Support the Timberjay by making a donation.

Serving Northern St. Louis County, Minnesota

Native pushback

Tribes increasingly engaged in effort to slow the degradation from industrialization

Posted

Two stories in this week’s paper may appear separate, but they both reflect an awakening by native people across North America to the threats posed by the increasing industrialization of once remote parts of the continent.

From British Columbia to Minnesota, native people have exhibited a willingness to stand up and fight against environmental threats posed by oil shale and tar sands development, the spread of oil pipelines, as well as new mining ventures, ranging from coal to copper.

On the surface, the news that tribal members within the 1855 Treaty area (located just west of the 1854 Treaty zone), would seem to be about the right to harvest wild rice off-reservation.

What it’s really about is fighting for an equal voice with the Department of Natural Resources in the management of the lands throughout the treaty zone. Native peoples understand that treaty rights will have little value if the land and water have been degraded by the waste products of industrialization. The Sandpiper pipeline, slated to carry diluted tar sands oil through the heart of north-central Minnesota’s Indian Country, is just the most imminent threat facing the 1855 Treaty zone.

In his letter to state officials, Frank Bibeau, with the 1855 Treaty Authority, says that when it comes to ensuring the protection of treaty lands, his people can be “idle no more.” Bibeau’s language is no accident. It’s a direct reference to the remarkable indigenous movement, known as Idle No More, which began in Canada as a reaction to the devastation that tar sands and related development has caused for native peoples in western Canada.

The vision and activism sparked by Idle No More has provided inspiration that has stiffened the spines of environmental activists, both Indian and non-Indian, all across North America. Idle No More and its offshoots are pushing back against powerful corporations that view resources in dollars and cents rather than as a means of supporting traditional lifestyles and culture.

Indigenous people, particularly, face a myriad of threats to their future. Tribes are struggling with public health issues, like drug and alcohol abuse as well as sky-high rates of chronic diseases, like diabetes. They are frequently divided over leadership models, often imposed by non-Indians, that don’t fit their traditions. Many fear the loss of their language, which is just another step towards cultural extinction.

Add to this the threats posed by energy development on native lands, not to mention the existential threat posed by climate change, and it’s no wonder that native people are standing up and demanding a real voice.

That’s the backdrop behind the objections that PolyMet is facing from tribal authorities. They view the development of a new and more environmentally-hazardous form of mining in the heart of their treaty zone as just one more significant threat. In this case, tribal authorities have been outspoken in their efforts to ensure that the environmental review process actually discloses the potential effects. Unlike the past, tribal entities, such as the Fond du Lac Band and agencies like the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, have their own highly-trained research staff who are ready to challenge state and federal agencies when they don’t adequately perform their regulatory duties when it comes to major projects. It’s GLIFWC that’s been raising concerns about flaws in the water modeling for the PolyMet project, as we outline in our story starting on page one.

This new urgency by tribal officials around environmental protection is frustrating to those who see industrialization as an opportunity for new jobs and other benefits to communities in the region. Yet, for too long, such benefits have proven elusive to native communities. In the cost-benefit calculations, the benefits of such projects accrue primarily to corporate shareholders, and to a lesser extent to area workers, few of whom are actually native. Indigenous people are invariably stuck with the costs, which include degradation of water quality, social disruption, and loss of wildlife habitat. The fact that they are now speaking up in protest should come as no surprise. They’ve reached the logical conclusion that they can be idle no more.