to vote in favor of the UN rights declaration. New Zealand has recently changed its stance.

The perplexing thing here is that the US wants to come across as the human rights champion of the world and puts up a good front in doing it. Yet, here in the United States we find hundreds of thousands of Native peoples who are part of indigenous nations whose rights are ignored. Many have these rights guaranteed by treaties and in some cases law. “Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild-west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination - by starvation and uneven combat - of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity.”[4]

If the US signs the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples then major changes would have to occur in the treatment of indigenous people here in the US. Certainly if Canada and the US sign there would be a redistribution of federal lands and situations such as Akwesasne could no longer occur.

Just recently the US is considering reviewing its stance on this UN declaration. If signing means that human relationships will become better and people will be treated fairer, shouldn’t the US sign?

---

[1] Nesseth, David. Akwesasne Wants Independent Investigation of Boat Crash. Standard Freeholder, http://www.standard-freeholder.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2534875, April 15, 2010.

[2] Staff. US Says No to Indigenous Rights. Sunday. Press TV, http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=124290&sectionid=3510203, April 25, 2010.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Toland, John. Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976, 702.

What makes you a citizen?

In my last posting I wrote about how indigenous people were reclaiming rights in some instances and exerting their rights in others. On two of the reservation of the Mohawks, Akwesasne and Kahnawake, non-Natives are being evicted. This is a process that has occurred in the past and is used to ensure tribal/ethnic "status”. Doug George-Kanentio wrote “at Akwesasne, as is true on other Mohawk territories, having "status" is as precious as it is precarious. Precisely who is considered a Mohawk is a four-step process involving blood quantum, family relations, quality of character, and communal standing. At Akwesasne a person might be 100 per cent native genetically but if they do not adhere to the social standards of the community they might be excluded or expelled.”[1]

The need for native communities to maintain a certain “status” among their people is understandable and in some ways no different for identifying membership than other ethno-centered religions or world-views. The point of interest comes in asking what would the implications be if international nation-states used some form of this four-fold test to identify citizenship? Would they look at a person’s genetic markers instead of some form of blood quantum to see if they had the right ‘stuff?’ Could they identify family relations and review their quality of character try to measure your community standing? According to a four-fold test being born in the country would only count 25% toward being kept as a citizen.

The first part of the four-fold test used by the Natives as a test for citizenship is the blood quantum. This requirement concerns the outdated idea that different races had different types of blood. Although no longer used in its ancient sense it is still used in the Native American community as a simple test of pedigree among the members. Different tribes have different requirements, however it’s not that different than being a naturally born citizen of the US. Either the person is born here in the US or one of the parents is a US citizen. This is a blood quantum of sorts, a pedigree. Presently this is the only requirement for US citizenship. Otherwise you are naturalized which takes on other requirements.

If the government were to adopt the other three aspects of the test it could change the dynamics of citizenship immensely. How would we handle further requirements? Look at the second requirement, what are your family relationships? How do you answer the question as to where you are from or where do your relatives live? Who are your friends? The government would have the right to categorize people into different threat levels or acceptable citizenship levels. Do you cavort with the right people or hobnob with the politically correct? Your citizenship could depend on it.

Add to the aforementioned requirements, requirements three and four and you will have a citizenship test that would be nearly all subjective. Along with the requirements of “blood quantum” and family relationships the quality of your character would be analyzed along with your community standing. What aspects of character would be looked into? Do you belong to ‘Save the Whales?’ Is that a good thing or bad? Would a criminal record mean something, would drug use, maybe liking too many cheeseburgers would be a crime. Do you smoke? Shame on you for smoking, but we’ll take the tax money. Maybe you’re to conservative or liberal, a socialist or a hard-nose capitalist. How would this affect the overall equation in the four-fold test?

The fourth requirement talks about community standing. Do you go to church? Atheist? Monotheistic? Owe a lot of money? Pay your mortgage on time? Have you ever gotten behind on your income tax? Are you for the war, against the war? The answers to these questions could determine your fate as a citizen. Under these circumstances anybody could lose their citizenship or gain it. How much would prevalent moral attitudes change interpretation of the standards? Trying to become a citizen during prohibition may make a difference in acceptance.

The four-fold test for membership makes sense and works in ethno-centric cultural circumstances such as in a religion or ethnicity. Natives Americans need some test to determine tribal membership and this method works well. However, a similar test used to test citizenship in relation to a nation-state would be too subjective.

For a country to come up with a set of tests to ensure correct citizenship smells of emperor worship found during the Roman Empire. To stay in the good graces of Rome and to show loyalty you had to worship the Emperor as a God. A little incense in the fire and a simple ‘Hail Caesar’ and you were good to go. This is the same thing that a test for citizenship would bring. It would be based on some preconceived notion of future bio-politics and justifiable morality. Whatever is deemed the best for the country or should I say state, would be the how the answers would be interpreted. If you fell outside some preconceived norms you would be expelled (possibly terminated) from the citizenry.

There is a 1996 movie called “Escape from LA.” In the movie it’s 2013. The United States has gone through a series of catastrophes and LA has been separated from the mainland. The US government has become a theocracy and non-desirables are expelled out of the country to live in LA. War hero Snake Plissken is sent into LA to get a device that can destroy modern society. During the time period of the movie the US tests the citizens by having a code of conduct that is acceptable. If you don’t measure up you’re out or if you like, dead. One can see the natural desire in our own society for there to be a test for patriotism, good character, loyalty, etc. Ultra-conservatives and I am afraid some ultra-liberals would like to see something like this. Everyone is afraid and wants to be sure their neighbor is a good guy, all of our needs cared for in one way or another. Sounds nice to be safe and totally secure as a country but at what price. If you watch “Escape from LA” you’ll see how being a citizen could become skewed and that the freedoms you think you have can leave with a vote. Far fetched? Probably. But a test may be in our futures to see if you are a real patriot. Do you think the right way? Act the right way? Believe the right way? I doubt it will come to that. In any case I don’t think we could find a Snake Plissken to save the day.

---

[1] George-Kanentio, Doug. Why Mohawks Are Kicking Non-Natives Off the Reserve. The Gazette, 2010. Accessed. Available from http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/todays-paper/Mohawks+kicking+natives+reserve/2558867/story.html.

Indigenous Peoples Reclaiming Their Rights

The 370 million indigenous people around the world are beginning to reclaim the rights they once had. Most were the victim of Social Darwinism where with natural selection the stronger subdues and subjugates the weaker. We have found this repeated in North & South America, Africa, across the Pacific and to the indigenous people in Europe and Asia. This attitude of the oppressor changed when the United Nations General Assembly adopted The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on September 13, 2007. This spurred the surge of indigenous people reclaiming their rights.[1]

Just recently the Natives in Noorvik, Alaska were regaining reinstituting ancient traditions banned by missionaries. Quakers who came to spread Christianity declared traditional dancing evil. At the Cup’ik Eskimo village of Chevak, native dancing was banned by the Russian Catholic Church but revived 20 years ago. When the council at Noorvik found out they would be one of the first communities to be counted by the US census, they wanted to demonstrate their native dance and culture when the federal officials arrived. Even the Christian churches are backing the shift saying that they will be going to a place in the afterlife where we all sing and dance to the Lord. The reintroduction of the dance is significant because dancing has never been done in the current location of Noorvik, which means "a place that is moved to" in Inupiaq.[2]

Native Hawaiians are also trying to regain the rights that were stolen from them in the 1893 coup by native-born descendants of US immigrants backed by US Marines and the Cruiser Boston. Congress has introduced a bill that will allow Native Hawaiians to have a separate government with federal land being redistributed to the people. After years of figurative fighting, the voices of indigenous Hawaiians have finally been heard. The bill will define “Native Hawaiians” as a distinct ethnic group that can trace its lineage directly to indigenous inhabitants of the island prior to 1893. Although some are still fighting the issue, the Governor of Hawaii is strongly supportive.[3]

The indigenous people of Canada also have been struggling. “The Lil'wat, Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations' journey began in 1997.”[4] The recent Olympics have shown that they are no longer “Dime-Store Indians” and are contributors to the nation. The Canadian government had wanted to assimilate them and had outlawed their culture and their language. This is all beginning to change and the First Nations of Canada are trying to their place in the nation. The 633 nations of Canada are now trying to find a new method of partnership.[5]

In Northern New York the Akwesasne Reservation and the Kahnawake Reservation along with other tribes of the Hodenosaunee’s six nations are asserting their rights to control the membership of the nations and who can live on their reservations. They have been accused of being racist but in reality they are just trying to take back control that has been ebbing over time. “At Akwesasne, as is true on other Mohawk territories, having "status" is as precious as it is precarious. Precisely who is considered a Mohawk is a four-step process involving blood quantum, family relations, quality of character, and communal standing. At Akwesasne a person might be 100 per cent native genetically but if they do not adhere to the social standards of the community they might be excluded or expelled.”[6] The US has come to the point where they allow the Native nations a great deal of latitude over their internal affairs, however this is not the same in the province of Québec. As the Mohawks try to solidify their community at Kahnawake, the Canadians view it as racist. “One Quebec writer asked whether the evictions were ‘ethnic cleansing,’ or simply ‘downright racism.’ Federal Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl says he is ‘uncomfortable’ with the evictions. But Strahl admitted there was nothing illegal about them -- and probably nothing the government could do.”[7] It is interesting to note that Québec has no qualms with their own past and the terrible way the First Nations were treated there in the past.

We finally see Native groups reasserting their rights. Even in South America various indigenous groups are moving forward. An example is the Wayúu people who are rebuilding their culture and moving forward in modernizing their lives after being oppressed by various governments.

I applaud the efforts of the Native people around the world to rebuild their nations and to take their rightful place in the world. It is about time that the world recognizes what has occurred and what the idea of Social Darwinism has done to so many. The rest of us, non-Natives, should remember our past of imperialism and the way we destroyed entire peoples. The strongest and the majority are not always right.

---

[1] UN. "United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People." New York: United Nations, 2007.

[2] D'oro, Rachel. Alaska Village among Native Communities Reclaiming Ancient Traditions Banned by Missionaries. Nation. Los Angeles Times, 2010. Accessed February 21,. Available from http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-reclaiming-native-tradition,0,4992523.story.

[3] D'oro, Rachel. Alaska Village among Native Communities Reclaiming Ancient Traditions Banned by Missionaries. Nation. Los Angeles Times, 2010. Accessed February 21,. Available from http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-reclaiming-native-tradition,0,4992523.story.

[4] Moore, Dennis. Canadian Aboriginal Tribes Want Benefits to Extend Beyond Olympics. USA Today, 2010. Accessed. Available from http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/vancouver/2010-02-25-aboriginal-canadians_N.htm.

[5] Ibid.

[6] George-Kanentio, Doug. Why Mohawks Are Kicking Non-Natives Off the Reserve. The Gazette, 2010. Accessed. Available from http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/todays-paper/Mohawks+kicking+natives+reserve/2558867/story.html.

[7] Cudmore, James. Are Recent Kahnawake Eviction Notices Racist? CBC News: The National, 2010. Accessed. Available from http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/02/are-recent-kahnawake-eviction-notices-racist.html#socialcomments.

Skin Color Map for Indigenous People