U & D

Last week’s meeting of the Department of Education’ Committee for the Development of a Recommended Wabanaki Studies Curriculum Profile (I am calling this CDRWSCP), which will support the implementation of LS 291 while at the same time support the 2007 Social Studies learning results, started with the Big One – Worldview. When that and Culture were put to rest, with a temporary parking of Unequal Power (what a U & D concept that is, which is probably why we could not meet consensus), we moved to another Big One – Sovereignty.

Those of us who read Indian Country News, and MITSC reports, and information from and about the Penobscot, Passamaquoddy, Maliseet and Micmac nations (in books, news reports, workshops, speeches…), know that this is indeed a huge issue today in Maine. I decided five years ago that sovereignty is the one of the two issues (the other being Worldview) that middle school students have to grapple with in a Wabanaki studies unit or activity or discussion.

But what is Sovereignty? I think it will not be bursting a bubble tell you that the CDRWSCP defined sovereignty as “the right to unique political, cultural, economic and geographic identity.” This is a sound definition, and a good place to begin discussion.

The interesting outcome of this definition was the lively discussion of levels of sovereignty, perspectives on sovereignty, boundaries of sovereignty (does an unrecognized tribal group have sovereignty?). These are questions that belong at the upper levels of high school, and beyond. After all, we were a group of highly educated adults doing little more than throwing interpretive ideas around. We ended by developing two essential questions for instruction that should allow the teacher to find a comfort zone within the ping-pong ball of sovereignty issues.

Our teachers will need some resources – lots of resources – in addition to what does not yet exist – a rounded set of statements (video and print) from the Native and non-Native communities. A continuing goal of CDRWSCP

So, having a few free minutes this evening, I did my own information hunt. My focus was the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I have to confess – I have not paid due attention to this important document. But the meeting today also raised this question: Do powerless indigenous peoples have sovereignty? So tonight I have read the Declaration.

Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources…

Do you know that the US voted against this Resolution, along with Canada, Australia and New Zealand?

Do you know that Maine was the first state to support the Resolution by vote of state legislature? Read about that here. This vote was, by the way, contained in legislation presented by the Penobscot and Passamaquoddy (non-voting) representatives to the legislature.

I have also been reading commentary. I recommend that teachers looking for a “doable” historical background read Peter d’Errico’s Sovereignty: A Brief History in the Context of U.S. “Indian Law”. It provides good historical background for general questions and for the definition of sovereignty within our Federal policy and law – and it predicts the passage of the Resolution.

Article 3
Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Article 32
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.
2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.
3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.

Article 39
Indigenous peoples have the right to have access to financial and technical assistance from States and through international cooperation, for the enjoyment of the rights contained in this Declaration.

Much of what you read above is embodied in the actions and proposals made by the Penobscot, Maliseet, Micmac and Passamaquoddy nations within the last quarter century. It has been slow progress. In fact, in light of recent Federal decisions involving the for-profit use of sacred lands in the West, and of the reticence of this state to address egregious and ongoing environmental damage to and depletion of water and land resources essential to Wabanaki subsistence, it is no wonder that the US has not signed the Declaration, and that our legislature could wipe the slate clean by passing its resolution of support. One has to wonder how much “good faith” there is on the part of the State.

Worldview and Sovereignty must be taught so that they can truly be understood, from the Native view and from the white view. Otherwise, we will continue to act with hypocrisy and see though cloudy lenses.