Native Americans in AZ

What happens when Native Americans in Arizona attempt to stop construction of an oil refinery on sacred lands? Lots and lots of racist rhetoric.

According to the NY Times, Arizona is

“one of the fastest-growing parts of the country and a place where developers are increasingly running up against newly powerful but tradition-minded American Indian leaders.”

Don’t you just love the part about Native American leaders being “newly powerful”?

…or this

“Like the land itself, the fight over the refinery reflects a tangle of cultures and centuries of bitterness between Indians and newcomers.”

I wonder why Native Americans in Arizona might be “bitter” with “newcomers” (code for white people)?

…and then

“Business and political leaders in Yuma argue that it’s little more than a land grab…a dubious attempt by the tribe to block much-needed development and assert claims to territory lost long ago.”

Can we talk about land grabs that were perhaps a little less civil?

…it keeps going

“It has also brought resentment of the tribe’s newfound clout to the surface.”

Umm. Yes, brown people with power always seems to bring out the “resentment.”

…there’s more

“Casey Prochaska, chairwoman of the Yuma County Board of Supervisors, adds: “My grandmother probably went across here in a covered wagon. This country didn’t stop because they walked over this land.”

Yes, “they” walked over the land and your grandmother et al. walked over “them.”

…questions?

“It’s a question of how far does their sphere of influence go,” says Ken Rosevear, executive director of the Yuma County Chamber of Commerce. “Does it go clear to Phoenix? To Las Vegas? The whole West?”

Yes, (white folks better) watch out for the burgeoning “sphere of influence” of Native Americans in the West.

14 thoughts on “Native Americans in AZ”

  1. Two things:

    1) The story is so obviously written from white/WASP perspective. It belies the argument that journalists are “neutral” or “objective” relayers of information.

    2) A little more analysis would have been nice. For example:

    Business and political leaders in Yuma argue that it’s little more than a land grab by Mr. Jackson, a dubious attempt by the tribe to block much-needed development and assert claims to territory lost long ago.

    Really? How about explaining how it was ‘lost’? Stuff like that – operating under that giuse of “journalistic neutrality” really serves to reinforce the idea that white people ‘discovered’ the continent.

  2. I did not read one, solitary “racist” thing in those quotes. In fact, I did not read anything that was even prejudiced. The “racism” is inferred by the blogger apparently and then presented as fact. Case in point

    [blockquote] [i]”It has also brought resentment of the tribe’s newfound clout to the surface.”[/i]

    Umm. Yes, brown people with power always seems to bring out the “resentment.” [/blockquote]

    There are any number of reasons that resentment could exist, the most likely being that a group that previously had limited influence is standing in the way of a group of people that want something. Such a situation can arise between different groups of people that are comprised of the same race.

    Similarly, you interpretation of the word “newcomers” is more racially charged than that of the article. You assume that all newcomers are white people. Are you suggesting that only white people work for companies who want to build refineries? You don’t think that some of these people might be black, Asian, Indian (India), and perhaps, even Native American? This is what happens when you read race in where race not necessarily is.

  3. Oh…and regarding the refinery. If the tribe has a legal claim to those lands, they should be able to defend that in court against the refinery company. If not, then I side with the refinery. Regardless of past wrongs, it is what it is in 2007 and these parties should have to work from that basis in this case.

  4. In fact, I did not read anything that was even prejudiced.

    Of course you didn’t. But then again, you and I have never been part of a group that has been systematically hacked to pieces by another group so it is difficult to “read” into something that has been so far removed from our lived experience.

    a group that previously had limited influence is standing in the way of a group of people that want something.

    Wow. That comment is so full of irony that my ironic-o-meter almost fractured…

    Native Americans with influence standing defiantly against a “group” that wants something…it would seem that Native Americans with power is something that people in dominant groups are not used to seeing.

    Why did Native Americans have limited influence in the past? and how perhaps, does that past influence the rhetoric of today?

  5. Of course you didn’t. But then again, you and I have never been part of a group that has been systematically hacked to pieces by another group so it is difficult to “read” into something that has been so far removed from our lived experience.

    And to be technical, neither have any of the members of the tribe today. They were not alive over a hundred when all the terrible things were going on. Thus, how do they have a “lived experience” of something that happened when they were not alive?

    Why did Native Americans have limited influence in the past? and how perhaps, does that past influence the rhetoric of today?

    Yes. We know terrible things were done to Native Americans over 100 hundred years ago. This is 2007. I am not saying history is unimportant, but there is a limit as to how much it can be used as a rationale for contemporary actions.

  6. Why do we even have history classes? They seem to have no use, bearing, impact, effect, etc. when it comes to present day.

    Do you not see any parallels to the events in contemporary society and how they relate to the past?

    This article seems to be saying that it is difficult for those who are in power to face Native Americans who now have power when previously they did not.

  7. Eric,

    Do you not see any parallels to the events in contemporary society and how they relate to the past?

    First, I know that history is relevant and that knowing that history is important. However, just because two similar groups (and in this case the degree of similarity of the “white man” role is debatable) face off does not imply that the historical parallels are precise. I think there is a huge different between Native Americans wielding new found political clout and using the legal system compared to a battle between warriors and the U.S. Army with guns and arrows. Apples and oranges.

  8. In comes down to power. Native Americans in this country have never before had this amount of political power. Now that Native Americans are “facing off” against those who had previously rolled over them in wagons, it is difficult for the wagoneers to accept that those who have been oppressed for so long are able to use the same systems as the oppressors in order to fight back.

  9. “They were not alive over a hundred when all the terrible things were going on. ”

    Just because those events happened a long time ago doesn’t mean their effects are not still felt today. I didn’t live then, I didn’t fight any Native Americans, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t still benefit from land that was taken from them and that they don’t still have to deal with a lot of unfair things. So to act like that nasty stuff is all in the past and we should just start fresh with the way things just happen to be in 2007 is not going to lead to fair treatment.

  10. I do agree that the events of 100 years ago do impact their lives. I do not want to leave the impression that I do not recognize that. But I still stand by the point that they do not have personal experience of the extreme treatment that their forefathers received. I do back to points I have made in other threads on this general topic. While the land that Indians controlled in the 1800s may have been taken inappropriately, how can you justify going to the landowner in 2007, who had no role in those actions, and say “This land that you bought and paid for – get off.” That is punishing the not guilty. That is why I say we have to deal with the situation as it is today. We can attempt to rectify past wrongs where that is reasonably feasible, but that may not always be an available avenue.

  11. just because we only learn (marginally at that) about the genocide of Native people that happened hundreds of years ago means that it stopped hundreds of years ago. I’d suggest reading folks like Andrea Smith or Winona LaDuke. It was within the lifetime of many folks alive today that Native wimmin were sterilized without their consent and that children were taken from their parents and assimilated into White culture. To this day, the government continues to break treaties. Native people suffer higher rates of unemployment than any other group…. Genocide didn’t end when school books stopped talking about Native people.

  12. Well. Native American peoples are among the fastest growing populations in the US today. Qualified Native Americn individuals may attend several high-quality universitys, gratis, so long as they can show proof of tribal affiliation. There are many law suits pending to advance justice in the face of vast historical wrongs. . . All this is good news. Yet, you can’t legislate emotion. That some people are upset that other people want to stop them from persuing their goals, well, that sounds normal to me. What? Should they have been pleased? Personally, I don’t feel especially warm toward married white middle aged men. I suspect that I make them nervous as well. But the rule of law (more than it used to, at least) prevails. You can’t tell me who to like, but you can say that I must sell my house to any quaified buyer, even if he is a white married male =8-)
    As well, he must sell his house to *me* if I can afford it. He doesn’t have to like me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.