1 / 42

Shared Space

REMOVAL REVERSED : Native/ non-Native joint management of reclaimed lands Dr. Zoltan Grossman Faculty member in Geography and Native American Studies, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz. Shared Space.

alec
Download Presentation

Shared Space

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. REMOVAL REVERSED : Native/non-Native joint management of reclaimed landsDr. Zoltan GrossmanFaculty member in Geographyand Native American Studies,The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washingtonhttp://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz

  2. Shared Space Hybrid space or “negotiated space”as relates to Native peoples and land use (Morris and Fondahl 2002, Waage 2001)Mainly co-management of ceded territory resources(NWIFC 1998, Ellsworth et al 1997)Natives and non-Natives removed from landscape Return for divided ownership, joint control

  3. Shared Space Alleviate interethnic conflictCorrect past injustices Against Native people Against non-Native land-based peopleCommon source of place identityCommon goals for sustainability

  4. Possible Wisconsin Precedents Ho-Chunk Nation- Closed munitions plant - Defeated dam projectWolf River tribes - Mole Lake Ojibwe, Potawatomi - Defeated mine project; two tribes bought land

  5. Ho-Chunk Nation Formerly Wisconsin Winnebago Tribe Origins in the effigy mound builders of Southern Wisconsin Agricultural people along waterways

  6. xxxxxxx • xxxxx

  7. Ho-Chunktreaties Strategic waterways Lead Rush of 1820s Rich farmland for settlement, 1830s Resistance to Indian Removal (Loew 2001)

  8. Return to Wisconsin

  9. Resistance to Removal Wazijaci (Dwellers Among Pines) hid out Many returned from new reservations Some white farmers actively opposed removal by 1870s (Reedsburg incident)

  10. Ho-Chunk survival Wisconsin homesteads permitted, 1870s Poor in income and land Little federal interference with cultural autonomy

  11. Ho-Chunk survival Purchased land parcels in 14 counties Tribal status in 1962 5,000 + members by 1990s Casino success in 1990s Casino near Wisconsin Dells

  12. Ho-Chunk survival Using gaming revenue to acquire a few parcels 832 acres into trust by 1997 Federal trust relationship used for return of other parcels Muscoda bison ranch Whirling Thunder stables

  13. KickapooReserve and SaukPrairieHo-Chunkceded lands inpurple;Present-daylands in red

  14. KickapooValley Vernon County, Southwestern Wisconsin

  15. KickapooValley Ho-Chunk sacred sites, rock art Very few Ho-Chunk remained after Removal Maintained visits to Kickapoo River

  16. La Farge Dam Proposed 1961, but environmental opposition Local white residents removed from 14-mile stretch of river 8,600-acre site grew over; little dam construction Dam plans scuttled, 1975

  17. Kickapoo Reserve Army Corps of Engineers promised to State for conservation, 1997 State promised to turn over 1,200 acres to Ho-Chunk Nation Entire 8,600-acre site under joint management, 2001

  18. Kickapoo Reserve Ho-Chunk & farmers had common historyof forced removal Yet conflict over who is “local” Some resentment of DNR by former landowners

  19. KickapooReserve division Joint land- use plan protects natural and cultural resources, enhances recreation

  20. Kickapoo Reserve Management Board 11 member, appointedby Governor; State-fundedLocal majority principleRepresents State, Tribe, Local Communities, WatershedHo-Chunk own 1,200 acres

  21. Kickapoo Reserve Management Board 2 3 4 2 STATE (3)At-large non-local agencyrepresentatives with expertise in resources, tourism, education.TRIBAL(2)Ho-Chunk Nation reps, one of whom is a watershed resident. LOCAL COMMUNITIES(4)Nominated from adjacent communities, school boards KICKAPOO WATERSHED(2)At-large members from watershed; not all adjacent. Executive Director runs KRMB.

  22. Skunk Hill burial site (Arpin, Wood County) Conflict over Powers Bluff County Park tree cuttings for for ski run expansion, 1999-2001Resolution with Wood County for joint management of cultural/ natural resources, 2002Ho-Chunk Nation,Prairie Band (Kansas) Potawatomi, Friends of Powers Bluff (enviros)purchasing parcels for $48,000 Potawatomi also removed & returned

  23. Badger Ammo Plant on Sauk Prairie xxxx

  24. Sauk Prairie Glacial outwash plainsouth of Baraboo HillsHo-Chunk farm fieldson rich soilFire management ofvast prairie for huntingNative Americansremoved, 1830s Sauk County, South-Central Wisconsin

  25. Sauk Prairie

  26. Badger Ordnance WorksBuilt in WWII on some ofWisconsin’s richest farmland.Flat area with access to water and labor.

  27. Removal of farmers, 1942 Sited Nov. 1941 oversites with poorer soilAccepted after Pearl Harbor Some of 90 landownersnot paid fair price7,400 acres evacuated;buildings torn down

  28. Badger Army Ammunition Plant Made propellant for shells, bullets, rockets Open during WWII, Korea, VietnamMothballed 1975(Goc 2002)

  29. Badger Army Ammunition Plant Nitrates contaminated groundwater (uninhabitable) Army clean-up begun Prairie grasses, birds, wildlife flourished above

  30. Badger closure begins, 1998 Claims of Tribe (1,500 acres), Federal (USDA) over State (DNR). No local claim, but ex-residentfamilies want to have sayChoice between conservation/tourism and reindustrialization

  31. Badger land use plan conflicts Tribe proposed prairie restoration, bison herd, cultural site protection State wanted full DNR control of contiguous site as parkTribe can pressure Army clean-up;critiques DNR track record Agricultural use on site

  32. Conflict over who is “local” Ho-Chunk not treated as “local” (2nd highest tribal population) County gov’t opposed tribal role, feared casinoFrom federal land to trust land(no loss in local taxes)Tribe largest employer in county

  33. Badger Re-Use Committee, 2001 State, tribal, federal governments divided ownership, possible joint management? “Uses and activities … contribute to the reconciliation and resolution of past conflicts involving the loss and contamination of the natural environment, the displacement of Native Americans and Euro-American farmers, and the effects of war.”

  34. Future Land Use Concepts

  35. OwnershipproposalsMost pollutedsites in north/central zoneGSA acreagedecision, 2003:DNR 4,700USDA 2,000Ho-Chunk 420(in NW corner)

  36. Other Ho-ChunkenvironmentalconcernsMilitary low-level flights (‘95)Hardwood Bombing Range expansion (Juneau/Wood)Perrier springwater (Adams)Xcel incinerator (LaCrosse)

  37. Land divided but joint managementReturn of the land to those who respect and care for it the mostPossible precedents for shared sovereignties (Khamisi 2001) Shared Space

  38. Ho-Chunk Nation www.ho-chunknation.comKickapoo Valley Reserve kvr.state.wi.usBadger Re-Use Committee www.co.sauk.wi.us/badgereuseplanSauk Prairie Conservation Alliance www.saukprairievision.org Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger www.cswab.comMidwest Treaty Network www.treatyland.com

  39. Ellsworth, JP, LP Hildebrand, and EA Glover. 1997. “Canada’s Atlantic Coastal Action Program: A community-based approach to collective governance.” Ocean & Coastal Management 36(2), 121-42.Goc, Michael J. 2002. Powder, People, and Place: Badger Ordnance Works and the Sauk Prairie.Friendship, Wis.: New Past Press.Ho-Chunk Nation and the State of Wisconsin. 1999. “Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Badger Army Ammunition Plant.” (Dec. 11).Khamaisi, R. 2002. “Shared Space, Separate Geopolitically. “ Geoforum 33(3), pp 278-283.Loew, Patty, 2001. Indian Nations of Wisconsin: Histories of Endurance and Removal. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, pp 40-53.Morris, P., and G. Fondahl. .2002. “Negotiating the Production of Space in Tl’azt’en Territory, Northern British Columbia.” Canadian Geographer 26(2).Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). 1998. Comprehensive Tribal Natural Resource Management: A Report from the Treaty Indian Tribes in Western Washington.Smith, Susan L. 1997, “Ho-Chunk Land Returned in Kickapoo Valley.”Wisconsin State Journal (Oct. 29).Waage, Sissel A. 2001. “(Re)claiming space and place through collaborative planning in rural Oregon.” Political Geography 20(7), pp 839-858.Wisconsin Cartographers’ Guild. 1998. Wisconsin’s Past and Present: A Historical Atlas. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

More Related