From Sea
to Shining Sea
by Diana
Ramsdell Newman
Traditionally, Native American women were integral to native
governance. In fact, the majority of tribes were matrilineal. Women were not
viewed as being inferior to men. They were entrusted with vital, respected
decision making positions. Men’s and women’s roles were viewed by both genders
as being distinctive but complementary and of equal importance. Even in patrilineal tribes women were held in
esteem as equals. Violence against women was unusual and was not tolerated by
tribal communities. Women were valued as being uniquely powerful, practical,
reasonable, strong, and spiritually discerning.
Elizabeth Cody Stanton and Matilda Joslyn Gage, women’s rights
advocates of the mid-nineteenth century, expressed great admiration for the
egalitarian worldview modeled by the Iroquois. Whereas these two women felt
disenfranchised by men in their own patriarchal culture, they witnessed firsthand
the dignity with which Iroquois women were treated. Iroquois women were not similarly marginalized
but exercised considerable influence. Stanton and Gage noted that the
nomination of chiefs was entrusted to Iroquois women. Women were likewise free
to initiate definitive, corrective actions if they became disenchanted with the
actions of an errant chief.
It may warrant mentioning that although early white feminists
are rightly celebrated for their awareness and courageous initiative in
relation to gender issues, many Native American women view the impacts of racial
discrimination and class status as far outweighing gender bias as being the
primary determinants of oppression in
the lives of women of color. A fuller
view of the causes of their oppression must take into account the pervasive and
debilitating impact of the Manifest Destiny and colonization upon Native
Americans.
With colonialism came the wholesale importation and imposition
of a hierarchical, Eurocentric model of governance that ran counter to Native
American practices. Its patriarchal view and biased suppositions
claiming the inferiority of women had far-reaching and devastating consequences
in the lives of countless Native Americans. For instance, white government officials and
settlers typically refused to talk with tribal women regardless of the women’s leadership
roles and status within the tribe. The undermining of kinship traditions, the
persistent lack of acknowledgment of female leadership, the forced
displacement, abuse, and annihilation of
native peoples, and the violation of indigenous homelands served to cut off at
the very roots much that had successfully sustained the integrity of
traditional cultural values.
The sense of place, a profound kinship with the land, and its
inhabitant’s respect for the reciprocal nature of relationship between all
living beings was of paramount importance to Native American spirituality. The
natural homeland as a place of reverence was a kind of sacred geography as
essential to Native Americans as was the primacy of the church building to many
European immigrants.
In direct relationship with nature, life, and death Native
Americans viewed time as cyclical and reciprocal. The prevailing mindset of the
invading Europeans was by contrast given over to linear thinking and concepts
of ownership that were the antithesis of indigenous experience and values. To
the Native American the living, the generations to come, and the ancestors were
inextricably and holistically connected as a sacred ecology from which a
natural theology was recognized. While there was much diversity among tribal
groups, a common hallmark of the over 500 tribal nations is that its land-based
experience spawned sensibilities and cosmologies that embodied a deeply
informed awareness of the relational interconnectedness of all creation. Thus
native religion was naturally and intrinsically bound in vibrant relationship
with specific bio-regions. Within the rich and multidimensional circumference of
bio-region all was considered sacred. Thus, to witness exploitation of nature
was to native peoples nothing short of utter disregard for the Creator, and was
equivalent to seeing the desecration of
one’s beloved church or violation of one’s mother. Pervasive displacement of native peoples from
their ancestral homelands was a vehicle of religious persecution and genocide.
An undeniable part of the legacy of the dominant culture is
that the sovereignty of over 500 indigenous nations on this continent called
Turtle Island has been violated and its lands have been largely desecrated! So it is understandable that contemporary
Native American women activists often articulate and exercise a distinctive
feminist ideology that takes into account the necessity of environmental
justice, reclamation of displaced
kinship traditions, and the concept of “birthright’ in relation to homelands.
Remarkably the strong oral tradition integral to traditional
native culture has survived and continues to uniquely inform and rekindle
native women’s vision and activism today. In fact, indigenous women from all
parts of the globe are gathering, networking, and articulating their concerns
and hopes. Future installments will address issues specific to indigenous
women, their struggles, and their vision.
Many people in the United States continue to rationalize or
understate the magnitude and unjust impact that the legacy of the Manifest
Destiny has had on indigenous populations including its contemporary
incarnations (economic usurpation and
environmental degradation of ancestral lands) which continue to violate indigenous
peoples. Do nations of our earth
actually share a consensual view about any of this? In 2007, after twenty years
of study and dialogue, The United Nations passed a landmark Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples. 143 nations endorsed the
resolution which affirms and upholds the rights of self-determination to the
world’s indigenous groups.
Even though the Declaration is legally nonbinding and cannot
be enforced by international law it does clearly articulate the predominant and
unequivocal sentiment of the participants that native people’s throughout the
world deserve authentic redress of grievances and the rightful exercise of
sovereignty. There is some optimism that the resolution is an indication that
several nations will now be willing to voluntarily engage in negotiations with
indigenous groups whose lands have been acquired though domination and
colonization. But in keeping with the United State’s current propensity to dig
in its heels and exempt itself from global responsibilities and protocols, it
was one of only four nations that voted against the resolution. Given the sheer
enormity of the amount of land and resources acquired at the expense of native
sovereignty on Turtle Island “from sea to shining sea” is it really any
surprise that countries opposing the resolution such as the U.S. and Canada
would shy from the accountability of colonizers implicit in the Declaration? No
doubt Article 26 of the Declaration poses a bit of a problem to big time land
grabbers: “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and
resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or
acquired.”
If returning an entire continent to the descendants of over
500 indigenous nations is untenable how then will the United States begin to
make authentic restitution? Perhaps one way is for its citizens and governing
bodies to reach beyond tokenism and make a steadfast commitment to foster true
freedom and justice for all.
