Protect Our Manoomin
  • Opening Page / Main Menu Below
  • Protect Our Manoomin - Mission Statement & Declaration
  • Who We Are
  • Protect Our Manoomin Blog
  • Documents
  • Treaties, Law and Case Law
  • Maps
  • Links
  • Photo Gallery
  • Rally Photo Gallery
  • Protect Our Manoomin Council Page
  • Protecting Our Manoomin Coloring Book

Mining and the Marginalization of Reserved Treaty Rights

10/30/2012

5 Comments

 
Article originally published at Intercontinental Cry:
http://intercontinentalcry.org/mining-and-the-marginalization-of-reserved-treaty-rights/


Picture
 “Ojibwe treaty rights are a device to help keep the land healthy.”

~ Prof. Peter Erlinder

The encroachment of sulfide mining industries poses a grave threat to the waters and ecosystems in northern Minnesota. Mining wastes containing sulfates, methyl mercury, and sulfuric acid will turn the pristine environment into a biohazard zone for humans and wildlife alike.

In their quest to establish regional mining districts, extractive resource entities have employed an array of tactics to undermine resistance to resource colonialism. One tactic is the marginalization of treaty rights. Marginalizing tribal sovereignty is like the elephant in the living room that they don’t want to acknowledge or want people to see. It feeds on the misperception that tribes simply gave up their land in exchange for reservations.

Marginalization denies the fact that tribes retained the right to hunt, fish, and gather on off-reservation ceded land. And embedded within the treaties are environmental protections to sustain sustenance resources for tribal well-being – not only on-reservation, but off-reservation as well.

Indeed, treaties may very well be the endpoint in the effort to save our environment.
                                                                 I
                                                   Comment Noted

 “My friends, is it the truth? We don’t dispute it, but is it the truth, all that you have said – will it transpire?”

~ Nagonegwonabe (Leading Feather), Red Lake Ogimaa, speaking on the 1889 Agreement

In his speech before treaty negotiators, Nagonegwonabe alluded to the 1863 Treaty of Old Crossing, which the government failed to uphold. Yet his question was not exclusive to Red Lake. Other Anishinaabe leaders who signed treaties in the 1880s asked essentially the same question.

Over one-hundred and twenty years later, it’s a question that remains valid. Will the truth transpire today that our reserved treaty rights will protect our ceded lands against the growing danger of extractive resource colonies in northern Minnesota?

In the quest to establish extractive resource hegemony in Minnesota, mining entities, under the guise of corporate personhood, have relied on a pro-mining legislature to enact laws that favor mining interests at the cost of the environment.  Previous laws to protect the environment have been weakened to the point in which current regulations have little value or meaning.

In the pursuit of establishing hegemony, extractive resource entities have, with seeming purpose, overlooked the role of treaty rights, in particular reserved treaty rights that emphasize the off-reservation rights to hunt, fish, and gather on tribal ceded lands and the protection of those sustenance resources.

One of the best examples of this marginalization of treaty rights is the comments of Essar Steel Minnesota, a taconite company that released its Draft Supplemental EIS in 2010 for their modification/expansion project. In the Public Comments Responses, the Leech Lake Anishinaabe Nation submitted their concerns regarding Essar’s expansion.

Comment 1: The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (Band) is providing comments on Essar Steel Minnesota DSEIS in part as official involvement in the permitting process.  However, of greater consequence is the Band’s sovereign status and our obligation and ability to protect our people and our environment today and for generations to come.   In addition, the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe has Treatment as an Affected Sovereign/State (TAS) status under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act to protect the health and well-being of the environment and its members by means of protecting wetlands and water resources

Response 1: Comment noted.

Comment 2: The Band is interested in and has been involved in the process of the Essar Steel Minnesota project as it has the potential to impact Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe members and resources both on the Reservation and within the Band’s 1855 Ceded Territory.  The project is 28 miles from the Reservation boundary, well within the 50 mile TAS radius.  Emissions from this project and the facilities around the Essar mining operation affects areas where Leech Lake Band members hunt, fish, gather, recreate, and live. The Leech Lake Reservation is a federally recognized Reservation located in north-central Minnesota encompassing 865,000 acres, serving 8,050 members, and 12,000 Reservation residents.  The Reservation is characterized by an abundance of lakes and rivers (approximately 300,000 acres of surface waters), wetlands (163,000 acres), and forests (over 300,000 acres).  The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe retained and exercise their inherent right to hunt, fish, and gather for subsistence purposes in the 1855 Treaty with the United States government.  Resources must be available and safe to utilize for the exercise of these rights.  Protection of the Reservation’s environment and trust resources is crucial for the health and welfare of the Reservation population and the traditional, cultural and spiritual well-being of the Band.

Response 2: Comment noted.

Leech Lake also submitted an additional comment that specifically focused on the Clean Air Act. Essar’s response was - comment noted.

In their comments, Leech Lake cited protections under reserved treaty rights – i.e., “inherent right to hunt, fish, and gather for subsistence purposes,” under the 1855 treaty and ceded territory. In addition, Leech Lake referred to protections under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and to the Clean Air Act (CAA).

Essar’s failure to acknowledge treaty rights indicates they’ve chosen to ignore the treaty. Marginalizing treaty rights as simply “comment noted,” doesn’t resolve the issue for Essar, or other extractive resource industries for that matter.

                                                                   II
                                               Reserved Treaty Rights

Tribes negotiated treaties because they were at great risk of complete subjugation of their traditional land bases.  In the case of the Anishinaabeg, the Ogimaag (leaders) were well aware that the cession of their lands could not be avoided. They negotiated to keep what they could. Indeed, the Anishinaabe word for reservation is ishkonigan, means “land that is left over.” However, the Ogimaag knew that ishkoniganan (reservations) would not provide the sustenance needed to provide for their people. Therefore, they retained their usufructuary rights – the rights to hunt, fish, and gather on their ceded lands. These reserved treaty rights were never granted; rather, they were written into the treaties in accordance with terms dictated by tribal leaders.

In U.S. v. Winyans (1905), the U.S. Supreme Court was clear that treaties were not a grant of rights, but a grant of right from tribes:

“The right to resort to the fishing places in controversy was a part of larger rights possessed by the Indians…New conditions came into existence, to which those rights had to be accommodated. Only a limitation of them, however, was necessary and intended, not a taking away. In other words, the treaty was not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of right from them, – a reservation of those not granted. And the form of the instrument and its language was adapted to that purpose. ..There was an exclusive right of fishing reserved within certain boundaries. There was a right outside of those boundaries reserved 'in common with citizens of the territory.” (Italics mine)

Three years later, Winters, et. al. v. United States (1908), was heard by the Supreme Court. The Court affirmed the decree that enjoined companies from using the Fort Belknap tribe’s water source. The Winters Decision established reserved water rights in that self-sufficiency was dependent on tribal water resources and those resources, located off the reservation, were protected to maintain tribal well-being and lifeway.

The issue of reserved treaty rights was more specifically addressed in Tulee v. State of Washington (1942). In this case, heard by the State Supreme Court of Washington, state agencies were enforcing fishing fees on the Yakimas. As stated in the suit:

“The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams, where running through or bordering said reservation, is further secured to said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with citizens of the Territory…with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land.”

In 1974, reserved treaty rights and responsibilities were more firmly defined through U.S./ Quinault Tribes of Indians et al. v. State of Washington (also referred to as the Boldt Decision). The Boldt Decision held that the tribes had the right to fish, and this right included off-reservation fishing sites. The decision also set specific limits to the fish harvest – 50% to the tribes and 50% to non-Natives.  Boldt didn’t provide exclusive environmental protections to the tribes. Rather, the protections were intended for both Natives and non-Natives. In other words, they each had a responsibility to protect natural resources and to work collaboratively to achieve those goals.

Although Winyans and these cases clearly established recognition of reserved treaty rights, those reserved rights have never been forthrightly recognized by states. Rather, reserved treaty rights have always had to be, and continue to be, litigated.

                                                                     III
                          Anishinaabeg Reserved Treaty Rights in Minnesota


                                    1837, 1854, and 1866 Ceded Lands

In Minnesota, reserved treaty rights became an issue in the mid-1980s. The Grand Portage Band sued the State of Minnesota in regard to usufructuary rights under the 1864 treaty. The Bois Forte and Fond du Lac Bands, who were signatories to the treaty, also joined the lawsuit. In 1986, the bands and the state negotiated a tribal/state agreement under which some off-reservation rights were limited in exchange for an annual payment from the state. However, this did not exclude all usufructuary rights.

In 1990, the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe began its suit against the State on Minnesota in regard to the 1837 and 1854 treaties. This would eventually culminate in the 1999 U.S. Supreme Court Decision that affirmed the usufructuary rights of the Mille Lacs Band.

One of the main points of contention was Article 5 of the 1837 treaty: “The privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering the wild rice, upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes included in the territory ceded, is guarantied [sic] to the Indians, during the pleasure of the President of the United States.”

Although Taylor issued an executive order to terminate the 1837 usufructuary rights, the Court found the order invalid since Taylor lacked Congressional approval or Constitutional approval to do so.

The State also argued that the Mille Lacs Band had abrogated their usufructuary rights under the 1855 treaty. In Article 1, second sentence, the treaty states:  “And the said Indians do further fully and entirely relinquish and convey to the United States, any and all right, title, and interest, of whatsoever nature the same may be, which they may now have in, and to any other lands in the Territory of Minnesota or elsewhere.”

The Court refuted this claim: “At the very least, the historical record refutes the State’s assertion that the 1855 Treaty “unambiguously” abrogated the 1837 hunting, fishing, and gathering privileges. Given this plausible ambiguity, we cannot agree with the State that the 1855 Treaty abrogated Chippewa usufructuary rights. We have held that Indian treaties are to be interpreted liberally in favor of the Indians, and that any ambiguities are to be resolved in their favor.”

                                                      1855 Ceded Land

Among the signatories of the 1855 treaty were the Anishinaabeg of the Sandy Lake, Leech Lake, White Earth, and Mille Lacs Nations. In the 1999 Supreme Court Decision, those rights were affirmed for the Mille Lacs Band in regard to the 1837 treaty and to Fond du Lac under the 1854 treaty (and also the Grand Portage and Bois Forte Bands who were signatories to the 1854 treaty).  The 1855 treaty was integral to the Court’s decision. As cited:

“The entire 1855 Treaty, in fact, is devoid of any language expressly mentioning–much less abrogating–usufructuary rights….The 1855 Treaty was designed primarily to transfer Chippewa land to the United States, not to terminate Chippewa usufructuary rights.”

However, the decision did not affirm the usufructuary rights of 1855 signatory Bands because they were not parties to the lawsuit. Thus, although their rights were recognized, those rights were not litigated by the signatory Bands.

In 2010, treaty activists staged a rally on the shore of Lake Bemidji, on the day before the fishing opener, to shed light on the issue of usufructuary rights in the 1855 ceded land. A White Earth tribal member set gill nets. The Minnesota DNR cut and confiscated his nets. The tribal member was not charged with illegal netting that carries a one-year jail sentence. In addition, his boat and motor were not confiscated.  Notably, the member was not penalized under the full extent of the law because of the state’s desire to avoid media focus on the issue of the 1855 treaty.

The rally led to the formation of the 1855 Treaty Commission. The Commission is composed of two members from White Earth, two from Leech Lake, two from Sandy Lake, and two from East Lake.  East Lake was formerly part of the Sandy Lake Nation and signatory to the 1855 treaty. The commission was established to develop conservation rules to regulate hunting and fishing on their respective reservations, and regulate usufructuary rights off-reservation. Although the commission has had informal meetings with the DNR, the DNR continues to enforce game and fish laws.

                                       The 1863 and 1889 Ceded Land

In 1863, the Red Lake Band entered into a treaty (and an amended treaty in 1864) in which they ceded the western portion of their lands. The pretext for the 1863 treaty was for right of way through Red Lake and Pembina homelands, but when the negotiations ended, the government gained 11 million acres of prime farmland and forested areas.

Although usufructuary rights were not written into the treaty, it was clearly understood that the Red Lake Band retained those rights.

Governor Alexander Ramsey, the chief government negotiator, assured that Red Lake would maintain its usufructuary rights:

Governor Ramsey: “You lose nothing by it [the Treaty]. You can still hunt and fish throughout your country as usual…they would have the privilege, for many years, at least, of hunting over these lands as before.”

Treaty making ended in 1871. In 1889, under the auspices of An Act for the Relief and Civilization of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota, the government sent negotiators to Red Lake to obtain land that would be ceded via the Allotment Act.

After seven days of negotiations, the Red Lake Band relented and ceded 2,905,000 acres of land but it was predicated on the condition that they would retain the whole of the Lake (Upper and Lower Red Lake).  Indeed, the 1889 Commission Report documents Red Lake’s repeated stipulation to retain the Lake. However, once the negotiators arrived in Washington, the survey line was moved and an eastern portion of the Lake was ceded.  (This remains a point of contention today.)

In 1902, the government created An Amendment to the Act of January 14, 1889. This was the government’s effort, once again, to subjugate Red Lake land located on the western perimeters of the reservation line. This area was known as the 11 Western Townships and included 256,152 acres. Under the 1902 Agreement, the Red Lake Band received $1.25 million for the land.

According to the Minutes of Councils, Red Lake leaders brought up past issues in regard to the 1863 treaty and the 1889 agreement. Peter Graves, who would later organize the General Council of the Red Lake Band, spoke about the grievances.

Regarding the 1889 Agreement:

“And there is lots of pine left standing that has not been cut on the lands we ceded to the United States. And we were given to understand that we had the use of any ceded land that was not occupied by settlers, to be used as our own. And furthermore we reserved the privilege of using that as our hunting grounds as in former years.”

                                                                  III
The Implications of Minnesota Reserved Treaty Rights and Extractive Resource Colonies

The foregoing section - Anishinaabeg Reserved Treaty Rights in Minnesota – presents a brief overview of reserved treaty rights in the ceded lands of the Anishinaabeg. Those rights cover nearly half of the state of Minnesota. The1837 and 1854 ceded lands have been affirmed through court decisions. The 1855 and 1863/1889 ceded lands have yet to be litigated. However, as the treaties and documents show, the indigenous peoples of those lands clearly retained their usufructuary rights.

In a guidebook written for Minnesota legislators, “Indians, Indian Tribes, and State Government,” the definition of Minnesota Indian Country recognizes off-reservation rights:

“Tribal territory, or Indian Country, is a crucial concept of Indian law. Under federal law, tribal territory defines the jurisdiction of tribes, the federal government, and state government. It is generally within these areas that tribal sovereignty applies and state power is limited. Certain tribal powers – for example, the ability to take game and fish, and harvest native crops ‘off-reservation’ – may apply outside the area of Indian country under specific treaties or statutes. “

As noted earlier, federal Indian law provides precedents that not only clarify usufructuary rights, but also the protections that are provided under those rights.

In the far-reaching Winyans decision, on- and off-reservation rights had to be recognized to “give effect to the treaty.”  The Winters case affirmed that protections – in this case, a river - included boundaries that went beyond reservation lines:

“It is alleged with detail that all of the waters of the river are necessary for all those purposes and the purposes for which the reservation was created, and that in furthering and advancing the civilization and improvement of the Indians, and to encourage habits of industry and thrift among them, it is essential and necessary that all of the waters of the river flow down the channel uninterruptedly and undiminished in quantity and undeteriorated in quality.”

Both the Winyans and Winters decisions underscore the importance of protection, protection retained through treaties, of off-reservation resources for tribes to maintain their subsistence well-being.

In Minnesota, marginalizing treaty rights ignores a geographical area that has been successful in litigating those rights as evidenced by the 1999 Supreme Court Decision and the 1983 Voight Decision in Wisconsin. Dependence on legislation that diminishes environmental protections doesn’t resolve the situation since those laws not only violate tribal sovereignty but also violate the public trust. The issue of reserved treaty rights is a legal obstacle that extractive resource entities have yet to face.

Equally important is the role of tribal governments.  In asserting our treaty rights, tribal councils need to rethink the structure of majoritarian rule and readapt to the thinking of the original signatories of the treaties. When our leaders signed treaties, they were not simply retaining sustenance rights. They were also retaining our reciprocal affiliation with the environment. The spirits, other-than-human persons, birds, animals, plants, and the waters were all part of our reciprocal affiliation. Although that interconnectedness wasn’t written into the treaties, it was implied in treaty negotiations.

For example, in the negotiations for the Red Lake and Pembina treaty in 1863, Little Rock alluded to the reciprocal relationship between humans and nature: “My friend, when we take anything that has been left upon the ground, even though it be of small value, we feel bad. We are afraid to look the owner in the face until we can restore it…Here, on this track, is where my grandfather was placed – the one who made the soil…At the time my grandfather was put on the soil there were two creatures of every kind, of different sexes, that were put along with him, which he was to get his food and clothing.”

In referencing “grandfather,” Little Rock was addressing an other-than-human person, a spiritual entity. This tribal holism was unrecognized by treaty negotiators because the western mindset separated nature from society.  With the imposed establishment of “modern” tribal governments under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) in 1934, traditional council structures were disenfranchised. The progressive politics of IRA governments became separated from tribal holism.

With the dire threat of ecocide of tribal lands from extractive resource industries, tribal councils need to not only assert treaty rights but also need to integrate Traditional Ecological Knowledge to emphasize the interconnectedness that our forebears sought to retain in our reserved treaty rights.

It is also pertinent that the people whose lives will be affected have a role in the decision making process. As stakeholders, their sustenance is dependent on a clean and healthy environment not only for the present generation but for subsequent generations as well.  All too often, tribal councils make decisions on behalf of their people without consulting the people. In the issue of mining, the people need to be informed about the issues and be a part of the decision making process.  Decisions on mining should not be exclusive to tribal councils. Through referendums the people can make their voice heard.

As exploration maps have shown, the grand scheme of extractive resource industries is to establish a hegemony that extends from the shores of Anishinaabe-gichigami (Lake Superior) into the interior of northern and central Minnesota.  They have already found what they were looking for – copper, nickel, gold, silver, titanium. Under current legislation, the permit process has been streamlined. To their way of thinking, it is only a matter of time before they begin drilling and extracting metals from the earth.  These extractive resource colonies are financed by powerful foreign mining conglomerates like Rio Tinto, Glencore, and Antofagasta. These conglomerates have violated the human rights of indigenous peoples in South America, Africa, and Indonesia, and have marginalized the land rights of those peoples with the help of governments. But marginalizing indigenous land rights in the United States presents specific obstacles because of tribal sovereignty inherent in treaties. Therefore, assertion of treaty rights, and federal Indian law, is crucial in undermining the attempt of extractive resource industries to establish hegemony in the Anishinaabe homelands, including the ceded lands. But it needs to be done in a timely manner. And that time is now.

5 Comments

Protect Our Manoomin Speech at Wolf Walk, October 20, 2012

10/20/2012

17 Comments

 
Picture
Photo by Ivy Vainio
Boozhoo Anishinaabedoog miinawaa Indinawemaaganag

Endaso-Giizhik Anishinaabemong

Makwa indoodem

Miskwaagamiiwi-zaaga`iganiing indoojibaa

Greeting my fellow Anishinaabe and my Relatives

My Anishinaabe spirit-name is Everyday, I belong to the Bear Clan, and I am from the Red Lake Nation.

My English name is Robert DesJarlait and I am the Director of Protect Our Manoomin.  Protect Our Manoomin is an Anishinaabe grassroots organization that provides education and outreach on issues regarding wild rice and sulfide mining in Minnesota. Protect Our Manoomin stands in solidarity with the Northwoods Wolf Alliance on the issue of the wolf hunt in Minnesota. And we recognize the various groups and citizens who are here today and are involved in the effort to stop the wolf hunt and save the wolf.

Today, we come here in diversity, yet we come for a common cause, and that common cause is to speak for those who can’t speak. We come here to speak for the wolf. 

In my language, the wolf is called Ma’iingan. The relationship between the Anishinaabe people and ma’iingan is thousands of years old.

Our history is recounted in our oral traditions. Through our stories, we know about our relationships with the natural world. The story of Original Man and Ma’iingan reaffirms our connections to one of our closest relatives – the wolf.

Long ago, Gichi-Manidoo (the Creator) created Aki (the Earth), the plants, the animals, and, lastly, human beings. The first human placed on Earth was called Anishinaabe (or Original Man).  After being placed on the Earth, Original Man wandered for many days. One thing Original Man noticed was that unlike animals and birds, he was alone. He spoke to the Creator and said:

“Grandfather, why is it all the animals and the birds come in pairs? Why am I alone?

And the Creator said: “I am going to send you a companion. Together you will wander on the Earth and name all the things you see.”

The Creator sent Ma’iingan – the wolf – to walk with Original Man. Together, they traveled over the Earth and gave names to animals and birds, to plants and trees, and to rivers and lakes. And after many years, they returned to where their journey began.

Then the Creator said: “You will now walk separate but parallel paths.  What happens to one will happen to the other.”

In their separate lives, Original Man and Ma’iingan were alike. They had families that they raised with love and strong family values. Original Man lived in a clan, and Ma’iingan lived in a pack. The plants provided them with medicine, forests provided shelter, and animals provided food.

And, like the Creator told them, they shared the same fate. Ma’iingan was hunted for his fur, and Original Man was hunted for his hair. Their existence was considered an impediment by the colonizers; therefore they were shot, murdered, and forced off their land.

This was the path and the fate that the Anishinaabe and Ma’iingan shared together. Today, we share a similar fate. And that fate is tied to mining.

In 2008, Polymet released its Environmental Impact Study. The study focuses on specific areas that will be impacted by its mine. In the section on Wildlife, Polymet states that a wolf pack lives within a designated critical habitat located near the mine at Hoyt Lakes, and the pack will suffer a loss and fragmentation of habitat because of mining activity.  Polymet states that this pack will migrate into Superior National Forest or the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.

Like in the past, Ma’iingan is being forced from his land. Of course, Polymet doesn’t deem this as critical to the survival of the wolf. And, as Polymet states in their study, the life expectancy of their mine is 40 years, after which, the wolf can return to its former habitat. The question is – what will remain of that habitat that will have been exposed to 40 years of toxins and pollution.

One thing that the Polymet study doesn’t address is the expansion of copper mining in Minnesota. According to mining exploration maps, mining companies plan to build mines that begin on the shores of Anishinaabe-gichigami (Lake Superior) and extend far into the interior of northern and central Minnesota. If the Polymet mine is going to affect the loss of wolf habitat in Hoyt Lakes, what will be the loss of wolf habitat if mining occurs all across northern and central Minnesota? Where will Ma’iingan go?

The Anishinaabe share a similar fate. And that loss will be a loss of habitat for hunting, fishing, and harvesting wild rice on ceded land that is protected under our treaty rights. Like Ma’iingan, our food sustenance will be diminished, and the animals that migrate away from the mining will leave few animals to sustain our traditional diet that is essential to our health and well-being.

The relationship between the Anishinaabe and Ma’iingan, and all the other animals as well, extends beyond the story of Original Man.  

In our belief system, wolves and animals have a special place. All animals have a close connection with Mother Earth and with plants. Each animal and bird species is endowed with unique powers that were given to them by the Creator at the time of the Creation. Through the gifts that were given to them by the Creator, animals possess and reflect their inner being, their soul-spirit.

At the time when the Anishinaabe lived on the shores of the Great Salt Waters – the Atlantic coast – the Creator sent seven animals to teach us how to govern ourselves and how to build our social structure. The seven original animals were the Crane, Loon, Fish, Bear, Martin, Deer, and Birds. These were our original clans.  As the Anishinaabe multiplied, more clans were added, including the wolf.

All Anishinaabe people belong to a clan. Their clan heritage is passed on to them through their father. Our clan animal is our kin relative. The quality and character of the animal is passed on to us. For example, the character of Wolf clan people is perseverance and guardianship; the character of Beal clan people is strength and courage. Although the structure of our communities is no longer based on the clan system, our clan animals continue to shape and form who we are as individuals.  Our clan continues to provide us with self-identity and guides us in our roles in our communities.

Our elders teach us about the Four Orders of Life. Aki – Mother Earth – is the first order, followed by plants, then animals and, lastly, human beings. The Earth, plants, and animals can exist without human beings. But, human beings cannot exist without the Earth, plants, and animals.

When we look at what is happening to our brother, Ma’iingan, we see ourselves. When we see the blood of a murdered wolf, it is our blood.  When we see the paw of a wolf in a trap, it is our hand in a trap. When the fur of a wolf removed, our flesh is removed. 

This is the fate that the Anishinaabe face. And it is a fate that everyone here faces. This is about more than the hunting and killing of wolves. The name of the game is ecocide. Those who oppose the wolf hunt or sulfide mining are labeled as environmental terrorists. But we are not the terrorists. We are here to protect those that can’t speak. Through our actions, we must seek to restore the Four Orders of Life. That is our duty and responsibility. Because without them, we cannot exist.

Ahaaw, mii’gwech

Mii sa go 

17 Comments

    Author

    Endaso-Giizhik, Makwa 
    Indoodem, 
    Miskwaagamiiwi-zaaga'iganing

    Archives

    August 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    July 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    July 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011

    Categories

    All
    Anishinaabe
    Environment
    Environmental Justice
    Environmental Racism
    First Nations
    Idle No More
    Mining
    Nonferrous Mining
    Ojibwe
    Polymet
    Rio Tinto
    Sulfide Mining
    Tar Sands
    Transcanada
    Treaty Rights
    Twin Metals

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.