http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1207/1/
Written by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz
Thursday, 03 January 2008
Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, a writer, teacher, historian, and social
activist, is Professor Emeritus of Ethnic Studies and Women's Studies
at California State University, East Bay, and author of many articles
and books, including Blood on the Border: A Memoir of the Contra War
(South End Press, 2005), Outlaw Woman: A Memoir of the War Years,
1960-1975 (City Lights Books, 2001) and Red Dirt: Growing Up Okie
(Verso, 1997). Her most recent book is Roots of Resistance: A History
of Land Tenure in New Mexico (University of Oklahoma Press, 2007).
In this interview, Dunbar-Ortiz talks about her new book, Roots of
Resistance, indigenous land revolts in the US, international
solidarity and the importance of learning about the history and
current issues of Native Americans.
Toward Freedom: Please tell us a little about how you came to write
the first version
of Roots of Resistance in 1980?
Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz: A seed for the idea of it was planted in
September 1958 when I first visited New Mexico from my home in
western Oklahoma. Like most visitors to New Mexico, I was amazed by
the beauty and apparent magic of the land and the people. I visited
New Mexico time and again over the years, always pondering the
question as to why "they," the outsiders, could not leave it alone,
let it be as it should be. Then, in June 1967, while I was a graduate
student in Latin American history at UCLA, headlines in newspapers
across the country told of the National Guard occupying the tiny
village of Tierra Amarilla in northern New Mexico, where Hispanic
farmers had seized the county courthouse, demanding land grant
restoration, challenging the Anglo-dominated establishment and the
federal government. I stopped off on my way to Oklahoma and talked
with people. Chicano friends asked me why the Pueblo Indians did not
support the land grant struggle, and I did not know what to say. Two
years later, I spent some time trying to find out if there was
conflict between Indians and Hispanics, and if so, what was the
historical basis of the conflict. Returning often, I could not
identify the nature of the conflicts, although they clearly existed.
Thanks to the inspiration of Elizabeth "Betita" Martínez, who founded
and published El Grito del Norte in Española, New Mexico, during the
late 1960s and early 1970s, I decided to write my doctoral
dissertation on the history of land tenure in northern New Mexico.
Only through understanding history and land, I believed, could the
present be understood.
TF: What did the initial writing and research process entail?
Dunbar-Ortiz: During 1973-74, I researched the dissertation, even
entering law school to learn Anglo-American property law and water
law. Following acceptance of the dissertation in 1974, I revised it
six times in all to produce the book, which was co-published in 1980
by the Chicano Studies Research Center Publications and the American
Indian Research Center at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The two research centers have kept the book in print for nearly three
decades. While I was writing the book in 1978-80, I was director of
Native American Studies at the University of New Mexico, continuing
my research, including oral histories. I also taught a course each
semester on the history of land tenure in New Mexico, working with
dozens of Pueblo Indian students. In establishing a Native American
research institute, I worked closely with Pueblo officials and with
the All Indian Pueblo Council (AIPC). The late Delfin Lovato, who was
then chairman of AIPC; Frank Tenorio, then secretary of AIPC; and Joe
Baca, then director of the All Indian Development Association,
demonstrated to me the contemporary nature of the Pueblo struggle for
land, water, and self-determination and helped me consistently and
generously. Herman Agoyo, director of the Tricentennial Commission
for the 1680 All Indian Pueblo Revolt, encouraged, taught, and
trusted me; the commission selected the 1980 edition of Roots of
Resistance as one of the official publications of the tricentennial
in 1980. Then and since that time, Simon J. Ortiz, writer and poet;
Petuuche Gilbert; and Maurus Chino of Acoma Pueblo have given me
insights into and understanding of the Pueblo Indian perspective. In
fact, they have untiringly educated me in hopes that my work would be
useful for their people.
TF: How does this new and revised edition differ from the initial edition?
Dunbar-Ortiz: Unfortunately, all the historical and contemporary
problems as of 1980 when the book was first published have mostly
grown worse. The natural resource base has shrunk, and water rights
are unresolved. Historical antagonism between the Hispanic and Pueblo
Indian communities have sharpened while Anglo-American corporate
dominance has increased. I took on the subject initially in 1969,
two years after the Tierra Amarilla courthouse raid that brought to
the world's attention the unresolved land grant situation in New
Mexico. At the time, I met and spoke with only Hispanic land
grantees, their lawyers, and supporters. Four years later when I
decided to do my history doctoral dissertation on the history of land
tenure in New Mexico, I learned about the Pueblo Indian land and
resource issues. Most books and articles on the subject deal either
with the Pueblo Indians or the Hispanics. Roots of Resistance deals with both.
TF: What are some of the major characteristics of Indigenous Pueblo
Indian land-use system prior to colonization? Do any of these
characteristics persist in Pueblo Indian land-use today?
Dunbar-Ortiz: The Pueblos had been in the Río Grande area
approximately three centuries when the Spanish invaded, but they were
part of a larger socioeconomic network that had been using irrigation
for agriculture in the arid southwest of the north American continent
for twenty- three centuries. Hydraulic agriculture produced a
particular set of social relations that was expressed in Pueblo
ceremonies and social institutions. Never an isolated cultural
entity, Pueblo communities had long been involved in trade with
communities from the Pacific Ocean to the Mississippi River and to
the valley of Mexico. At the time the colonialists arrived in the
late sixteenth century, the Pueblo subsistent economy was closely
related to trade and social interaction with the bison-hunting
peoples who surrounded them. The ninety-three Pueblo villages were
politically autonomous but similar in social structures, economies,
ceremonies, and historical development. They were linked by their
mutual dependency for their livelihood on the Río Grande and its tributaries.
TF: Could you briefly describe the Pueblo revolt of 1680? In later
decades and centuries, did this revolt remain a unifying symbol of
resistance among indigenous groups in the area?
Dunbar-Ortiz: The Pueblos and Apache/Navajos began outright
resistance in the 1650s, but plans for revolt made in Navajo country
were intercepted and thwarted.33 By the 1670s, the Pueblos were able
to amass 6,000 warriors, while the colony could produce only 170
potential fighters. Officials reported in 1675 that Pueblos were
openly asserting religious independence, apparently led by early
converted Tewas. They claimed that the Pueblos were using witchcraft
to kill priests and settlers. The governor ordered punishment of the
rebels, and ceremonial halls were burned, religious leaders executed,
and others punished by whipping and imprisonment. Following the
attacks, seventy Tewa warriors rode into Santa Fé demanding the
release of the prisoners; significantly, the governor
acquiesced. All Pueblos, including the distant Hopis and except for
the Piros, were involved in the 1680 Revolt. Apache and Navajo allies
also supplied warriors. Although officials were informed of the
impending revolt several days beforehand, they did not have time to
organize defenses adequately. In addition, the revolt began earlier
than scheduled when Indian leaders learned that Spanish officials
knew of the plan. Rebellion occurred simultaneously in each Pueblo.
Franciscans and soldiers were killed and squads of Indian soldiers
blocked roads and attacked isolated settlements. The only course open
to the governor was to attempt a defense of Santa Fe, which was
increasingly surrounded by soldiers from all the Pueblos.
Negotiations were arranged between Governor Otermín and a
once-friendly Pueblo official who presented the ultimatum of war or
the peaceful exodus of all the colonists. According to Otermín: "All
classes of Indians who were in our power were to be given up to them,
both those in the service of the Spaniards and those of the Mexican
nation of that suburb of Analco. He demanded also that his wife and
children be given up to him, and likewise that all the Apache men and
women whom the Spaniards had captured in war be turned over to them,
inasmuch as some Apaches who were among them were asking for them."
By mid-August the settlers had removed to El Paso. Approximately
2,000 people, of whom 317 were Pueblos from southern villages,
arrived in El Paso, leaving 21 priests and 380 settlers unaccounted
for and presumed dead.
The Pueblo view of life under the colonial regime was revealed in
interrogations of Pueblo prisoners. An eighty-year-old Pueblo man
said that persecution of religious leaders was the cause of the
revolt and that planning had been going on during his entire
lifetime. Another prisoner stated that Tano captains had told him of
twelve years of planning before the revolt. When asked why they were
plotting rebellion, one Pueblo said he was told that the people were
tired of the work they had to do for the Spanish settlers and
missionaries. This work did not allow them to plant and do other
things for their own needs; being weary of the situation, they had
rebelled. Testimonies identified Popé, a Tewa religious leader living
at Taos, as the principal strategist. They described the means of
communication as a knotted rope carried from village to village.
Given the fact that Pueblos had to have passes to travel between
villages, that all the other oppressed peoples were severely
restricted in their movements, and that none were allowed horses,
meticulous planning must have been necessary. That all forces from
what is now western Arizona to eastern New Mexico, from southern
Colorado to far south of Albuquerque, rose up at the same hour belies
the idea of "spontaneity." The All Indian Pueblo Council, which
exists today, dates its origins to the Pueblo Revolt. The leader of
the revolt, Popé, is the most revered Pueblo historical figure.
TF: Could you tell us about the Navajo and Apache resistance in this
area and what the US military did to suppress it?
Dunbar-Ortiz: Following the second invasion of the Spanish and during
the remaining 120 years of Spanish colonial rule, the Navajos and
Apaches never ceased their resistance to expansion of Spain into
their territories and continued to drive them out. For Pueblo
Indians and other settled villagers who wanted to join the
resistance, and many did, the Navajos and Apaches welcomed them, and
their encampments became refuges. The resisters considered the
villages, including the Pueblos, as appropriate targets to
destabilize the regime. They continued the resistance against the
Republic of Mexico once it assumed governmental powers when Spain was
driven out. And they continued resisting when the United States
invaded and occupied the Southwest in 1848. Their resistance was
suppressed after decades of unrelenting U.S. military attacks that
included search and destroy missions, burning their crops, capturing
women and children, and finally incarcerating thousands of Navajos in
a military camp where more than half of them died.
TF: Please tell us about some of the current indigenous struggles
over access to land and water in New Mexico. Has the situation
improved in recent decades?
Dunbar-Ortiz: In New Mexico and much of the West it's not that
complicated. In New Mexico, 40 percent of the land is in the direct
hands of the federal government--military weapons labs, National
Parks, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Monuments,
like El Malpais near Grants. All it would take is the stroke of a
pen to reinstate the land to the indigenous inhabitants. Most of
that alienated land includes sacred sites necessary to Pueblo ritual
practices. One suspects that there really is a kind of policy in the
federal government to deprive indigenous peoples of their sacred
sites never to be returned. Many of them were taken under the
Theodore Roosevelt administration under the guise of environmental
protection, but the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Black
Hills, are all sacred sites. The struggles continue at many
levelscongressional lobbying, alliances, establishing casinos to
gain funds to buy back land, and during the past 3 decades appealing
to the international community to pressure the United States.
TF: Many readers who may be familiar with landless farmer movements
in Brazil and elsewhere in South and Central America, might be
surprised to hear of similar contemporary land rights movements here
in the US. What similarities are there between indigenous struggles
for land in Mexico, Central and South America and in New Mexico? What
past and current organizational connections are there between these
movements in the north and south?
Dunbar-Ortiz: I was a history graduate student specializing in Latin
America in 1967 when the Hispanic farmers (Alianza) in New Mexico
rose up. I was familiar with such struggles throughout Latin
America, but that just doesn't happen in the United States I told
myself. Although the Alianza was inspired directly by the U.S. Civil
Rights Movement, the form their protest took was about the land and
on the land. It made me acutely aware of the role of the State in
the United States in suppressing land issues and revolts, the
daunting power of the United States as compared to Latin American
states, which can appear more brutal in quelling protest, but turn to
brutality because their States do not have the kinds of control the
United States has, that is ideological hegemony which has convinced
the left that land is no longer a viable issue.
Additionally, U.S. leftists do not want to really acknowledge that
they live within not only an imperialist state, but also one founded
on being a colonizing state. Actually, indigenous land struggles had
never stopped in the United States; social activists and leftists had
little interest in Indians, and their struggles were simply not
publicized, but beginning in the late 1950s they became more frequent
and more widespread and began to be noticed, leading up to the
Wounded Knee uprising in 1973. The following year, the American
Indian Movement formed the International Indian Treaty Council and
made connections with indigenous and other self-determination
struggles (such as the Sandinistas in Nicaragua) in Latin America.
The treaty issue broadened to the overall situation of Indians in the
Americas, with an international conference at the United Nations in
1977, and then to indigenous peoples in the Pacific and Arctic
regions as well by 1981, when the UN established a Working Group on
Indigenous Peoples.
I worked intensely during that time, learning the UN system and
publishing a book on it in 1984, also training many indigenous
individuals in the work, including Rigoberta Menchu. By that time,
hundreds of indigenous representatives from around the world had
become involved and participation has increased, with numerous
initiatives being established in the UN system. In the process, I
became educated in the UN system, international human rights and
humanitarian law, and also worked on the refuge crisis in Central
American during the 1980s civil wars, the majority of the refugees
being indigenous, particularly the Mayans from Guatemala. In the past
two years there have been continual meetings between North American
indigenous leaders and Evo Morales.
TF: What can people do in solidarity with these struggles?
Dunbar-Ortiz: U.S. activists are always enthusiastic about and do
solidarity work for agrarian uprisings in Latin America, such as the
Zapatistas and the previous national liberation movements that had
agrarian reform/revolution as their bases. But, they have not taken
the time and made the commitment to understand indigenous and other
agrarian struggles in the United States. Even the Civil Rights
Movement in the South was weakened by not taking up the issue of
land, and when voting rights were achieved organizers fled north and
west to work in urban areas. Regarding indigenous land struggles,
they are essentially territorial struggles and include resource
issues, particularly water. The issues are extremely complex and
colonialism is still alive in Indian Country, with many
factions. Non-indigenous organizers and activists, if they even take
an interest, which most don't, tend to choose or even appoint, and of
course fund, indigenous leaders they can understand easily, who fit
into their view of what a movement should look like, and often
bolster charlatans or worse. They just want a face to fit in the
rainbow configuration of panels, etc., but such invented leaders play
havoc in Indian Country.
I think the best place to start in developing solidarity with
indigenous and other land struggles is the work being done at the
international level, mostly in the United Nations system. Below are
several websites that contain a wealth of information and provide a
kind of consensus of indigenous issues and viewpoints. I think it
should be considered an obligation by U.S. activists of any ethnicity
or nationality to learn the history and current issues of Native Americans.
Resources:
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/index.html
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/indigenous/declaration.htm
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/indigenous/rapporteur/
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/indigenous/groups/groups-01.htm
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/indigenous/groups/groups-02.htm
For more information about Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, her work and
writing, visit http://www.reddirtsite.com/
.
No comments:
Post a Comment