Settler Colonialism, Genocide & Healing in California

Reed: We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us: Settler Colonialism

We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us: Settler Colonialism, Genocide & Healing in California

Dr. Kaitlin Reed Abstract

This essay proposes that the history of California includes the intended destruction and decimation of native cultures, including their forced removal, illegal land acquisition, slavery, separation of families, and outright murder enacted by the private citizenry and governmental agencies during European contact can be defned as genocide as outlined by the United Nations Geneva Convention, 1948. The lasting legacy of contact on aboriginal lifeways and tradition, as well as the recent resurgence of native traditions and culture is addressed to suggest that the health and healing of native communities lies in reconciling the past to make passage into the future.

Introduction

In 1979, Hupa and Cherokee scholar Jack Norton lamented over both the conse- quences and unfnished business of the California Indian genocide. While the state sanctioned killing of California Indians occurred well over a century ago, the impacts of that violence continue to be felt in Indian Country. Norton (1979) writes:

In two hundred years of brutal occupation they have repeatedly committed genocide in one form or another. Its patterns, its pervasiveness, its massive conspiracy is so common and well understood that its horror is difused. It is so embedded in clichés of white manifest destiny, that the magnitude of the crime is transformed into inevitability or high moral principles… The American citizens have inherited the patterns, the scheme and the business of making America great. And to accom- plish this task, the policies of two hundred years of white supremacy and destiny have been embraced and accepted by society (125, emphasis added).

The genocide that founded California is erased from state curricula and the con- sciousness of its settlers. However, Norton understands genocide, much like settler colonialism, as a process that is often ongoing and that can take many forms. The building of the American nation-state and the State of California were fundamentally dependent upon violence against Indigenous people -- and continue to be so. In other words, the United States was born out of genocide. The ‘business of making America’ great, as Norton phrases it in 1979, was a business of Indian killing and the plunder of natural resources justifed by white supremacy and manifest destiny.

Published by Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University, 2020 27 Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, Vol. 1, No. 42 [2020], Art. 4 28 Reed

Thirty-seven years later, in 2016, the ing structure of Indigenous land dispos- Trump administration came into power session. Scholars have varied viewpoints -- relying on the campaign slogan “Make on the relationship between settler co- America Great Again.” Embodying Amer- lonialism and genocide. Historian Rox- ican exceptionalism, this slogan perpet- anne Dunbar-Ortiz (2014) argues settler uates an American mythology predi- colonialism is “inherently genocidal” cated on the ideological construction of because it is predicated on the elimi- the United States as morally righteous nation of Native peoples (p. 9). Patrick and divinely ordained. This narrative Wolfe (2006), however, argues settler co- also erases the violence required to cre- lonialism is “not invariably genocidal” ate the United States -- and the ongoing as elimination can occur without consti- structural violence of U.S. occupation on tuting genocide (p. 387). While we can- stolen Indigenous land. Historian Ned not confate these terms, I argue settler Blackhawk (Western Shoshone) argues, colonialism produces what Tony Barta in his award-winning book Violence Over calls “relations of genocide” (2000). Spe- the Land, that American exploration and cifcally, I understand these “relations of conquest required violence to organize genocide” as settler colonial orientations economies and settlements. This is be- to land and environmental destruction. cause “people do not hand over their Throughout my analysis, I suggest that land, resources, children, and futures the kinship-oriented relationships to without a fght, and that fght is met with land held by Indigenous peoples, as well violence” (Dunbar-Ortiz 2014:8). This vi- as the theorization of land within Indig- olence must then be institutionalized to enous Studies, works to complicate and maintain systems of domination over expand contemporary notions of geno- Indigenous peoples. In other words, cide. “violence and American nationhood, in The State of California epitomizes short, progressed hand in hand” (Black- settler colonial genocide as its very ex- hawk 2006:9). The United States, as we istence emanated from the genocide of know it today, would not exist without Native peoples. And recently -- on June genocidal measure inficted upon In- 18, 2019 -- California Governor Gavin digenous peoples and the expropria- Newsom acknowledged and apologized tion of Indigenous lands; indeed, what for the genocide against California In- Norton points out – and Trump misses dians. Specifcally, he stated: “It’s called completely – is that the construction of a genocide. That’s what it was. A geno- America’s ‘greatness’ rests on racial cap- cide. [There’s] no other way to describe italism, land theft, and settler colonial it and that’s the way it needs to be de- violence. scribed in the history books. And so I’m This essay seeks to understand the here to say the following: I’m sorry on interconnections between settler colo- behalf of the state of California” (Luna nialism and genocide – with an explicit 2019). While this is certainly an improve- focus on land dispossession and envi- ment over the American exceptionalist ronmental destruction -- and what that rhetoric of the Trump administration -- means for California Indians today. Set- especially considering that the United tler colonialism is a historical and ongo- States Federal Government has never

https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/hjsr/vol1/iss42/4 28 Reed: We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us: Settler Colonialism We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us 29

acknowledged genocide against Native of Native lands continues to be justifed Americans in any form (Gilio-Whitaker through the legal fction of the Discovery 2019) -- acknowledgements and apolo- Doctrine and ideological constructions gies must come with action. In line with of Manifest Destiny. The destruction of Gilio-Whitaker’s critique of acknowl- Native lands continues in the name of edgement, Hupa scholar Stephanie capitalistic resource extraction and eco- Lumsden tweeted the following shortly nomic development. The ongoing proj- after Newsome’s acknowledgement of ect of settler colonialism -- aimed at the genocide. dispossession of Indigenous lands and With humor and wit, Lumsden ar- erasure of Indigenous people -- is found- ticulates a connection between the his- ed on genocide. toric land dispossession of California This article is organized into three Indians, genocide and the ongoing proj- key sections. The frst section examines ect of settler colonialism. Contemporary the consistent denial of the California In- inequalities experienced by California dian genocide by both historians and the Indians -- and, indeed, Native peoples broader American public. The second throughout Turtle Island -- can all be section provides a brief historical narra- traced back to land and the disposses- tive of the California Indian genocide for sion thereof. Or, as Hupa scholar Brittani the potentially unfamiliar reader. This Orona phrases in the short documenta- section does not set out to prove that a ry History of Native California: “we are a genocide did occur, as this has already part of the land and the land is us.” In- been rigorously documented by numer- digenous studies scholar and political ous scholars. The third section makes a ecologist Clint Carroll (2015) argues that signifcant departure and explores the all contemporary social, political, eco- theoretical underpinnings of settler co- nomic issues in Indian Country “come lonialism and genocide. Here I explore back to the issue of land and the degree the notion that healing from the Califor- of our connection to it” (p. 12). The theft nia Indian genocide requires both land

Figure 1

Published by Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University, 2020 29 Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, Vol. 1, No. 42 [2020], Art. 4 30 Reed

reparations and ecological restoration. ticism she faces by students when they Put simply, we must call for decoloniza- fnally learn that a genocide occurred in tion. Decolonization, as Tuck and Yang California and that the very formation (2012) argue, is not a metaphor, nor does of the state is tied to this genocide. And it have a synonym; decolonization “in yet, even professors of history deny that the settler colonial context must involve such a genocide occurred. When Maidu/ the repatriation of land… that is, all of Navajo student Chiitaanibah Johnson the land, and not just symbolically” (p. spoke up in a history course with Mau- 7). And thus, one cannot talk about heal- ry Wiseman, a history professor at CSU ing without talking about land; that con- Sacramento, to argue that a genocide oc- nection is deeply rooted. To heal from curred in California, Wiseman allegedly the genocide, California Indian commu- claimed that genocide was not an appro- nities need land reparations. That isn’t priate word to describe what happened to say that communities without land in California because Native people pri- bases are incapable of healing from the marily died of disease.1 Historians cling traumas of settler colonial genocide, to this narrative, referred to by historian but rather that the theft of land was an Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz (2014) as a termi- important component of genocide and nal narrative. “Commonly referred to as therefore the restitution of lands must the most extreme demographic disaster be an important component of healing -- framed as natural -- in human histo- from genocide. And thus, I argue, to heal ry, it was rarely called genocide until a people from genocide, you also need to the rise of Indigenous movements in the heal the land -- because we are a part of mid-twentieth century forged questions” the land and the land is us. (p. 40). By attributing Native American demise to disease, scholars avoid culpa- Denial of the California bility and reinforce the notion that Na- Indian Genocide: “Yes There tive Americans are biologically inferior Was, It Was Genocide” -- simply not meant to survive into the age of modernity. In this pithy blog post title by Dr. Historians -- and the broader Amer- Cutcha Risling Baldy, a Hupa, Yurok, ican public -- simultaneously mitigate and Karuk scholar as well as the Depart- and espouse the violence that occurred ment Chair of Native American Studies to Indigenous peoples. James Fenelon at Humboldt State University, she hu- and Cliford Trafzer (2014) provide six morously preempted the widespread de- key reasons why historians -- and Amer- nial -- by students and historians alike -- ican citizenry -- deny, dismiss, or distort of the California Indian genocide. In this genocide against California Indians (and post, Risling Baldy discusses the skep- Native Americans broadly):

1. While it is technically true that many California Indians did, in fact, die of disease, Wiseman’s argu- ment severely simplifes the complexity of genocide. If one is sick during a genocidal event, one does not stop to care for themselves. You hide, you run, you pray. The question is more complicated than “did you die of the fu?” (Risling Baldy).

https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/hjsr/vol1/iss42/4 30 Reed: We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us: Settler Colonialism We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us 31

(a) the difcult analysis of genocide students that are not enrolled in my in California because of the lack of courses seek me out to obtain historical- precedent; ly accurate information about the histo- (b) general denial among scholars, his- ry of California. While drafting this ar- torians, and sociopolitical forces; ticle at a cafe, a student approached me (c) an inability to establishing inten- to share that one of her professors also tionality (critical to proving geno- denied that a genocide took place in Cal- cide); ifornia and, much like Maury Wiseman, (d) Inapplicability of contemporary claimed that we had merely died of dis- models; ease. California Indians are screaming (e) Lack of temporal sequencing be- out the truth, but “the collective silence tween systems (e.g., missions to on this genocide is so loud” (Risling U.S. Indian policy); Baldy 2015). (f) Failure to take responsibility by de- My task at hand is not to prove that scendants and benefciaries of geno- a genocide occurred in California as cidal policies (similar to through- it has been rigorously documented by out the United States generally) many. Two recent published texts in- (p. 13). clude Brendan Lindsay’s (2012) Murder State: California’s Native American Geno- Fenelon and Trafzer provide detailed cide, 1846-1873 and Benjamin Madley’s analysis of all six reasons that historians (2016) An American Genocide: The United refute the reality of the California Indi- States and the California Indian Catastro- an genocide despite extensive historical phe. Each text provides detailed histor- documentation. Rather than reiterating ical accounts of genocide and explicitly that analysis here, I would suggest that analyzes them within the context of the there remains an underlying thematic UN Genocide Convention defnition. connector between these points of dis- While these lauded texts are rife with agreement. The California Indian Geno- historical evidence, California Indi- cide was essential to the creation of Cal- an scholars are challenging historical ifornia as both state and contemporary representations of genocide in Califor- property ownership confgurations (as nia. Hupa scholar Stephanie Lumsden, well as water and other natural resourc- for example, makes a very important es). The centrality of genocide to the set- methodological critique of Madley’s An tler’s way of life is a daunting epistemic American Genocide. Lumsden argues that realization. “Madley is methodologically upholding The justifcation and rationalization a settler narrative of disavowal that lo- of the genocide in California, committed cates genocide exclusively in the past” by settlers, is perpetuated to this day. (Lumsden 2018:3). The Freudian concept It is found in its absence: absence from of disavowal is characterized by “simul- school curricula, absence from tourist taneous acknowledgement and denial” leafets, absence from thought. Howev- that “allows [for] the rejection of some er, within my experiences as an educator perception of reality because, if accepted within the university structure, students as real, that perception would threaten are hungry for this information. Even the integrity of an existing worldview”

Published by Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University, 2020 31 Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, Vol. 1, No. 42 [2020], Art. 4 32 Reed

(Madsen 2012:xi). The slavery and geno- sion and contamination of Indigenous cide of California Indians challenges lands. ideologies of terra nullius and manifest Works such as Hupa/Cherokee destiny and, indeed, the very legitima- scholar Jack Norton’s (1979) text When cy of the liberal democratic settler state. Our Worlds Cried: Genocide in Northwest- While scholars are now beginning to ern California, in contrast to works such as address the historical evidence of the Madley’s, center Indigenous experience California Indian genocide, within their and conceptualize genocide as a pattern scholarship it remains a purely historical of violence -- rather than a phenomenon phenomenon. Similar to how settler co- temporally bound in the past. Moreover, lonialism is often perceived as an event Norton has been writing about genocide that is over now, genocide is temporally in California well before it became trendy bounded by historians. Lumsden, how- and thus his text signifcantly predates ever, stresses that: contemporary historical scholarship on the California Indian genocide. Norton What must be remembered then, is the frst scholar to use the UN Geno- is that the genocide enacted by the cide Convention defnition to frame his settler state against California Indi- evidence of the California Indian geno- an peoples continues to frame the cide. California Indian scholars are still material conditions of our lives and relying on this text. In a Spring 2017 issue that the disavowal of that relation- of News from Native California, Hupa ship is necessarily incomplete… By scholar Brittani Orona reviewed the book. locating California Indian genocide She refects on the importance of fnding in a fxed moment in time Madley, this text as a young historian and how intentionally or not, limits how we it helped guide her through college and might understand the logics of elim- eventually her doctoral work in Native ination as they are deployed by the American Studies. Orona (2017) writes: state in the contemporary moment. (Lumsden 2018:11-12) The impact of Jack Norton’s work, however, has stayed with me well Native peoples in California continue to into my academic career. I continual- live with the impacts of genocide. Lums- ly reach for the book to better under- den’s (2016) scholarship demonstrates stand how we survived the unspeak- the ways in which the incarceration of able violence that nearly destroyed Native peoples continues the work of our worlds. I marvel at what my an- settler colonialism by displacing Indig- cestors survived under such intense enous jurisprudences, physically remov- hatred and evil… We survived and ing Native peoples from their land, and we must, as Norton asserts, continue “much like the early practices of geno- to carefully discern every act of vio- cide in California, it keeps Native people lence and to bear witness to the truth from reproducing Indian identity, cul- of that violence (p. 33-34). ture, land, and children” (p. 33). I argue throughout this essay that this is also Like Orona, I also found power and mo- done through the continued disposses- tivation within this text. Additionally,

https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/hjsr/vol1/iss42/4 32 Reed: We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us: Settler Colonialism We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us 33

Norton helped shape my scholarship pristine land and watersheds, and de- during my formative years of gradu- pendent on a continuing fresh supply of ate school and encouraged me to make human beings, specifcally Indian, which ideological connections between set- were in increasingly short supply” (p. tler violence against Indigenous bodies 16). Resistance, however, loomed large. and settler violence against Indigenous California Indians continued to prac- lands, and recognize the ways in which tice their ceremonies under the guise of this violence is continually reproduced Christianity and some Tribes, such as today. the Kumeyaay, destroyed the mission al- together. During the second wave, from The California Indian the end of missionization to the start of Genocide: Brief Historical the Mexican-American War, trading and Narrative ranching increased throughout the re- gion; as a result, many California Indi- California Indians experienced three ans were sold into slavery to be exploit- distinct waves of genocide. Spanish mis- ed for their labor and diseases began to sionization, the frst wave of California ravage Native communities (Reséndez genocide, lasted from 1769-1820. The 2016; Tolley 2006). While slavery and second wave ranged from 1821 to 1845, disease certainly had negative impacts between the end of the missionization for Indigenous California, Forbes argues period and the Mexican-American War. that “generally speaking, the Spanish The third and fnal wave of California and Mexican period had very little over- genocide coincided with the Gold Rush; all cultural impact upon Indian people this genocide lasted from 1846-1873 aside from the great population reduc- (Tolley 2006). It is estimated that the tion” (Forbes 1971:239). This speaks to death toll of California Indians between both the resiliency of California Indians, 1770 and 1900 was over 90% of the pop- but also the extreme measures taken by ulation – decreasing from 310,000 to less the United States Federal Government than 20,000 (Cook 1978). Some Califor- and the State of California to eradicate nia Indian scholars suggest this fgure California Indians and solve the Indian was signifcantly higher than 310,000 Problem. and may have been closer to one million. The infamous California Gold Rush The Spanish Catholic missionization – celebrated as a feat of American inge- of California lasted from 1769 to 1820. nuity and perseverance – resulted in the Spanish priests summoned soldiers to destruction of Native California commu- round up California natives to construct nities and environments. “The Gold Rush adobe brick missions under slave-like was an instrumental event in the econom- conditions; many were forced to re- ic history of California, setting the tone, side within mission walls and practice mind-set, fervor, and conditions for the Spanish Catholicism. Deborah Miranda exploitation of other resources and the (2013), in her tribal memoir Bad Indians, mistreatment of minorities” (Anderson defnes Missions: “Massive Conversion 2005:91). The Gold Rush marks a legacy Factory centered around a furnace con- of American colonialism that relegates In- structed of fesh, bones, blood, grief, and digenous lands and bodies as wastelands

Published by Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University, 2020 33 Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, Vol. 1, No. 42 [2020], Art. 4 34 Reed

while simultaneously glorifying a con- ry of the white anglo-saxon tran- structed ‘California Story’ – a narrative of sient, who came to rape a land and nineteenth century California history as a a people. Those shibboleths of inev- heroic tale of how the West was won. itable confict, the greatest good for the greatest number, and the destiny of the Violence against peaceable Indians white man, are the ramblings of a vi- was to be deplored – so went the olent national attitude that brought emerging California Story – but as death, destruction and dishonor an inferior civilization stuck in the upon the western hemisphere. (Nor- past they were destined to extinc- ton 1979:xi) tion anyway… This revisionist view of the past quickly became incor- Norton recounts numerous massacres porated into the teaching of history replete with gruesome detail. He ar- in schools and museums, the com- gues that gold and greed is what “ig- memoration of signifcant events nited the brutality, savagery, and flthi- and people, and the development of ness of those early white men” (Norton the state’s cultural identity in mag- 1979:38). Contemporary scholars, such azines, travelogues, adventure sto- as Benjamin Madley and Brendan Lind- ries, and public gatherings. (Platt say, have built upon the work of Norton 2011:57) and others (Heizer 1974; Norton 1979; Trafzer and Hyer 1999). Lindsay focuses This story rationalized “Settler colonial- on the ways in which the California In- ism, exculpated white Americans for dian genocide was fueled by preexisting nineteenth- and twentieth-century vi- racism, facilitated through democrat- olence, and erased Indigenous People ic procedure, and advertised through from the historical and contemporary media (Lindsay 2012). Madley’s work scene” (Bauer Jr. 2016:5). From class- constitutes year-by-year recounting of rooms to State Senate meetings, the Cali- the California Indian genocide; he ana- fornia Story continues to endure. lyzes the state and federal decision-mak- In response to such widespread his- ers, the organization and funding of the torical amnesia, California Indians con- genocide campaign, and the roles of vig- tinue to tell their stories and produce ilantes, volunteer state militiamen, and educational materials that counteract US soldiers (Madley 2016). public curricula predicated on lies. In The formation of the State of Cal- reality, the Gold Rush resulted in “mas- ifornia was predicated on violence and sacres, slavery, and the environmental founded through genocide. One of the raping of the land” (Lowry et al., 1999:1). very frst laws passed by the nascent And, of course, Jack Norton’s work con- legislature was the 1850 Act for the Gov- tinues to be a foundational text on the ernance and Protection of the Indians. California Indian genocide. He argues Unfortunately, this law did neither. First that Northwestern California represents and foremost, this act stripped Califor- nia Indians of legal rights, including the … relatively small geographical area ability to testify against a white person is a microcosm of the brutal savage- in court (“An Act for the Government

https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/hjsr/vol1/iss42/4 34 Reed: We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us: Settler Colonialism We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us 35

and Protection of Indians,” 1850). Fur- USFG (Madley 2016:174-175). The death thermore, this act “facilitated removing toll of California Indians from American California Indians from their traditional colonization was the most extreme; be- lands, separating at least a generation of tween 1846 and 1870 the California In- children and adults from their families, dian population plunged from 150,000 languages, and cultures (1850-1865), and to less than 30,000 (Cook 1978; Madley indenturing Indian children and adults 2016; Tolley 2006). to Whites” (Johnston-Dodds 2002:5). In the following two years, 1851 and Norton argues that this law amounted 1852, U.S. Indian Commissioners nego- to slavery (Norton 1979:44). Included in tiated 18 treaties with California Indian Norton’s book is an excerpt from a letter tribes, reserving 11,700 square miles (7.5 written by G.M. Hanson in 1861; in the million acres) of land – roughly 7.5% of letter a man testifes to Hanson regard- the State of California (Johnston-Dodds ing the kidnapping of two Indian chil- 2002). The President submitted the trea- dren. ties to the U.S. Senate on June 1, 1852, but the legislature was determined that [The man] who testifed [said] that the golden paradise of California not be “it was an act of charity on the part left to Indian hands. The treaties were of the two to hunt up the children rejected by the U.S. Senate during a se- and then provide homes for them, cret session and the documents were because their parents had been placed under an injunction of secrecy. killed, and the children would have The 18 treaties were not revealed to the perished with hunger.” My counsel public – or even the respective tribal inquired how he knew their par- nations – until January 18, 1905, after ents had been killed? “Because,” he the injunction of secrecy was removed said, “I killed some of them myself.” (Johnston-Dodds 2002). Many California (Norton 1979:49) Indian tribes were never informed that the treaties had not been ratifed and While this law certainly constituted slav- were forced to renegotiate treaties, leav- ery, it also paved the way to state-spon- ing them with much smaller land bases sored genocide. “California’s systems (Secrest 2003). And many tribes never re- of Indian servitude – directly linked to ceived land bases or federal recognition murderous kidnapping raids and mas- (Tolley 2006). This is the process through sacres, the forcible removal of children which Indigenous peoples were dispos- from their tribes, and frequently lethal sessed from their ancestral territories. working conditions – would become a This era of California Indian history is major component of California geno- characterized by the systematic eradica- cide” (Madley 2016:161). Following the tion of Indian rights to lands and waters. passage of the 1850 Act, California Con- The genocide of California Indians gress passed legislation creating two mi- and the appropriation of lands (via un- litias – one voluntary and one compul- ratifed treaties and outright theft) are sory – to exterminate California Indians; linked in intent and harm. As a proj- these genocidal campaigns were funded ect, settler colonialism must simulta- by both the State of California and the neously rid the land of the Indigenous

Published by Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University, 2020 35 Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, Vol. 1, No. 42 [2020], Art. 4 36 Reed

population to acquire new lands. The when Yurok people witnessed the larg- large-scale eradication of Native peoples est fsh kill in American history. In 2002, -- while simultaneously refusing to rat- over 70,000 salmon died along the lower ify treaty negotiations -- both meet the Klamath River. This was genocide. We goals of settler colonialism. Moreover, often only use the word genocide for for those who managed to survive the people, but within Yurok epistemolo- historical era of direct mass killing con- gy salmon are also people, understood tinued to struggle to survive because of as relatives or ancestors. To us, the fsh a lack of a land base. And in addition to kill was genocide. Nor is this an isolat- land theft, many lands throughout Cali- ed event. Tasha Hubbard (2014) argues fornia have been targeted for natural re- the strategic and systematic slaughter of source extraction, development, or have bufalo constitutes an act of genocide; experienced environmental destruction “in other words, destroy the bufalo, and in one capacity or another. Therefore, we one destroys the foundation of Plains must understand both mass killing and Indigenous collectivity and their very land theft as central to the genocide of lives” (p. 294). Nick Estes (2019) argues California Indians and the ongoing proj- that it took settlers nearly a century to ect of settler colonialism. This essay now exterminate the estimated 25 to 30 mil- turns to a theoretical discussion of the lion bufalo, “forcing the survivors of the relationships between settler colonial- holocaust, much like their human kin, ism and genocide, with an explicit focus west of the Mississippi River” (p. 78). on land. Violence against Indigenous bodies has been paralleled as violence against the It All Comes Back to Land: natural world and non-human kin. And Relationships Between Settler thus, attempts to destroy bufalo are at- Colonialism and Genocide tempts to destroy bufalo people; and attempts to destroy salmon are an attempt Yurok elders say that as long as the to destroy salmon people. Given the re- River is sick, Yurok people will never be ciprocal and familial relationships that healthy. All that sustains us comes from, Native peoples have formed with their or depends upon, the River. We exist in places and non-human kin, the severing a reciprocal relationship with the River of these relationships represents pro- and the health of Yurok people is fun- found cosmological and epistemic vio- damentally tied to the vitality of salmon lence (Tuck & Yang 2012). To heal from and the Klamath River. But, over a cen- settler colonial and genocidal violence in tury of neglectful and abusive behaviors California, therefore, it is crucial to cen- that has disregarded the River’s wellbe- ter and prioritize land return (decoloni- ing has led to contamination and injury. zation) and ecological restoration. Vio- From deadly dams to clear cutting forest lence against the land is violence against to massive agricultural diversions, dras- Indigenous peoples – because we are the tic declines in water quantity/quality land, and the land is us. By healing the have reduced salmon runs on the Klam- land, we heal ourselves. ath River by as much as 95% (May et All Indigenous political struggles al. 2014). And, in 2002, tragedy struck always come back to the issue of land.

https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/hjsr/vol1/iss42/4 36 Reed: We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us: Settler Colonialism We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us 37

And, by land, I am not referring to the ing Indigenous ecological practices and settler compartmentalization of land as relations to land (Tuck and Yang 2012:5). composed of top soil, subsoil and bed- The primary goal, then, is to expropriate rock; rather, land throughout this essay Indigenous territories and replace Indig- refers to the entire biosphere that Native enous peoples with settlers. To do so, peoples maintain relationships with, settlers are “discursively constituted as including land, air, water, etc. Contem- superior and thus more deserving over porary problems that Native American these contested lands and resources” communities face, such as higher rates of through ideological justifcations and disease, poverty, violence, suicide, drug legal fctions such as terra nullius, mani- abuse, and language loss among others, fest destiny, and the Doctrine of Discov- “are all political problems when viewed ery (Saranillio 2015:284). But this process within the context of settler colonial- is never fully complete. Anthropologist ism… The root causes of these problems Patrick Wolfe (2006) argues settler co- are all found in the political economy of lonialism is not an event that occurred settler colonialism, which is inextricably in the past and is over now; rather, set- linked to the exploitation of indigenous tler colonialism is a structure that must lands” (Carroll 2015:12). Meaning, the be continually perpetuated and repro- various social, political, economic, and duced.2 And thus, settler colonialism is environmental threats facing Indian fundamentally about the elimination County are not the problem, but merely Indigenous populations to replace them symptoms of a structure of oppression (Wolfe 2006) – to then reproduce set- designed to eliminate Native people. tler colonial structures and populations This structure is called settler colonial- (Arvin 2013). ism. Numerous scholars have written Settler colonialism is a form of co- about the inherently violent nature of lonialism wherein settlers create a new settler colonialism. Yet, despite its em- home for themselves on land apart from phasis on elimination, Wolfe argues their homeland. This form of colonialism that settler colonialism is “inherently difers from traditional extractive forms eliminatory but not invariably genocid- of colonialism wherein the colonial pow- al” (2006:387). Published in the Journal er seeks to extract natural resources and of Genocide Research, Wolfe’s often-cited human bodies for wealth accumulation essay explores the relationship between and labor (e.g. Berlin Conference); with- genocide and the settler colonial tenden- in settler colonialism, the imposing set- cy he names the logic of extermination. tler state insists upon “settler sovereign- The logic of extermination refers to the ty over all things in their new domain” “summary liquidation of Indigenous thereby legalizing settler colonial insti- peoples” and the “dissolution of native tutions while simultaneously criminaliz- societies” (p. 388). This is accomplished

2. The example I give to my students is that every morning that I wake up and the deed to Yurok ancestral territory belongs to Green Diamond Timber Company or the Redwood National Park, settler colonial land dispossession is reproduced.

Published by Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University, 2020 37 Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, Vol. 1, No. 42 [2020], Art. 4 38 Reed

through myriad strategies including Coined by a prosecutor for the Polish land dispossession, miscegenation, child Republic named Raphaël Lemkin in the abduction, religious conversion, and of mid-twentieth century, the term geno- course, mass killing. While Wolfe con- cide, combines genos, the Greek word for cedes there are commonalities between tribe or race, and cide, Latin for killing settler colonialism and genocide, name- (Short 2016). Lemkin is credited for the ly the “organizing grammar of race” (p. impetus of the United Nations’ 1948 387), he argues that they must not be Convention on the Prevention and Pun- confated. His rationale is that, frst, the ishment of the Crime of Genocide, also elimination of Native peoples can occur referred to as the Genocide Convention. without genocide and, second, geno- However, in his book Redefning Geno- cides have occurred in the absence of cide: Settler Colonialism, Social Death, and settler colonialism. Ecocide, sociologist Damien Short argues The relationship between settler co- that legal defnitions of genocide – and lonialism and genocide is contentious genocide studies scholars --convenient- within Indigenous and genocide studies ly ignore Lemkin’s links between geno- discourse. While relying on Wolfe’s artic- cide and colonization and his articula- ulation of settler colonialism as a struc- tions of “genocide’s inherently colonial ture, many Native scholars have difered character” (Short 2016:3). Of course, with Wolfe, specifcally regarding the this should not be surprising as it is na- relationship between settler colonialism tion-states themselves responsible for and genocide. For example, historian crafting, and subsequently approving Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz (2014), argues the Genocide Convention. Nation-states that, from its beginnings [Euro-Ameri- that acquired their wealth through colo- can settler colonialism has had] genocid- nization are unlikely to articulate colonial tendency[ies]” and as a structure, set- zation, and specifcally settler colonial- tler colonialism is “inherently genocidal ism, as a mode of genocide.3 However, in terms of the genocide convention” (p. what is key to point out is that even the 8-9). Gilio-Whitaker and Robles (2019) very initial theorizing of the concept of argue that the settler colonial logic of genocide has always articulated intrin- elimination is “fundamentally genocid- sic relationships between it and colo- al because it seeks to wipe away every nization. I suggest that this is uniquely trace of the original inhabitants and re- magnifed in the context of settler colo- place them with invading populations”. nialism namely because of the necessity But for Wolfe, the process of elimination for settler land acquisition and the elim- can occur without constituting genocide. ination of Native populations. This is How to draw the boundaries of especially true in California as previous what and what does not constitute geno- westward removal policies employed by cide has been a critical point of conten- the federal government became futile tion within genocide studies discourse. when they reached the coast. Therefore,

3. Four major settler states -- including the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand -- did not initially sign the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People in 2007.

https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/hjsr/vol1/iss42/4 38 Reed: We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us: Settler Colonialism We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us 39

it is critical that historical processes of quires more and more territory to con- colonization and contemporary modes trol and exploit” (Short 2016:24-25). The of settler colonial reproduction fgure result of which has been direct physical into our analysis and understanding killing of California Indians, but also of what constitutes genocide, and even land appropriation and the removal of more importantly, how to heal from it. California Indians from their traditional There must be a new conception of homelands and thereby separating them genocide. Writing about the experienc- from their non-human relations, sacred es of Indigenous Australians, Genocide sites, and cultural practices. Rather than Studies scholar Tony Barta (2000) argues spend intellectual energy to disprove the this new conception must embrace what reality of the California Indian genocide he refers to as “relations of genocide.” on a defnitional technicality -- which He uses this concept to describe a society is arguably not a worthwhile academic whose very existence and perpetuation endeavor nor does it contribute to the necessarily results in “remorseless pres- larger project of healing from the settler sures of destruction [on a whole race, colonial violence that took place here -- that is] inherent in the very nature of Barta suggests we seek to understand the society” (p. 240). Because the United the ways in which genocidal violence, States required stolen land merely to ex- or the repercussions thereof, continue to ist, genocidal relationships with Indige- play out in our society. Barta’s recogni- nous people is an inherent characteristic tion of the ways in which genocide con- of the settler state. Moreover, Barta’s continues to shape the present is responsive ception of genocidal relations “removes to Lumsden’s critique of methodologi- from the word the emphasis on policy cally relegating genocide in the past. By and intention which brought it into be- interrogating the produced relations of ing” (p. 238). Many genocide studies genocide, we can recognize the ways in scholars confate intent with motive and which logics of extermination are per- thus “require that groups be intentional- petuated and reproduced. ly targeted because of who they are and not Settler colonial land dispossession for any other reason such as economic and settler colonial relationships to land gain” (Short 2016:16). Within the context facilitate what Barta refers to as “relations of settler colonialism, the logic of exter- of genocide.” Settler society is construct- mination is merely driven by desire for ed on top of Indigenous societies; or, as land acquisition and thus, in this line Potawatomi scholar Kyle Powys Whyte of argumentation, settler colonialism (2016) puts it: “settler ecologies have to is not inherently genocidal – as it lacks be inscribed into indigenous ecologies” the clear intent to eliminate a group of (p. 171). Therefore, we must understand people. And this is where the disconnec- the continued separation of Indigenous tion between genocide and settler colo- peoples from their ancestral homelands nialism occurs, for Patrick Wolfe at least. and environmental destruction as a per- However, this is problematic because, petuation of profound violence. In light as Short points out, “the primary driver of Barta’s critique of intentionality as a of colonial genocide is an expansionist critical component of what constitutes economic system, which rationally re- genocide, Short (2016) suggests that

Published by Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University, 2020 39 Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, Vol. 1, No. 42 [2020], Art. 4 40 Reed

“if we take the genos in genocide to be within Indigenous epistemologies, land a social fguration which forms a com- possesses agency. It is not a commod- prehensive culture… then genocide is the ity that can be bought, sold, or owned forcible breaking down of such relationships by human beings.4 Indeed, land holds – the destruction of the social fgura- both metaphorical and material power tion” (p. 36). While numerous scholars for Native peoples because it provides have examined the ways in which settler the basis for physical existence, but also colonial dispossession works to break identity and spirituality; thus, “the im- down relationships between Indige- portance of land stretches far beyond its nous peoples and in that way constitutes role as the space on which human ac- genocide, these lines of analysis operate tivity takes place; for Natives it is a sig- within a Western worldview that ideo- nifcant source of literal and fgurative logically separates human beings from power…Within Native studies, land has nature in the construction of social re- been theorized as the living entity that lationships. This human-centric episte- enables indigenous life” (Nohelani et. al mology does not consider other species, 2015:59). And if land enables Indigenous or relations, nor the agency of the natu- life, the dispossession or contamination ral world. How is our notion of genocide of those lands threatens Indigenous life. -- or the forcible breaking down of rela- For Indigenous peoples, environ- tionships -- altered when our position mental injustice began with the inva- of analysis considers a kinship-oriented sion and colonization of our lands. Not relationship to and with land? only must Indigenous environmental Within Indigenous worldviews, justice struggles be analytically framed Earth is universally understood as a by colonization, settler colonialism itself, living entity and all creation is related. as a structure, constitutes an environ- As many Indigenous communities and mental injustice (Whyte 2016). Contrary Native American Studies scholars have to Indigenous relationships to land en- argued, Native communities maintain sconced in relationship and reciprocity, complex and dynamic relationships to settler colonial ecology compartmen- their land bases. Our creation stories tie talizes and controls land through the us to the places we originated. Our lan- construction of property. Land, then, guages emerged from our homelands. is transformed into a non-living object Our lands and waters provide our ma- to be utilized for human consumptive terial and spiritual needs, but are fully purposes and wealth accumulation. Hu- integrated members of our communi- mans, within this socioecological con- ties, serving critical roles such as grocer, text, are devoid of familial relationships educator, pharmacist, counselor, and with land or non-human kin. Moreover, friend. And perhaps most importantly, familial relationships to land built on rec-

4. For example, in Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiian) language, the word for land, ko’u ‘āina, the “o” is a possessive that indicates inherent status and it is also found in the word for my body (ko’u kino) and my parents (ko’u mākua); thus, within Kanaka Maoli epistemology one cannot own land, like one cannot own their parents or body parts – it is an inherent part of one’s existence (Trask 1993).

https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/hjsr/vol1/iss42/4 40 Reed: We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us: Settler Colonialism We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us 41

iprocity and mutual respect are marked connection between environmental spoli- as “pre-modern and backward. Made ation and settler colonialism. Firstly, Spice savage” (Tuck and Yang 2012:5). Native points out that often the discourse around relationships to land are demarcated as ‘toxics’ -- stemming from the Greek word uncivilized/pagan, as well as wasteful for bow and arrow -- in the environment because they were not fueled by proft. lacks intentionality or agency. They just Settler depictions of Native relationships happen to be there. How convenient, giv- to land are then employed by settlers to en the given the emphasis on intent in the justify the dispossession and appropria- defnition of genocide. Instead, Spice en- tion of those same lands. Unsurprising- courages us to rethink this passive under- ly, then, Native lands are also targeted standing of toxics. for environmental destruction necessary to maintain settler lifestyles, serving as Toxicity is violence. More specifcal- what Voyles (2015) terms sacrifce zones, ly, it is settler colonial violence. Tox- “or landscapes of extraction [that] al- icity and the invasive infrastructures low industrial modernity to continue it spills from separates us from the to grow and make profts” (p. 10). Ura- land by damaging our relations to nium mining, nuclear testing, and toxic it. If our lands are toxic, the more we waste storage are all disproportionate- engage in our cultural practices, the ly sited on Native lands, to name but a more we risk harming our bodies. few (LaDuke 1999). Dina Gilio-Whitaker Toxicity turns our relations against (Colville Confederated Tribes), argues us. It kills us through connection. It that “the origin of environmental injus- eliminates us as Indigenous peoples tice for Indigenous peoples is disposses- by making Indigenous practices dan- sion of land in all its forms” and thus set- gerous. Don’t eat the fsh, don’t drink tler colonialism must be understood as a the water, don’t gather the berries. It “genocidal structure that systematically does the work of settler colonialism erases Indigenous peoples’ relationships by destroying to replace. Our ways and responsibilities to their ancestral of sustaining ourselves, our local places” (Gilio-Whitaker 2019:36). In ad- economies, our food provision, our dition to settler colonial land disposses- medicine, are cleared for the expan- sion, we must also understand the insti- sion of an economy based primari- tutionalization of colonial relationships ly on oil and gas. Here, the pipeline to land via a private property regime and spills and toxic emissions, while per- the ongoing environmental injustices ex- haps “accidents,” are not without perienced by Native peoples as relations direction or intent. Trace the poison of genocide. arrow back through its fight path, to Such injustices include the contami- the archer. Who is holding the bow? nation of our ecosystems. Tlingit scholar (Spice 2018). Anne Spice (2018) argues “colonization is the foundation of environmental de- And who is left with arrow wounds? cline.” Specifcally, Spice uses the exam- Gone are the days of child abduction and ple of environmental toxins found in our violent boarding school educations, but lands, waters, and bodies to illustrate her deterrents from practicing our cultures

Published by Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University, 2020 41 Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, Vol. 1, No. 42 [2020], Art. 4 42 Reed

remain. Basket weavers risk the ingestion peoples as ecocide, rather than geno- of poisons as they run strands of grass- cide. The distinction between genocide es through their mouths. As we gather and ecocide stems from a worldview materials in our forests, we must wonder that ideologically separates human be- when the last time the United States For- ings from nature, failing to recognize est Service sprayed atrazine from above. the interconnection and interdependen- We watch the algae swell -- fed by myriad cy between people and ecosystems. In pesticides and herbicides -- and choke once reality, we are a part of the land and the clear rivers. land is us. Moreover, the concept of eco- And yet, there seems to be a reluc- cide is rife with historical baggage and tance to use the term genocide to describe limitations that, in my view, prevent it the type of ecological and cosmological from fully articulating present-day In- violence Indigenous peoples experience digenous experiences. Coined by Pro- in the present. As Short (2016) argues in fessor Arthur W. Galston in 1970 to con- his book, when indigenous people “in- demn the environmental destruction voke the term genocide to describe their of Operation Ranch Hand during the present-day experiences it is often derid- Vietnam War, ecocide was originally in- ed. And yet… [their] use of the concept tended to describe wartime situations is often more accurate and precise than wherein the environment was specif- that espoused by many scholars” (p. 6). cally targeted as victim. Use of the term Ecological violence lacks the intent so has broadened since entering popular crucial to substantiating a claim of geno- lexicon, and is now used to describe a cide. Brook (1998) argues “[environmen- large variety of environmental prob- tal] genocide is not (usually) the result lems, including critiques of settler co- of a systematic plan with malicious in- lonial land dispossession and destruc- tent to exterminate Native Americans, it tion of Indigenous cultures. But, unlike is the consequence of activities that are genocide, ecocide is not recognized as often carried out on and near the reser- an international crime and, therefore, vations with reckless disregard for the creating a distinction between genocide lives of Native Americans” (p. 105-106). and ecocide is of little use to Indigenous However, I urge us to entertain Spice’s peoples. Moreover, such a distinction criticism of the lack of agency and inten- is nonsensical for Indigenous peoples tionality associated with environmental because environmental destruction di- destruction and ask who is holding the rectly translates to our own destruction. bow. Who benefts from environmen- It is “genocide through geocide, that is, a tal spoliation and who sufers the con- killing of the people through a killing sequences? By diferentiating environ- of the Earth” (Brook 1998:111). For Cal- mental violence as non-genocidal, we ifornia Indians, the destruction of our limit our ability to understand the ways non-human relatives or our ancestral in which relations of genocide continue territories constitutes genocide. Both into the present. concepts of genocide and ecocide stem Some scholars maintain this difer- from a settler colonial worldview that entiation by describing the ecological ideologically separates humans from violence experienced by Indigenous nature. While understanding the vary-

https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/hjsr/vol1/iss42/4 42 Reed: We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us: Settler Colonialism We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us 43

ing methods or modes of genocide are be healthy. The process of working to- signifcant in explaining our experienc- gether to rectify historical wrongs can es to settler populations and sympathetic have transformative powers. academics, when everything is taken into However, often when we discuss consideration the primary task at hand how we will heal from the California In- remains healing from what occurred here. dian genocide, the onus is often placed Both people and the land must heal on Native peoples -- as if we are the only from genocide. The land -- and trees, people that must heal from the geno- and rivers, and rocks -- were witness cide that took place here. Madley (2016) to the genocide that occurred here. The argues that “the question of genocide land experienced great violence during in California under US rule also poses the California genocide. The environ- explosive political, economic, educa- mental destruction endured during the tional, and psychological questions for Gold Rush in California has left long all US citizens. Acknowledgement and lasting impacts that continue to impact reparations are central issues” (p. 9). Native peoples today. To begin healing While the wellbeing of Native commu- from the genocide that tried to destroy nities must be prioritized, to be sure, it our lands and our peoples, we must is important to point out that, much like engage in community environmental the descendants of genocide survivors, restoration. This is not to devalue oth- the benefciaries of that genocide, and er critical methods of healing -- such specifcally descendants of the perpe- as language revitalization, cultural res- trators, also hold historical traumas that toration, and mental health treatments they must work through, process, and to address what Anishinaabe schol- heal from. Unfortunately, there remains ar Lawrence Gross (2003) refers to the pervasive denial of the California Indi- “post-apocalypse stress syndrome” (p. an genocide and many historians are 128). Rather, I suggest that by engaging unable to come to terms with this reality. with community-centered environmen- And while I agree with Madley that the tal restoration projects, we can restore California Indian genocide poses criti- relationships with each other and with cal questions for all citizens, acknowl- our environments. If we understand edgement of what occurred does not genocide as the forcible breaking down aid in the healing process -- as settlers of relationships, healing from geno- continue to beneft from the California cide necessitates the rebuilding and Indian genocide. The acknowledge- strengthening of relationships Indige- ment of genocide is akin to the now in- nous peoples have had with the natural vogue land acknowledgements ofered world since the beginning of time. For by universities and other institutions. example, Fox et. al (2017) demonstrate A land acknowledgement is a political how river restoration “has the potential statement that encourages non-Native to not only restore ecosystem processes people to recognize that they are on In- and services, but to repair and trans- digenous lands, often said before events form human relationships with rivers” or gatherings. Anishinaabe scholar (p. 521). Again, I am reminded that if Hayden King, who wrote the land ac- our river is sick, our people will never knowledgement at Ryerson University,

Published by Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University, 2020 43 Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, Vol. 1, No. 42 [2020], Art. 4 44 Reed

says he now regrets writing it because it ratively with the state to begin the heal- “efectively excuses [non-Natives] and ing process” (State of California 2020). ofers them an alibi for doing the hard While I remain hopeful that this Council work of learning about their neigh- will serve useful to tribal communities bors and learning about the treaties of in some capacity, my frustration with the territory and learning about those the settler state persists. The genocide nations that should have jurisdiction” against California Indians is not “Na- (CBC Radio 2019). Often land acknowl- tive history” – it is California’s history. edgements problematically thank the The State already has access to these his- original stewards, despite not having torical records because the State com- permission, and use past tense verbs to piled them in 2002 (Johnston-Dodds). describe Native people’s relationship Moreover, California Indians have been to that place, despite it being ongo- clarifying the historical record for a ing. Much like Hupa scholar Stephanie very long time. Jack Norton’s seminal Lumsden’s critique of California Gover- text When Our World Cried: Genocide in nor Newsom’s acknowledgement of the Northwestern California was published California Indian genocide, if it doesn’t over forty years ago. Even white histo- compel one to do anything about it -- rians have put our truth in books and like return stolen land -- it doesn’t do used the violence perpetuated against anything for Native people. California Indians to sell more copies On June 18, 2019 – the day he for- and secure tenure for themselves. The mally apologized to Native Americans truth is widely available – but what is on behalf of the State of California – the State of California going to do with Governor Gavin Newsom issued Exec- our truth? utive Order N-15-19 which, in addition I implore the Truth and Healing to documenting his formal apology, re- Council to advocate for land return and quires the Governor’s Tribal Advisor to ecological restoration. The dispossession establish a “Truth and Healing Coun- and destruction of our lands was central cil.” To be composed of California tribal to the California Indian genocide; there- representatives and/or delegates, the fore, the return and restoration must play purpose of the Council is “to provide a central role in healing from that same Native Americans a platform to clarify genocide. Powerful examples of healing the historical record and work collabo- are occurring with California5 through-

5. In a report compiled by Dr. Cutcha Risling Baldy and Carrie Tully (2019) to advocate that Hum- boldt State University return the Jacoby Creek Forest to the Wiyot Tribe, they outline numerous examples of land repatriations in California, including: the Tásmam Koyom (or Humbug Valley, CA) to the Maidu Summit, Blue Creek (in Klamath, CA) to the Yurok Tribe, Sogorea Te’ Land Trust (in Oakland, CA) to the Ohlone Tribe, Kuuchamaa Mountain and Ah-Ha Kwe-Ah-Mac’ village (in Tecate, CA) to the Kumeyaay-Diegueño Land Conservancy, and Old Woman Mountains (in San Bernardino) to the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians.

https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/hjsr/vol1/iss42/4 44 Reed: We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us: Settler Colonialism We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us 45

out Indian Country.6 The return of sto- Bibliography len land is possible. Healing is possible. “An Act for the Government and Pro- Returning stolen land to Indige- tection of Indians.” 1850. Chapter nous peoples is a growing move- 133, Statutes of California. ment with not only international Anderson, M. Kat. 2005. Tending the and national examples, but a very Wild: Native American Knowledge important and groundbreaking lo- and the Management of California’s cal example in the recent return of Natural Resources. Berkeley: Univer- 200 acres of Tuluwat Island (some- sity of California Press. times referred to as “Indian Island”) Arvin, Maile. 2013. “Pacifcally Pos- to the Wiyot Tribe in October 2019. sessed.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Uni- The movements for decolonization versity of California, San Diego. in education, research and policy Barta, Tony. 2000. “Relations of Geno- must necessarily include the return cide: Land and Lives in the Coloni- of land to Indigenous peoples. (Ris- zation of Australia” Pp. 237-251 in ling Baldy and Tully 2019:7) Genocide and the Modern Age: Etiol- ogy and Case Studies of Mass Death, On October 21, 2019 the City of Eureka edited by I. Walliman and N. M. returned Tuluwat Island -- a site of both Dobrowski. Westport, CT: Green- world renewal and genocidal violence wood Press. -- to the Wiyot Tribe in northwestern Cal- Bauer Jr., William J. 2016. California ifornia. This is “the frst time in the histo- through Native Eyes: Reclaiming His- ry of our nation that a local municipality tory. Seattle: University of Wash- has voluntarily given back Native land ington Press. absent an accompanying sale, lawsuit, or Blackhawk, Ned. 2006. Violence Over the court order” (Greenson 2019). A ceremo- Land: Indians and Empires in the Ear- ny was held to celebrate the return. Tribal ly American West. Cambridge, MA: leaders and city ofcials called for “more Harvard University Press. collaboration, more community-building, Brook, Daniel. 1998. “Environmental more healing, and more returning land” Genocide: Native Americans and (Risling Baldy and Tully 2019:12). Let this Toxic Waste.” American Journal of beautiful example give us momentum Economics and Sociology 57(1):105- and propel us into a decolonized future. 113.

6. Across the nation, more land is being returned across the nation -- by universities, missions, gov- ernments, non-profts, and even individuals (Risling Baldy & Tully 2019). Two notable entities include Brown University and the Jesuit St. Francis Mission. The State of Oregon passed the Western Oregon Tribal Fairness Act in 2018 to return 17,000 acres to the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians and 15,000 acres to the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians. And, despite a fnancial loss by the transaction, a plumber in Colorado named Rich Synder, returned his land to the Ute Tribe because it was right.

Published by Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University, 2020 45 Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, Vol. 1, No. 42 [2020], Art. 4 46 Reed

CBC Radio. ‘I Regret It’: Hayden King Our Veins’: Re-Defning River Res- on Writing Ryerson University’s toration in Three Indigenous Com- Territorial Acknowledgement. munities.” Sustainability Science Vol CBC Radio. 2019. https://www. 12:1-13. cbc.ca/radio/unreserved/re- Gilio-Whitaker, Dina. 2019. As Long as drawing-the-lines-1.4973363/i-re- Grass Grows: The Indigenous Fight for gret-it-hayden-king-on-writing-ry- Environmental Justice, From Coloniza- erson-university-s-territorial-action to Standing Rock. Boston, MA: knowledgement-1.4973371 Beacon Press. Carroll, Clint. 2015. Roots of Our Renew- Gilio-Whitaker, Dina and Rebecca Ro- al: Ethnobotany and Cherokee Envi- bles. 2019. “When Is Genocide Over ronmental Governance. Minneapolis, in San Juan Capistrano?” Voice of MN: University of Minnesota Press. Orange County. August 20 2019. Cook, Sherburne F. 1978. ” Historical De- https://voiceofoc.org/2019/08/gil- mography” Pp. 91-98 in Handbook of io-whitaker-robles-when-is-geno- North American Indians edited by R. cide-over-in-san-juan-capist- F. Heizer. Washington, D.C.: Smith- rano/?fbclid=IwAR1ENJbsH- sonian Institution Press. VTr6-6xVGFvU5cjTWl3xEhpwa_ Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne. 2014. An Indig- EMTL-0LYoM7WaLc82k77B3Bs enous Peoples’ History of the United Greenson, Thadeus. 2019. “The Island’s States. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Return: The Unprecedented Repa- Estes, Nick. 2019. Our History Is the Fu- triation of the Center of the Wiyot ture: Standing Rock Versus the Dakota Universe.” North Coast Journal of Pol- Access Pipeline, and the Long Tradition itics, People, and Art. October 24 2019. of Indigenous Resistance. London: Gross, Lawrence W. 2003. “Cultural Verso Press. Sovereignty and Native American Fenelon, James V. and Cliford E Trafze,. Hermeneutics in the Interpretation 2014. “From Colonialism to Denial of the Sacred Stories of the Anishi- of California Genocide to Misrepre- naabe.” Wicazo Sa Review 18(2):128- sentations: Special Issue on Indig- 134 enous Struggles in the Americas.” Hubbard, Tasha. 2014. “Bufalo Geno- American Behavioral Scientist 58(1):3- cide in Nineteenth-Century North 29. America: ‘Kill, Skin, and Sell’”. Pp. Forbes, Jack D. 1971. “The Native Amer- 292-305 in Colonial Genocide in In- ican Experience in California His- digenous North America edited by A tory.” California Historical Quarterly Woolford. Durham, NC: Duke Uni- 50(3):234-242. versity Press. Fox, Coleen A., Nicholas James Reo, Heizer, Robert F., ed. 1974. The Destruc- Dale A. Turner, JoAnn Cook, Frank tion of California Indians: A Collection Dituri, Brett Fessell, James Jenkins, of Documents from the Period 1847 to Aimee Johnson, Terina M. Rakena, 1865 in Which Are Described Some of Chris Riley, Ashleigh Turner, Julian the Things That Happened to Some of Williams, and Mark Wilson. 2017. the Indians of California. Lincoln: Uni- “‘The River Is Us; The River Is in versity of Nebraska Press.

https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/hjsr/vol1/iss42/4 46 Reed: We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us: Settler Colonialism We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us 47

Humboldt PBLC. 2019. History of Na- fornia Indian Catastrophe. New Hav- tive California. https://www.you- en, CT: Yale University Press. tube.com/watch?v=T-azcPugm- Madsen, Deborah L. 2012. “Tragic Wis- KQ&t=1s dom and Survivance” Pp. xi-xviii in Johnston-Dodds, Kimberly. 2002. Early Conversations with Remarkable Native California Laws and Policies Related to Americans edited by J. Rostkowski. California Indians. Sacramento, CA: Albany: State University of New California Research Bureau. York Press. LaDuke, Winona. 1999. All Our Relations: May, Theresa, Suzanne Burcell, Kath- Native Struggles for Land and Life. leen McCovey, and Jean O’Hara. Cambridge, MA: South End Press. 2014. Salmon Is Everything: Commu- Lindsay, Brendan C. 2012. Murder State: nity-Based Theater in the Klamath Wa- California’s Native American Genocide, tershed. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 1846-1873. Lincoln, NE: University University Press. of Nebraska Press. Miranda, Deborah. 2013. Bad Indians: A Lowry, Chag, Kate Droz-Handwerker, Tribal Memoir. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Rain Marshall, Ron Grifth, Fawn Books. White, and Lonyx Landry. 1999. Norton, Jack. 1979. Genocide in North- Northwest Indigenous Gold Rush His- western California: When Our Worlds tory: The Indian Survivors of Califor- Cried. San Francisco, CA: The Indian nia’s Holocaust. Center for Indian Historical Press. Development. Orona, Brittani. 2017. “Review of Geno- Lumsden, Stephanie. 2016. “Reproduc- cide in Northwestern California: When tive Justice, Sovereignty, and Incar- Our Worlds Cried by Jack Norton.” ceration: Prison Abolition Politics News from Native California 30(3)33- and California Indians.” American 34. Indian Culture and Research Journal Platt, Tony. 2011. Grave Matters: Excavat- 40(1): 33-46. ing California’s Buried Past. Berkeley, Lumsden, Stephanie. 2018. “American CA: Heydey Books. Genocide: Historical Methodologies Reséndez, Andrés. 2016. The Other Slav- of Settler Disavowal.” Native Amer- ery: The Uncovered Story of Indian ican and Indigenous Studies Associ- Enslavement in America. New York: ation, Los Angeles, California. May Houghton Mifin Harcourt. 19 2018. Risling Baldy, Cutcha. 2015. “In Which We Luna, Taryn. 2019. Newsom Apologies Establish That There Was a Genocide for California’s History of Violence Against Native Americans, Yes There Against Native Americans. Los An- Was, It Was Genocide, Yes Or This Is geles Times. 18 June 2019. https:// Why I Teach Native Studies Part 3 Mil- www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol- lion.” Sometimes Writer-Blogger Cut- ca-gavin-newsom-apology-califor- cha Risling Baldy. September 8 2015. nia-native-american-tribes-061818- https://www.cutcharislingbaldy. story.html com/blog/in-which-we-establish- Madley, Benjamin. 2016. An American that-there-was-a-genocide-against- Genocide: The United States the Cali- native-americans-yes-there-was-it-

Published by Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University, 2020 47 Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, Vol. 1, No. 42 [2020], Art. 4 48 Reed

was-genocide-yes-or-this-is-why-i- Trask, Haunani-Kay. 1993. From a Native teach-native-studies-part-3-million Daughter: Colonialism and Sovereignty Risling Baldy, Cutcha and Carrie Tully. in Hawai’i. Monroe, ME: Common 2019. Working For and Toward Land Courage Press. Return of Goukdi’n (Jacoby Creek For- Tuck, Eve and K. Wayne Yang. 2012. “De- est.) November 2019. colonization Is Not a Metaphor.” Saranillio, Dean Itsuji. 2015. “Settler Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education Colonialism” Pp. 284-300 in Native & Society 1(1):40. Studies Keywords edited by S. No- Voyles, Traci Brynne. 2015. Wastelanding: helani, A. Smith and M. H. Raheja. Legacies of Uranium Mining in Navajo Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Country. Minneapolis: University of Secrest, William B. 2003. When the Great Minnesota Press. Spirit Died: The Destruction of the Cal- Whyte, Kyle Powys. 2016. “Indigenous ifornia Indians, 1850-1860. Sanger: Experience, Environmental Justice Word Dancer Press. and Settler Colonialism” Pp. 157-174 Short, Damien. 2016. Redefning Genocide: in Nature and Experience: Phenome- Settler Colonialism, Social Death and nology and the Environment edited by Ecocide. London: Zed Books. B. E. Bannon. London: Rowman & Spice, Anne. 2018. Processing Settler Littlefeld International. Colonial Toxicities: Part I. Footnotes. Wolfe, Patrick. 2006. “Settler Colonial- June 16 2018. https://footnotesblog. ism and the Elimination of the Na- com/2018/06/16/processing-set- tive.” Journal of Genocide Research tler-toxicities-part-i/ 8(4):387-409. Spice, Anne. 2018. Processing Settler Co- lonial Toxicities: Part II. Footnotes. June 23 2018. https://footnotesblog. com/2018/06/23/processing-settler-toxicities-part-ii/ State of California. 2020. Ofce of Tribal Advisor. “Truth and Healing Coun- cil.” Accessed May 15 2020. https:// tribalgovtaffairs.ca.gov/truthand- healing/index.html Tolley, Sara-Larus. (2006). Quest for Tribal Acknowledgement: California’s Honey Lake Maidus. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Trafzer, Cliford E. and Joel Hyer. 1999. “Exterminate Them”: Written Ac- counts of the Murder, Rape, and Slav- ery of Native Americans During the California Gold Rush, 1848-1868. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State Univer- sity Press.

https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/hjsr/vol1/iss42/4 48 Reed: We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us: Settler Colonialism We Are a Part of the Land and the Land Is Us 49

About the Author

Kaitlin Reed (Yurok/Hupa/Oneida) is an Assistant Professor of Native American Studies at Humboldt State University. Her research is focused on tribal land and water rights, extractive capital- ism, and settler colonial political economies. She is currently working on a book project that connects the historical and ecological dots between the Gold Rush and the Green Rush in California, focusing on capitalistic resource extraction and violence against indigenous lands and bodies. Dr. Reed is an enrolled member of the Yurok Tribe in Northwestern California.

Published by Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University, 2020 49