“NO SOVEREIGN NATION, NO RESERVATION”: OPPOSING HAUDENOSAUNEE SOVEREIGNTY THROUGH LAND CLAIM AND FEE-TO- TRUST DISCOURSE By Meghan Y. McCune A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Anthropology—Doctor of Philosophy 2015 i ABSTRACT “NO SOVEREIGN NATION, NO RESERVATION”: OPPOSING HAUDENOSAUNEE SOVEREIGNTY THROUGH LAND CLAIM AND FEE-TO- TRUST DISCOURSE By Meghan Y. McCune In 1974, the United States Supreme Court Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida decision opened the federal courts to Native American land claims against states and many Native Nations have since used the United States legal system to file land claims. In the wake of the now landmark 2005 United States Supreme Court decision City of Sherrill v. The Oneida Indian Nation of New York, Native Nations have found it nearly impossible to seek redress through the courts and many have turned to the fee-to-trust process as a means of regaining land. Beginning in the 1970s and 1980s when the Oneida Indian Nation and Cayuga Indian Nation successfully filed their land claims, non-Native communities—affected by 50 years of economic decline—organized and systematically challenged the exercise of Haudenosaunee sovereignty in Central New York State. Specifically, since its inception in 1980 the Cayuga Nation’s land claim has been met with local opposition in the form of organized grassroots anti-Indian sovereignty movements—most notably Upstate Citizens for Equality (UCE). This dissertation draws from ethnographic research of UCE and analyzes varying interpretations of law, policy, race, and class that inform non-Native understandings and attitudes towards Haudenosaunee sovereignty. Social norms of public discourse ii discourage direct conversations of race and class and, as a result, such discourses must take other normative forms; in UCE land claim and fee-to-trust discourse, linguistic frames of property (and property rights), patriotism, equality, and assimilation are used to challenge Indigenous sovereignty while also serving to resist labels of racism/anti- Indianism. This analysis also includes UCE’s use of litigation and legal discourse to formulate—and in turn perpetuate—(mis)understandings of Indigenous land rights, identity, and sovereignty. iii Copyright by MEGHAN Y. MCCUNE 2015 iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the openness and kindness of members of Upstate Citizens for Equality who welcomed me into their meetings and homes. I am profoundly grateful for their willingness to share their voices and opinions with me over a period of almost fifteen years. I am also indebted to members of Strengthening Haudenosaunee Relations through Education and citizens of the Cayuga Indian Nation for teaching me about Indigenous sovereignty and land rights; Julie and Jim Uticone, Wrenaye and Joe Matzen, and Cayuga Heron Clan Mother, Bernadette “Birdie” Hill, were especially influential. My committee members, Mindy Morgan, Bill Derman, Heather Howard, and Matthew Fletcher, were pivotal to this process and provided many helpful insights and feedback. I am also thankful for my wonderful graduate student colleagues at Michigan State, especially Heather Mustonen, Michael Walker, and Jane Wankmiller. I began this research as an undergraduate student at Wells College and words cannot express my gratitude for the ongoing support of my former professors and administrators at Wells; Ellen Hall, Laura McClusky, Vic Munoz, and Ernie Olson were all invaluable mentors, without whom this dissertation would not have been possible. While teaching an average of 6-7 classes a semester contributed to a delay in finishing this dissertation, I definitely relied on the support of my colleagues at Jamestown Community College. I would like to specifically thank Amanda Bartels, Shannon Bessette, and Jessica Kubiak for their constant encouragement and friendship. I v would also like to thank the Seneca Nation of Indians, whose land I resided on during the writing of this dissertation. Most importantly, I would like to thank my family—my parents, Renee and Bill McCune and, my partner and best friend, Justin Schapp for his countless hours of discussion, editing, and support. And lastly, I would like to thank my soon-to-be daughter, Gloria Lorraine (who is due any day now) for the extra motivation to “birth the dissertation” before giving birth to her. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction – The Anatomy of an Anti-Indian Sovereignty Movement..………………..1 “Lock and Load”…………………………………………………………………..1 Background………………………………………………………………………..4 Selection of Field Site……………………………………………………………10 Methodology……………………………………………………………………..15 Theoretical Foundations………………………………………………………….17 Contemporary United States Ethnography and Native American Studies……………………………………………………………………18 Theoretical Approach: The Anthropology of Law and Discourse……….20 Dissertation Structure…………………………………………………………….21 Chapter One – Land (Claim) History: Place, Identity, and the “Friction” of Contested Space……………………………………………………………………………….…….27 Foundations of Indigenous Land Dispossession in New York State…………….30 Situating the Cayuga Claim within the Context of Non-Native Economic Land Dispossession…………………………………………………………………….39 Cayuga Land Claim and Land Claim Opposition – 1990s to Present…………...45 Non-Native Reaction to City of Sherrill and Second Circuit Dismissal…………50 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….52 Chapter Two – Landowners “Held Hostage”: Upstate Citizens for Equality...………….54 Origins of UCE…………………………………………………………………..56 UCE Meetings in Cayuga and Seneca Counties…………………………………64 Potential Neighbors or Terrorists?.........................................................................69 UCE Post-City of Sherrill………………………………………………………..71 UCE Meetings in Oneida and Madison Counties………………………………..75 Post-Sherrill: Fighting the Future Settlement “Like Hell”………………………77 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….79 Chapter Three – Scapegoating Sovereignty: Linguistic Frames, Race, and the Masking of Social Class……………………………………………………………………………80 Understanding Sovereignty and Rights through Discourse Analysis……………81 Whiteness, Class, and the Limits of Settler-Colonialism………………………..84 Asserting Rights and Framing Equality………………………………………….88 “Upstate”: The Frame of Victimization………………………………….88 “Citizens”: Citizenship and Patriotism…………………………………..93 “Equality”: Law, Property, and Taxes…………………………………...96 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...100 vii Chapter Four – Influencing Public Opinion and Framing Land Claim Opposition: The Reciprocal Relationship between Federal Indian Law and Anti-Indian Movements…..103 Indigenous Rights: Power and Unequal Access to Law………………………..107 Legal Foundations of Anti-Indianism…………………………………………..110 Fighting Settlement and Advancing Laches: Framing “Innocence” in the Courts and Counties…………………………………………………………………….117 Changes in the Legal Landscape: City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation……123 UCE’s Continued Resistance to Haudenosaunee Sovereignty after City of Sherrill………………………………………………………………………….126 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...128 Chapter Five – “It’s a Question of Fairness”: Fee-to-Trust and Opposition to Haudenosaunee Land Rights and Economic Development…………………………….130 Fee-to-Trust and Economic Development: Gaming in “Upstate”……………...132 Illustrating the Double Bind: The Cayuga Scoping Meeting…………………...138 Rethinking the Double Bind……………………………………………………150 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...156 Conclusion – Haudenosaunee Sovereignty in a New Era of Termination……………...159 Limitations and Directions for Future Research………………………………..160 Relevance of Research………………………………………………………….162 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………164 viii Introduction – The Anatomy of an Anti-Indian Sovereignty Movement “Lock and Load” Once or twice a month, twelve to fifteen people meet in a volunteer firehouse in the small village of Canoga, New York. The room is small, with old folding tables and chairs stacked up against the wall. On this particular evening in late summer 2007, the parking lot is packed with cars and nearly all the folding tables and chairs are occupied in the small meeting room. As usual, there are no signs to indicate what the meeting is for, however over forty people are in attendance. A group of retired women exchange newspaper clippings and many middle aged and elderly men sit back in their seats with their arms crossed over their chests, waiting for the meeting to begin. At the front of the room three men and one woman sit behind a long table, facing the audience. To the side of the table a tall man with white hair paces nervously back and forth, looking down at his notepad. The meeting begins and the floor is handed over to the tall man, who has stopped pacing and now stands still at the front of the room. David Dresser is an elected county board member, and does not usually attend these meetings. He looks around the room, making eye contact with several people and begins talking; I’m here to tell you everything I know…you know I don’t believe in Indian sovereignty. So why did Dave Dresser seem to abandon his commitment to equal rights? We had nothing to do with theses treaties not being negotiated. And because, and only because it holds us harmless, I support this settlement. I don’t think we are going to change federal Indian policy—over 200 years that supports Indian sovereignty. God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I