Protecting Native American Sacred Sites

[rug]

By Duane Champagne October 27, 2011


Granite spires in the Black Hills of South Dakota.

The land has multiple cultural interpretations and creates competing orientations about the use and value of land. Since moving onto reservations most Native American communities have lost direct control over many of the sacred places within their community history and teachings. Holy or special places are vulnerable to non-Indian forces, which do not know about the meaning and purpose of the places and often destroy the sites for economic purposes.

Many of the mounds and earthworks from the Adena, Hopewellian, and Mississippian cultures, which stretched over the 800 BC to 1500 AD period, have been plowed over for farming.

Indian communities have always protected their sacred places. In recent decades tribal communities have worked hard to present legal cases, legislation, nonprofit foundations, and social protest as means to protect the burial grounds, history, and sacred places still living within their oral traditions.

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of the 1970s and later, provided directives from U.S. presidents that federal agencies needed to consult with tribal communities about actions that might affect tribal heritage and sacred sites on federal land.

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/10/protecting-native-american-sacred-sites/

[cleanhippie]

1. Natural wonders need to be preserved because they are natural wonders...

not because they are "sacred places."

[humblebum]

3. To the Native American they are sacred, therefore, they are sacred. nt

[darkstar3]

18. Still respecting those cows, are ya'?

This is still the most ridiculous idea ever spouted. Sacred to one is not sacred to all.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rug]

4. That's your opinion. here's another.

"For Indians, land was given as a gift from the Creator. The people belong to the land as do the plants and animals. The people are stewards of the land and are responsible for its preservation, management, and productivity to support future generations. The land is complete with sacred teachings, marked by tribal history, and places of interrelations to the powerful beings of the nature-spirit world."

[laconicsax]

5. What elevates one opinion over another?

Some people view the site as sacred, some think that cucumbers taste better when pickled. What about the former opinion demands respect where the latter garners only eye-rolls?

[rug]

6. Nothing.

However, in this case, since they were there for generations, were murdered and displaced, and had their land stolen, theirs should govern.

[laconicsax]

7. So it's a matter of redress, not religious belief. n/t

[humblebum]

9. To you maybe, but not to many Native Americans. nt

[cleanhippie]

13. It had better be about redress!

If its not redress, then we have to start giving EVERYONE equal protection of their religious beliefs, or lack of them, and I mean EVERYONE!

But we just cannot HAVE any religion other than Christianity getting any special protections or privileges...

[laconicsax]

14. We should outlaw eating meat.

Animals are sacred to multiple religions and it would have to be the highest form of bigotry to callously eat them.

[cleanhippie]

15. I heartily concur... We must respect religious beliefs.

ALL of them.


But thats now how it works if you are not christian in this country, now is it?

[laconicsax]

17. All religions are equal...some are more equal than others. n/t

[cleanhippie]

19. Well, not some, just one is more equal.

At least here in this country...

[laconicsax]

20. But I just read in another thread that there are multiple majority religions in the US...

:crazy:

[cleanhippie]

21. Well, of course there are, but only when it suits the argument.

[laconicsax]

22. I'm still trying to figure out how you can have multiple majorities...

Must be that Biblical math that lets multiple groups be a majority.

[cleanhippie]

23. hahaha! Biblical math!

You owe me a keyboard!

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rug]

25. Do you prefer to keep Native Americans from practicing their religion on federal land?

Oh wait, you do.

[laconicsax]

28. I do? That's news to me. n/t

[rug]

34. How surprising, then, that you support the use of public land for a relligious purpose.

Quite tolerant of you.

[laconicsax]

37. You're getting further and further from the mark.

By all means, keep telling me what I believe.

[rug]

38. It's easy. Pick one.

1) laconicsax supports the use of federal land for religious use by Native Americans

or

2) laconicsax opposes the use of federal land for religious purposes by Native Americans.

[cleanhippie]

40. As soon as YOU get off the fence...

1) rug supports child rape by catholic priests through his financial and material support to the catholic church which protects them

or

2) rug opposes child rape by catholic priests by not giving financial or material support to the catholic church which protects them.



It's easy. Pick one.

[rug]

45. Oh, you can't answer it either?

You must be embarassed, having to trot out that hoary chestnut to avoid an answer.

[cleanhippie]

48. Perhaps, but you WON'T answer at all.

You pretend its not happening, how can you NOT be embarrassed?

[rug]

56. Once again, trying to change the subject when it becomes untenable to your opinion.

[cleanhippie]

74. Once again, refusing to take a stand on what is right because your church refuses to.

Obfuscate all you want, but your position seems clear.

[laconicsax]

43. It must be confusing living with a perpetually binary mindset. n/t

[rug]

46. Ah, it must have been too hard.

Can't help you then. Just wallow in the contradiction.

[laconicsax]

49. There's no contradiction in my position; it's more nuanced than your binary thinking allows.

[rug]

50. Considering you have yet to state a psition, I find your nuances imaginary.

I'll just have to base my conclusion on what you have repeatedly written.

[laconicsax]

52. As usual, you never asked my position but repeatedly told me what it was. n/t

[rug]

55. All you have to do is state it.

Which you have yet to do.

[laconicsax]

61. Does this mean that you're asking me what my position is?

[rug]

63. Aren't you the shy one.

Stop this creepy charade and state your opinion.

Or not.

Oops, you have another binary choice. My bad.

[laconicsax]

64. Creepy charade? Aren't you polite.

Let's review the flawed binary choice you gave:

1) laconicsax supports the use of federal land for religious use by Native Americans

or

2) laconicsax opposes the use of federal land for religious purposes by Native Americans.

There are many subtle intermediate steps between (and beyond) those two choices.

I support the sale (or reperative return) of the contested land to Native Americans where possible. The conflict is not solely over whether the religious use of the land, but the land itself. By simply returning the land where possible, the conflict goes away and has the added benefit of helping repair relations between Federal and native parties.

[rug]

65. That's a good solution.

However, there remains the matter of what happens in the meantime, assuming it happens at all.

[laconicsax]

66. What do you know--a good solution that wasn't one of your binary choices. n/t

[rug]

67. It is good, but it's a potential, not actual solution.

Like it or not, the reality is at present it is a binary choice.

[laconicsax]

68. Since when do you limit yourself to what's real?

Last I heard, you accept the CCC, which is full of fantastic guesses and imagination.

[rug]

69. Since that's the only evidence you accept. I insist on it.

[laconicsax]

70. Ah, so you hold other people to higher standards than you hold yourself.

[rug]

71. Hardly. But I have a low threshhold for hypocrites.

To return to the subject after your attempted evasion, should they be allowed to use federal land for religious purposes until your, likely wishful, solution occurs?

[laconicsax]

72. There are only two H's in "threshold," not three.

Maybe this threshold is for when you'll engage in it? You did admit to holding me to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

[rug]

73. There's only one h in asshole.

After you're done playing with spellcheck you may address the topic at hand. Or, avoid it and travel down another inane alley.

[laconicsax]

77. I'm not done addressing your overt hypocrisy.

Call it an ad hominem if you like, but you invited it.

[rug]

78. I see you're not done evading.

Ad hominem is not the phrase that comes to mind.

[laconicsax]

79. I'm just following the golden rule as Jesus put it...

...and doing unto you as you regularly do unto others.

[rug]

80. You're not doing it half as well.

[laconicsax]

81. True, you are something of an expert at evasion.

Funny you have such a low tolerance for it in others.

[rug]

82. Ok, playtime over.

Keep yourself busy.

[laconicsax]

83. I was never any good at yo-yos

I could do some basic tricks, but nothing special.

[cleanhippie]

12. .

Nevermind

[humblebum]

8. If Native Americans consider their sites to be sacred, then indeed they are

considered sacred, regardless of what any materialist thinks.

[ZombieHorde]

32. The reaction to the site is sacred, the site is not sacred.

It is a human reaction to stimuli. Sacred is only in the imagination.

[humblebum]

39. And, that sir, is your opinion and it is most certainly not universally held. nt

[ZombieHorde]

44. How would you define sacred?

Is it based on God's reaction to stimuli? Is it an inherent quality of some matter? How does sacred work?

[tama]

54. Opinion does

And it is my opinion that the idea that 'all religions are equal' is wrong and misunderstood relativism. If there is moral and ethics, there is right and wrong.

Thieving and spoiling and murdering Christians and worshipers of Mammon are wrong and people who respect the land they belong to are right.

[cleanhippie]

11. Great!

The giant rock in my backyard that straddles the property line with the city is now a sacred place where I worship nature, in the tradition of my ancestors. (I'm 1/3 Cherokee, you know)

I suppose it now needs to be preserved, right?

[rug]

26. You only had 3 grandparents?

[laconicsax]

31. That still doesn't work out.

One parent would have to be 2/3 Cherokee. You can't do that with only 3 grandparents. You'd need at least 5: 3 for one parent, two for the other. The 2/3 parent gets three biological parents.

It's much simpler if it's just that cleanhippie has 3 biological parents...or if it was a joke.

[rug]

35. Then that parent would have only 3 grandparents.

[tama]

59. Easy

E.g. mothers mother and fathers mother were both cherokee women, who share same non-cherokee husband, who was both maternal and paternal grandfather.

[cleanhippie]

76. iPhone mistype.

1/4 cherokee, my tribe (from what I was told) originated in the area of North Georgia.

[ZombieHorde]

33. The poor economy has hit us in unexpected ways. nt

[rug]

36. Lol.

They're even stealing our ancestors.

[cleanhippie]

75. Meh, iphone mistype.

1/4 cherokee, my tribe (from what I was told) originated in the area of North Georgia.

[okasha]

84. Failed 1st -grade math, did you? Not to mention biology.

Pity.

[cleanhippie]

85. You're a day late and a dollar short, but nice try.

Already explained it just above, had you bothered to read.


But thanks for playing.

[cleanhippie]

86. I just realized how petty you are.

You read through some 85+ replies to this OP, including two just above where I explained my mistake, and your ONLY reply in this entire thread is an ignorant attempt to vilify me for a typo that you KNEW was a mistake, but called me out on it anyway?


You stay classy. I'm sure jesus is real proud.

[jwirr]

16. That sounds like Vine Deloria?

[rug]

27. It's from the posted article.

I expect he'd agree.

[Meshuga]

60. It is a complicated matter since both "sacred places" and "natural wonders" are very subjective

What is a "sacred place" to some is not sacred to others and what is a "natural wonder" to some is not a natural wonder to others.

In short, Native Americans cannot be dismissed (and I'm not saying that you are dismissing them) for viewing a place as sacred (in their point of view) in the same way that you and I have the right to view the place as a natural wonder that should be protected.

And I don't think the word "sacred" has to carry supernatural connotations to it. A lot of things that belong to one's heritage can be considered sacred, including land. And it is really unfortunate that we took it all from the natives in this continent and decimated their different cultures in the process.

[xchrom]

2. Recommend

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. One of the many ATVs riders I turned away tried that approach on me once

Claimed that they were there to visit their sacred sites (with a toy hauler!) and that I had to let them through and they had the right to stay on my property. Rather than play twenty questions about where they were going and what band they were part of, I suggested that they have BIA contact me to see if something could be worked out. They declined to leave me their names, contact info etc, though I did get some video and their license plates. It did get me thinking along those lines and with support from a local native american group, a coordinated survey was done. Nothing was found.

Background: I live out in the twigs (which is well past the sticks). I have had a problem with OHV riders using my property as a campground and staging area. Its taken several years and the installing of the mother of all gates, but it has pretty much stopped.

[randr]

24. Experiencing any enviroment in it's pristine form

will leave most with a sense of wonder. If you have never been in a pristine environment you would not know of this experience.
Some would call this a religious experience and hence the place being identified as sacred.
Any culture,in my mind, that preserves an environment due to this recognition of place has the right to call it sacred and others should respect their judgement.

[ZombieHorde]

29. Sacred is not a quality an object has; sacred is a reaction to stimuli.

Sacred is strictly imaginary. It does not exist outside of the imagination.

I do support protecting the wilderness from humans, but nothing is really sacred.

[laconicsax]

30. It's really an empty adjective. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

51. I think the adjective tells us about the speaker, as opposed to the object. nt

[Meshuga]

62. What exactly does that adjective tell about a speaker?

Surely, the word sacred can carry its religious context.

However, in a non-religious context, this adjective allows the speaker to describe how much he/she values something or how important something really is to the individual.

We all have values or things that are extremely important to us.

[tama]

57. Sacred is local

You could, and to stay consistent, should as well say that all concepts are strictly imaginary, they don't exist outside of the imagination - well duh, fine by me, does not mean the end of these imaginary discussions about imaginary concepts which don't exist outside of the imagination - including religion and atheism.

Like language and customs etc., sacred is social. In my language the word for sacred ('pyhä') means originally 'occupied, belonging to someone/something'.

In that sense, if you think that nothing is really sacred, you don't respect that which belongs to others, you believe that you are the owner of the world and everything in it. Which is the true religion of European imperialists and universalists, thieves.

[NMMNG]

47. I'm all for making amends to Native Americans

They've been given the shaft six ways from Sunday. I have a problem, however, when claims are being made on the basis that something is "sacred". That has such a nebulous and arbitrary meaning. One person's sacred place could be where they had a religious experience, and another person's could be where they first had sex. Should they all have special protections?

[tama]

58. Up to you

There is no point worrying about other peoples opinions, what do you yourself respect and protect?

[Igel]

53. Always a vexed question.

But bordering on silly in some cases.

If a group of Euro-Americans claimed that a portion of New Jersey was a sacred site, I'd probably laugh. At best they'd have been able to claim it as such only from the late 1600s. There'd be no claims of "indigenous" status.

But they'd have a stronger claim to having it be an "ancient" site than some Native American groups. People forget about migration--they know that Europeans migrated in and consequently dismiss such claims as borderline ridiculous. They assume that all native peoples have always been in the sites they had at some historically convenient point. Or they go to great pains to say there is only one "Native American" ethnicity or culture, which rather strikes me as equivalent to saying that there's only European ethnicity/culture or one African ethnicity/culture. (I guess since I'm primarily Irish, I have a strong claim to citizenship and ancestral lands in Finland and Basque country. To be indigenous to Europe is to be indigenous to any part of it, I assume.)