Range Wars and White Privilege

Throughout the history of the west, white settlers encroached upon Native American lands, creating conflict.  More often than not, there was minimal violence.  Instead, the Natives went to the federal authorities, with whom they already had a treaty, and asked for the Powers That Be in Washington, D.C. to enforce the terms of the treaty and to remove the white pioneers from their land.  And more often than not, forced to choose between red and white, the feds did nothing except explain to the Natives how the treaty needed to be renegotiated yet again to make room for the white settlers.

Echoes of these priorities are continuing today in Nevada.

Enter two Western Shoshone sisters, Mary and Carrie Dann, and one white rancher, Cliven Bundy.

We begin in 1863.  The state of Nevada did not yet exist, but the Western Shoshone and the US federal government did.  The federal government sought a right-of-way thru Western Shoshone lands in order to move gold from California east and pioneers west.  Together, the feds and the Shoshone signed the Treaty of Ruby Valley, which allowed for free passage along established routes, along with military posts, rest stops, mail, telegraph, and rail lines, and even gold prospecting and white agricultural settlements.  You can read the text of the treaty here (http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/shoshone/ruby_valley.html).  The treaty did not, however, surrender any lands from the Western Shoshone to the federal government.  Furthermore, it laid out the boundaries of their land—most of Nevada—and stated the Shoshone lands would be excluded from any state or territory of the US.

Image What happened over time is predictable.  So many whites established homesteads, farms, ranches, and mines that the Shoshone lands were overrun.  The primary land grabber was the federal government, which currently owns 87% of Nevada.  They have conducted nearly a thousand nuclear bomb tests on Shoshone land.  In 1973, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) demanded that the Dann sisters pay for grazing permits for their cattle.  Asserting it was Shoshone land under the Treaty of Ruby Valley, they refused.  In 2007, using helicopters and trucks, the BLM conducted a raid and forcibly captured and removed seven hundred of the Dann’s cattle and horses.  Footage of that can be seen in a short Oxfam documentary about them here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ2N9-n-ka0).

In response to these conflicts, the Shoshone sought relief via the courtroom.  The legal battles have continued thru the centuries and have been waged in the US Supreme Court, the US Congress, and the United Nations.  In 1979, Congress gave the Shoshone $26 million for 25 million acres ($1.05 per acre), which the Shoshone refused to accept, saying they never intended to sell their land.  Because the funds were transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Supreme Court ruled that the tribe had been paid and no longer had title to the land.  In 2004 an act of Congress upped the settlement amount to $145 million, which the tribe still refuses to touch.  They are the not the only tribe with “settlement” funds sitting in a BIA vault.  The Oglala Lakota of Pine Ridge, arguably the poorest place in the US, also refuse to touch over one billion dollars, on principle, because “the Black Hills are not for sale.”  Referring to the impact on the tribe’s culture and way of life, a Shoshone chief explained it this way, “I did not sign any agreement for money.  The actions of the federal government are unconstitutional, immoral, genocidal, and against international law.”

Cliven Bundy’s story begins in 1877, when his family homesteaded and created the ranch he now lives on—on Shoshone land.  By then Nevada was a state.  It occupied most of the Shoshone lands, in violation of the federal treaty.  It was also (and still is) largely controlled by the federal government.  It was not until 1993 that the BLM asked Bundy to pay grazing fees since most of his cattle were not on his ranch, but on BLM land.  The bigger issue was that the BLM, also managing the land for habitat and the threatened desert tortoise, wanted to reduce his herd size.  To do this, the BLM offered to purchase Bundy’s grazing rights—to pay him for decreasing his privilege of grazing his cattle on public land.  Like the Shoshone, Bundy said his “rights” were not for sale and refused payment.  He also refused to reduce his herd size and refused to pay grazing fees for the cattle that were allowed to remain.  In response, the BLM revoked all his grazing rights and have been seeking to remove his cattle ever since.

To this day, Bundy argues that the land belongs to the state of Nevada and that his rights to the land precede the existence of the BLM or the involvement of the federal government.  Moreover, it is within his rights, he argues, to refuse their “management” and to refuse to pay them for it.  In 1998, Bundy lost a federal court case and was ordered to remove his cattle.  He refused.  In 2013, a federal judge again ordered Bundy to remove his cattle from federal land.  Again he refused.

Earlier this month, when the BLM arrived with helicopters and trucks to enforce the court order and round up his cattle, Bundy managed to call in right-wing militia activists from around the West to create a tense stand-off, complete with high-powered rifles trained on BLM employees.  In the end, the BLM backed off “in the interest of public safety” and Bundy’s cattle remain. Image

So there are similarities between the Dann sisters and Bundy.  Both were (or are) ranchers in Nevada claiming grazing rights to large sections of Nevada managed by BLM.  Both refused to pay their grazing fees or to remove their livestock, and both cited events from the 1800s as the basis for their rights.  Both fought their cases in federal court and lost.  And both refused to remove their livestock.  In both cases, the BLM arrived to round-up and confiscate their cattle.

There are, of course, two obvious differences.  First, the basis for their historic claims are not the same.  The cases actually overlap, such that the rights of the Shoshone (based on the treaty in 1863) precede those of Bundy’s pioneering homesteaders (which are based on the creation of the state of Nevada a year later).  If the treaty was enforced, both ranches could be protected under Shoshone authority (assuming the Shoshone approved of Bundy as a guest on their land).  The second difference between the two cases is that Bundy chose armed resistance and, for now, has gotten away with it.

We can speculate why the Shoshone did not attempt armed resistance and what might have happened if they did.  The issue of race cannot be ignored here—it is the third obvious difference.  The Shoshone likely calculated the negative consequences of armed confrontation and assumed they would not rate high in calculations of “public safety”.  The Bundy faction, on the other hand, deliberately put their women on the front lines, correctly assuming they would force the BLM to fall back.  As in the past, the feds looked the other way in the face of pioneer aggression.  Looking across the centuries and the sagebrush, it seems that fighting a range war against the feds has always been a privilege of white settlers while Native Americans are left wanting.

This entry was posted in my own thoughts, news and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Range Wars and White Privilege

  1. MJ Madrid says:

    Found this site through Indian Country Today. I’ll bookmark it to be sure!

    Nothing new (for Indians) here. Land-grabbing, armed threats, NDNs paying the price, White man gets off.

  2. MJ Madrid says:

    I’m really tired of Rednecks with guns crying about having “their country taken away from them.” I’m equally tired of Rednecks with guns bitching about illegal immigration. If ANYONE has the right to complain about EITHER of these things it’s Native Americans.

  3. First I noticed the picture of the trail of tears. My family. It just grabbed me by the eyeballs. I knew there was supposed to be a cut of all grazing contracts (and the military) to go to the tribes. So I went a-lookin’. I’m trying my hand at native politics, building my knowledge along the way. The Cherokee nation, east and west, is involved in a mountaintop removal dispute on a mountain at Chattanooga, has been (said, there was no Tsalagi syllabary until 1820) said the mountain was a holy site before the Cherokee tribe became a separate entity. That was 3000 years ago. The government of Tennessee pretty much GAVE the land to a coal company, all of which have the very worst reputation for cleaning up their mess… and defends the decision on the “grounds” (another word for “the land” but not in the state’s definition) they couldn’t find the descendants of the Original Owners.

    I thought to myself (as I often do) “Self, that ain’t right. There are Cherokee offices in Chattanooga. It was one of our best possessions. How could they NOT find any Cherokee in Chattanooga?” and I’m sure there is no surprise coming to my readers here, they weren’t talking about Cherokee, they were saying they couldn’t find the people who got some of them thar Andrew Jackson land grants which he was selling even before the French sold Cherokee, Choctaw. Chickashaw, Shawnee, Seminole, Muskogee, Natchez, Kikapu and other tribal lands to the US. Some of my ancestors actually fought for the bastard against the Shawnee Prophet Tesquatana and his brother Tecumseh and the Creek Rebellion. While he was busily selling our lands.”Our” meaning all natives. The coal company say they will rehabilitate the land once they bulldoze the spirit land into a pile of broken rocks, poison water and coal dust. They say they’ll turn the newly cleansed land back to the state as a park. The State of Tennesee sure does love poor folks, they’re giving a future Toxic Waste mess to our kids to play in. Mighty white of them.

    so I got into the politics of it all. Here in Colorado there is a similar problem to the Shoshone one. Grazing “rights” on BLM lands. My thoughts on a compromise which the white government is bound to refuse, is to simply turn the BLM land over to the Tribes. And they’ll say the tribes would not even ever no not never going to be able to cooperate between ourselves on maintaining it.

    As though they have a really good history of treating the tribes fairly.
    In the upcoming elections both major parties are dancing together about the Native Sovereignty issue. Donald Trump is just more outspoken about it. And I can just predict where his heart is on the Bundy issue. There is no compromising with them.

    My voice is that the Tribes take the BLM land. Period. No treaty, just take it back. Not that the whites are a majority anymore, (they aren’t) but there is plenty of White sympathy. Call it a wounded conscience, call it whatever. It’s there for the taking. If they are shamed into agreement, then they are still in agreement. That much I know. How to coordinate it I don’t know. Here in Colorado the Mountain Ute, Southern Ute and Navajo are really super big players. And in the Springs, where exactly I’m located, it’s a short drive in any direction, east to Pawnee and Shawnee lands in Kansas, Cheyenne, Cree, and of course Oklahoma which is getting less redneck by the minute. I think this idea has a chance, and that we must unite in doing it, and soon.
    force it into the election debate. Trump is touring the West right now, he’ll be in Denver on the 1st.

  4. Just found this academic article that is very similar to my blog post. Here’s a quote:
    “Although the Bundy family only purchased their ranch land in 1948 and did not begin grazing cattle until 1954, Bundy insisted on his ancestral and preemption-derived rights: “My forefathers . . . have been up and down the Virgin Valley here since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water and the access and range improvements.”33 At no point has Bundy substantively addressed the Moapa Band of Paiutes, whose homeland was appropriated as the public domain to which he claimed to have rights by virtue of ancestry, preemption, and American citizenship. Nor did Bundy’s advocates make the comparison between the federal government’s treatment of the Nevada rancher and its considerably more severe, violent, and illegal actions toward the nearby Western Shoshone and the Dann sisters.”

    Goldstein, A. 2018. By Force of Expectation: Colonization, Public Lands, and the Property Relation. 65 UCLA L. Rev. Disc. 124 (2018).
    Available at https://www.uclalawreview.org/by-force-of-expectation/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.