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.

Not Yet Ready to Face the Past in the Present

How many Americans have heard of Dahlonega, Georgia? How many know that it was the site of the first large scale gold-rush in the United States? How many people know that in order to get access to that gold, forced removal of several indigenous tribes became the policy of the United States government? How many people know about the horrible conditions of t forced removal that resulted in the deaths of women, children, and the elderly from starvation and disease? Without knowing this, how is it that mainstream America has enough knowledge about indigenous peoples and the Cherokee peoples to offer any comment as to whether or not Elizabeth Warren is “an Indian”?

As I have blogged about in prior posts, the controversy kicked up in the mainstream American press about whether or not Elizabeth Warren is or is not an “Indian” has revealed several unpleasant realities about American society. It has revealed the deeply racist views that are held in mainstream America towards indigenous peoples. More than that, it has revealed that it is also apparently acceptable and even seen as humorous and good jolly fun to express those racist views—good journalism even. And it also reveals the deep ignorance and apathy that mainstream Americans have about the indigenous peoples in their midst, both past and present. But the Elizabeth Warren situation with its racist and disrespectful depictions of indigenous peoples is hardly an isolated incident in modern America.


A government that has created secondary status for indigenous groups to which it does not grant federal recognition leaves those groups with little recourse within the United States. These groups have rights under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. But what good do those do with a government that is deeply unresponsive to these people? Take the failure of the US Forestry Service to respond to the requests of the Winnemem Wintu peoples to close a part of a river so that their coming-of-age ceremonies can be conducted without drunken white people disrupting the ceremonies by, among other things, women flashing their naked breasts and mocking the ceremony? (see story and video of disturbance at this link )
For mainstream America to get to grips with what it means to be indigenous, who is indigenous and how things got to be the way they are in the present day means confronting a past that has been largely airbrushed from the historical memory of mainstream America. It means confronting and acknowledging the harms done by government policies of assimilation ( there is a video clip at this link that brings tears to my eyes—this is the living face of devastation that was wrought by government policies determined to make indigenous peoples disappear). But confronting and acknowledging that is a step that mainstream America hardly seems ready to take—it is not yet ready to face the legacy of the past that reverberates in the present.

Indigenous Identity and Gatekeepers to Rights

The issue of indigenous self-identification has been one that has caused much controversy in international law. The UN Declaration does not set out a definition or criteria for “who is indigenous.” Proponents of indigenous self-identification have pointed out the dangers in having the state determine this—where the state would then act as the gatekeeper to who had access to indigenous rights and who did not. (For an excellent discussion on this issue see an article by Jeff Corntassel and Tomas Hopkins Primeau, Indigenous “Sovereignty” and International Law: Revised Strategies for Pursuing “Self-determination” (1995) 17 Human Rights Quarterly 343).

The United States, one of the quartet of states that voted in opposition to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, cited the lack of definition of “indigenous peoples” as one of its reasons for its “No” vote. An explanation of the vote states:
“Even more fundamental and debilitating to the effective application and implementation of the declaration is its failure to define the phrase "indigenous peoples." This obvious shortcoming will subject application of the declaration to endless debate, especially if entities not properly entitled to such status seek to enjoy the special benefits and rights contained in the declaration.”

The issue of identification of indigenous status plays out at a variety of levels in the United States, and this is highlighted in the issue of the Winnemem Wintu peoples endeavour to obtain closure of part of a river during religious coming-of-age ceremonies for young women, in stories reported in the Native News Network.

The Winnemen Wintu peoples had United States federal recognition as an “Indian tribe” until 1985. Federal recognition as an “Indian tribe” carries a status that gives the indigenous group access to federal laws , such as the Indian Child Welfare Act, that apply to federally recognized tribes. But there are many indigenous groups, such as the Winnemen Wintu that lack federal recognition as an “Indian tribe” and thus lose protections and processes that might otherwise have been available to them.

For instance, the Christian Science Monitor reports that the Chief of the Winnemem Wintu peoples cannot legally possess eagle feathers since the group does not have federal status as an “Indian tribe.”


Yet here is a group of peoples who practice traditional ceremonies on traditional lands. The entire process by which the United States federal government makes its decisions on who is or is not an “Indian tribe” interferes with exercising rights of autonomy, self-determination and preserving cultural heritage that are available under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Accessing those rights does not require—due to the self-identification of indigenous peoples and lack of defining criteria in the instrument itself—any recognition by the US government. Surely this sets up a paradox of a group that would meet anyone’s criteria for being indigenous –no argument there—being unable to avail itself of domestic protections and having access only to international rights, due to the failure of the state to recognise the group as being indigenous in a way that determines important access to provisions and protections of federal law.

As reported in the Guardian James Anaya, the UN Special Rapporteur on indigenous rights begins an investigation into indigenous peoples in the United States today. It is hoped that his investigation will include the effects of the secondary status that the US government imposes upon those indigenous groups that it has not recognised as “Indian tribes.”