A Different Story: Media Stories about Contemporary Indigenous Life

All too frequently, media depictions of indigenous peoples gives a very one-sided picture of them as passive victims, and fails to capture the resilience and vibrancy of modern indigenous lives. Perhaps mainstream media and culture are more comfortable with that image of indigenous peoples, but now and again a more rounded and complete account of indigenous peoples appears.



According to this news story, the Lakota Peoples Law Project speaks favourably about the depiction of life in the Pine Ridge Reservation in the National Geographic Article, “In the Shadow of Wounded Knee.”
Both the newstory and the National Geographic article provide informative and balanced stories on indigenous life and the way in which history is a source of strength and identity in the present, not a tale of unmitigated victimhood and suffering. These are stories well worth reading, that give an unblinking and insight view into contemporary indigenous lives.

These media stories tell a different story, removing the all-too-prevalent and inaccurate portrayal of indigenous peoples as nothing but victims.

What do you prefer: traditional medicine or chemical one?

BBC news report that a hospital in Riobamba, Ecuador, is offering patients “traditional indigenous Andean medicine alongside Western treatments”.

‘Hospital Andino’ gives the opportunity to patients to choose, according to their belief, what type of treatment they wish for: natural treatment or chemical treatment. If the patient does not choose a conventional doctor/medicine he will be referred to a "yachak" (shamans) who will run a diagnostic of the patient. According to yachak Mariano Atupana, the patient usually needs and/or comes for a spiritual cleansing and thus, the yachak would clean the patient's aura leaving the patient energetic by taking away the patients’ negative energy. Patients will leave feeling renew.

Certainly the Hospital is given the chance to people and more importantly to indigenous peoples who are often doubtful of chemical medicines (Western medicine). Finally, the report asserts that indigenous peoples are “more willing to take other medication if it goes alongside what the shamans say.” Ecuador ratified ILO Convention 169 and this example given by the Hospital is a clear commitment that the Ecuadorian country is in the right path.

The end of the road for the Wetlands? A continuation of the “Trail of Broken Promises” and failure to protect indigenous sacred spaces

Is the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the fate of the wetlands adjoining Haskell Indian Nations University in Lawrence, Kansas, USA the end of the road? On July 10, 2012, the 3 judge panel made a unanimous ruling that would permit the construction of a road across the wetlands.

This is despite the arguments raised to preserve the wetlands as historically significant. This court ruling is not welcomed news for those who favour the preservation of the wetlands. The court's ruling fails to capture the importance of the wetlands and their connection to the history of not only Haskell, but of indigenous peoples and their relationship, past, present and future to the United States. Commentary on the wetlands has been the subject of a previous blog post.

The 10th Circuit decision can be seen as just one more event in the chain of events that devalues the sacred spaces of indigenous peoples. As detailed in this news story, Haskell students completed their “Trail of Broken Promises” walk on June 29. The walk was in support of proposed legislation that would provide additional domestic protections for indigenous sacred spaces, the Protection of Native American Sacred Spaces Act.

This fact sheet provides an overview of the US legal protections for sacred spaces, but comments that despite these, “There are numerous existing laws intended to protect Native American sacred places and even more that can be used to do so, but most of these laws are being ignored and flaunted.”

Until the laws are adhered to with regard to sacred space protection, the "Trail of Broken Promises" seems likely to continue.

WIPO Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC) – moving forward?

Meetings, meetings and more meetings....we all hope that these reunions leave us with a step closer to a goal. But, are we optimistic? On the 22nd session of the WIPO Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC) which took place from 9-13 June it seemed that we are still in standby! According to the Intellectual Property Watch, International IP Policy what was supposed to be a procedural matter by the Committee, it turned out to be an informal consultation “without reaching a compromise on the agenda”. Moreover, a panel of Indigenous Peoples emphasized the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The theme covered (or at least intended to be covered) was “Intellectual Property, Traditional Cultural Expressions and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Perspectives of Indigenous Peoples.” Mr Valmaine Toki, vice-chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues sees the process of the IGC containing two issues: 1.- “The ability of Indigenous Peoples to participate meaningfully within the process; and, 2.- to recognise the intrinsic rights of Indigenous Peoples to their traditional knowledge (TK), genetic resources (GR) and traditional cultural expressions (TCEs).”

 In this regard Mr Toki recommended that there is the need to establish “an indigenous co-chair to the IGC, and establish a panel of indigenous experts on international human rights law to ensure the text aligns with those basic international human rights norms and principles.”

Source Intellectual Property Watch.

Chile on Indigenous land

In March, the Chilean Supreme Court had unanimously rejected arguments made by a family of Rapa Nui people (case No 9431-2011), regarding the return of ancestral lands on Easter Island. The action for restitution was filed by the Hito clan against the current owners of the Hotel Hanga Roa. For years the Hito clan has tried to regain control over land that was traditionally in their possession. However, the Supreme Court stated that: 1) 1888, all inhabitants on Easter Island became illegal squatters; 2) the land in question was legally transferred from ancestors of the Hito clan to non-indigenous people; and 3) the land in question no longer qualifies as “indigenous land” within the meaning of the law, and so, special protection is not needed.

The following facts were established in the case:

a) the plaintiff is an ethnic Rapa Nui – the indigenous people of Rapa Nui from the Polynesian island of Te Pito o Te Henua (Easter Island) has been legally recognised in Chile according to Indigenous Law No. 19,253 of 1993.
b) the State of Chile became owner of all Easter Island due to taken possession of it by the Chilean navy Policarpo Toro Hurtado on September 9, 1888, and since then, the Republic of Chile has full acts of sovereignty over the island. Because of this the people living there came to have the status of land squatters. c) Law No. 3220 of 1917 gave to the Minister of Maritime the care of the population of Easter Island -- the Directorate of Maritime Territory of Chile decided to put in charge of the Island to a Maritime subdelegation. d) in 1928 the above subdelegation gave a temporary assignment to Mary Anne Tepihe and their children, Richard and Stephen, a land of 9.8 hectares, to be fenced in a year awaiting the Supreme Government to arrange for the final possession, thus recognizing the persons named the domain in the land, becoming thus mere holders of the property.
e) in 1933, by judgment of the First Civil Court of Valparaiso, the Real Estate of said city proceeded to register the possession of the State of Chile on Easter Island land, and establishing that the mode of acquiring ownership was the one established in Article 590 of the Civil Code.
f) in 1970, Mrs. Veronica Atamu, widow of Don Ricardo Milestone, Corfo yielded to any rights it may have on land plot No. 40 of Hanga Roa, where he established the sequence of it, appearing before Don Pedro Villagra, Chief of the Land Office of Easter Island, with his son Isidro Landmark.
g) on 31 October 1970, the State of Chile, donated to the Corporation for Economic Development Agency public lands where is located the Hotel Hanga Roa, registration was fulfilled before the Real Estate of the island that year.
h) in 1979, was released on Decree Law No. 2885, which established standards for the granting of titles of ownership and administration of public lands in Easter Island, legal text that started the process of regulating land to its inhabitants.
i) on 2 January 1981, CORFO sold the Hanga Roa Hotel to Hugo Salas Roman.
j) in 1991, Hugo Salas Roman became a partner at the Hotel Inter-American Society (Chile SA) and granted the land domain and the hotel above-- signing this in the Property Register of the Real Estate Easter Island in 1991.
k) on October 5, 1993, Law No. 19.253 established rules for the protection, promotion and development of indigenous people and the National indigenous Development Corporation (CONADI) was created, with general rules for all ethnic groups and special rules for the Rapa Nui.
l) the defendant company owns the land on which they built the Hotel Hanga Roa. m) CONADI certified that there is no evidence that the land occupied by the defendant is Indigenous land, in accordance with Article 15 of Law N ° 19,253. 

The case appears to be straightforward since the applicant failed to established dominion over the land. Moreover, the matter raised the issue that the lands are not indigenous and therefore not subject to special protection. However I wonder: what does make a territory to be indigenous land? Additionally, when does a territory that has been occupied by indigenous peoples no longer qualifies as “indigenous land”?

Plenty to be serious about...

Having a look at Art 15 of Law N ° 19,253 it establishes that “The Corporation shall open and maintain a Public Register of Indigenous Land. In the Register it shall be entered all lands referred to in Article 12 of this law. The registration credits the status of Indian land.” That said, to register there is the need to have entitlement, right? So I went to read Art 12 of the said Law which establishes the following: “Indian lands are: 1 ° Those that people or indigenous communities currently occupy on property or possession from the following titles: a) Securities Commissioner under the law of 10 June 1823. b) Titles of mercy in accordance with the laws of 4 December 1866 to August 4, 1874, and 20 January 1883...” and so forth. Yet in section 2 ° the law establishes that Indigenous land are “those that have historically been occupied and have been in possession of people or communities Mapuche, Aymara, Rapa Nui or Easter Island, Atacama, Quechua, Colla, Kawashkar and Yamana, provided that their rights are registered in the Indigenous Land Registry created by this law, by application of the respective communities or indigenous property owners. The answer to my first question is: an indigenous land is the one that is registered as such! [no very helpful I would say]

International Indian Treaty Council Statement of Support for Winnemem Wintu

The International Indian Treaty Council has released a statement in support of the right of the Winnemem Wintu peoples to be able to conduct an upcoming spiritual ceremony without the disruption and disturbance that the ceremony and its participants have been subjected to in the past. The Winnemem Wintu have made requests to have the ceremonial site protected by restrictions being placed on boats going past on the river which borders the site.

The International Indian Treaty Council statement highlights provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that give a right to privacy to as to religious sites and the rights of indigenous peoples to exercise and express their culture:

"We affirm the inherent and inalienable rights of the Winnemem Wintu and all Indigenous Peoples, as stated in Article 11 and 12 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, “to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures” and “to have access in privacy to their religious and cultural sites.”"

The plight of the Winnemum Wintu peoples and their efforts to hold the ceremonies without disturbance have been the subject of previous blog posts with links here and here.

It is hoped that the United States government will take the steps necessary to ensure that the ceremonies are conducted in privacy and without fear of disrespectful interruptions. The rights that are in place in the UN Declaration are given little value and importance if they can be so easily disregarded and ignored.

An Unlikely Birthday Guest and Remembering the Anniversary of the Battle of the Greasy Grass

Today marks the 126th anniversary of the Battle of the Greasy Grass. Once regarded as a supreme national tragedy by the white “settler” society in the United States, it is an event that has slid off the radar for that same society. If remembered at all, it is through the lens of old Western movies that trumpet about the glories of “Custer’s Last Stand.” Yet there is another group that commemorates this day and have not forgotten—the indigenous peoples whose ancestors fought in that battle and struggled to survive in its aftermath.



Last night, there was a very insightful and informative interview on this anniversary on Kansas City Public Radio, KKFI, with guests Chase Iron Eyes who founded the website LastRealIndians.com and Marei Spaola commenting on the meaning of the battle—both in the historic past and its reverberations and meanings into the present day. This battle—The Battle of the Greasy Grass, Custer’s Last Stand, or the Battle of the Little Bighorn—occurred at a time that the United States government was trying to control the Black Hills of South Dakota, which only a few short years ago it had agreed was to be the land of the Great Sioux Nation” through the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. There was a concerted effort by the US government to force indigenous groups onto reservations, in a deliberate breach of this treaty. ( In 1980, after protracted litigation, the United States Supreme Court ruled the US government owed monetary damages to the Sioux Nation for breaching this treaty and taking the land in the case United States v Sioux Nation of Indians). As the speakers during the interview pointed out, the battle is not only about the events of that day, but of the breach of the treaty, stolen land and efforts to force assimilation of indigenous peoples—effects which continue in the present-day.

I have debated myself in my own thoughts about how and whether to blog on this day about the anniversary of this battle. Do I even have anything meaningful to contribute to what has already been masterfully said about this anniversary and its place in the collective memory of some and not in others? In the end, I have decided to give my own personal reflection on the anniversary.

I grew up sandwiched between two forts—Fort Leavenworth and Fort Riley. Both featured in the “Indian Wars” of the expansion of the United States. Fort Riley for a time was the home of the Seventh Cavalry, the unit that Custer headed in the Battle of the Greasy Grass. But those forts left little impression on me growing up—what did catch my attention was the horse that I often had as a “guest” at my birthday party.

As a child (and as an adult!) I was completely mad about horses. Anything at all to do with horses fascinated me, held my attention. Even if it was an old barn where horses had once been—that was hallowed ground. It did not matter so much if the horse was not living and breathing—certainly live ones were the best, but there was a particular horse that did not live and breathe that was the birthday party “guest.” This was the preserved remains of the horse, Comanche.

Comanche was on display at the University of Kansas Museum of Natural History. Comanche had been the horse of Captain Myles Keogh, who was part of Custer’s regiment and was killed during the Battle of the Greasy Grass. Comanche was found, wounded, on the battlefield by the US Army a few days after the battle. He was billed as the “sole survivor” of “Custer’s Last Stand” and retired to Fort Riley as an iconic symbol of the “Indian Wars”. After his death, his remains were mounted and displayed at the University of Kansas. After a time, the exhibit around him grew to include the story of the indigenous peoples who were part of the battle, and Comanche was no longer billed as the sole survivor—because that of course, as romantic and tragic as it sounded, was incorrect. (This website indicates that the display has now been changed to remove that information, which is very disappointing indeed, but perhaps reflective of the airbrushing of the battle from white America’s collective memory)

Of course, when I first set eyes on the preserved Comanche, I had no idea of this history. All I saw before me was a horse. That captured my attention, and with frequent trips to the museum ( this was a treasured, favourite Sunday afternoon family outing) I learned about the battle, and the struggle for survival that surrounded it. I went home and voraciously read about that and more in Dee Brown’s book, “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.”


Because of the display and its information, which included a recounting of events from an indigenous view point, Comanche opened up a window to the past and to the present. As a child, I knew that the anniversary of the battle was June 25, because that day fell near my own birthday, and I always wanted to hold my birthday celebration at the museum, with Comanche as a “guest.” On that day, I would approach the glass case more reverently than usual, holding my breath and willing my child’s imagination to go back over time to that day, trying to imagine what the horse had seen and heard, the silent witness. I tried to imagine what it had been like on that day—and the days after, when Crazy Horse was murdered, and Sitting Bull fled to Canada.

It is hard now from the vantage point of adult hood to describe what those moments meant or how they burned themselves into my consciousness. Comanche for me was not a symbol of tragedy or triumph—he was a horse. But he was a gateway into an understanding of an event, of a time, of lots of time and events, that as interviewee Chase Iron Eyes said in the radio interview, also contribue to the shaping of the present day. Perhaps some of this is expressed in the famous William Faulker quote, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

Comanche was a gateway into understanding the stolen land I stood upon, of the treaties broken and promises broken and lives shattered as the US trumpeted its Manifest Destiny. He was a gateway into learning about those events from the indigenous perspective as well as that of white America. And he stood for something else to me, somehow, this silent witness to the past and of the present— to me reflecting somehow the survival and resurgence of the indigenous peoples in the face of those events that were meant to annihilate and assimilate them.

It has been quite awhile since I have gone to see Comanche for my birthday. But I will have a chance again, when I will be home again in only a few more short days. And one of the things that I will do is step up to the glass case that surrounds him, close my eyes, and remember.