ALL Things
issues
Hear more Nevada Territory, and the army forcing Native Americans to work as scouts led to a treaty negotiation. Territorial Governor James Nye and the Western Shoshone leader Te-Moak agreed to the Treaty of Ruby Valley, which eased the immediate problem. Unfortunately, it created another. The treaty said, “The several routes of travel through the Shoshone country, now or hereafter used by white men, shall be forever free, and unobstructed by the said bands, for the use of the government of the United States, and of all emigrants and travellers under its authority and protection, without molestation or injury from them.” Nowhere did it say that the Shoshone gave up any land. But, obviously, they lost it. Or did they? In 1946, Congress established the Indian Claims Commission so tribes could sue the federal government for redress — namely, money for lands taken from them. Some of the younger Western Shoshone were agreeable, but older ones insisted that they remained the rightful landowners and wanted no money. Mary and Carrie Dann were among the latter. In 1974, the BLM charged them with illegally grazing their cattle on federal land. The Danns replied that they had been on their land, and sued the feds. A young filmmaker, Joel Friedman, turned the story into a documentary, Broken Treaty at Battle Mountain, narrated by Robert Redford, an advocate of environmentalism and Native American rights. The film sympathized with the Western Shoshone’s plight, and other documentaries and reports raked the BLM over the coals. But the government didn’t give up, and in 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court held
“The several routes of travel through the Shoshone country, now or hereafter used by white men, shall be forever free, and unobstructed by the said bands, for the use of the government of the United States, and of all emigrants and travellers under its authority and protection, without molestation or injury from them.”
16
June 2014
DesertCompanion.com
Should the
that the tribe had ceded its rights to an earlier time and certainly states conthe land — not in the 1863 treaty, but seemed to prefer that time to trol land in the West? when the Indian Claims Commission this one. In certain ways, they Hear a set aside money for the claimants in served as equally attractive discussion 1979. However, the Native Americans representatives of the causes on “KNPR’s could sue for “original aboriginal for which they fought. State of Nevada” rights,” and U.S. District Judge Bruce But they also had their at desert Thompson of Nevada held that the faults. The Danns and their companion. Danns could graze their cattle on the allies fought for a principle com/hear land but couldn’t claim ownership. more rooted in centuries of misWhen the Bundy family gained its treatment of Native Amerland depends on who’s telling the story. icans, but there’s also such a thing as Cliven Bundy said his family’s claim goes knowing when to hold ’em and knowing back to 1877, when Mormons settled when to fold ’em. Bunkerville. But 13 years before that, the Bundy’s faults have become wellNevada Constitution had ceded control known and certainly are legion. Beyond of the land to the federal government. his views of African-Americans and Also, KLAS Channel 8’s I-Team found choosing not to acknowledge the U.S. that the Bundys didn’t start grazing government, he and his allies promote cattle there until 1954. several fallacies, including that the land Meanwhile, Sean Hannity of Fox should be his to use as he pleases. If the News and other conservative media land belongs to the public, it belongs outlets defended him against the BLM, to all of us. By his logic, he should have which had dunned him for more than to avoid portions of the land belonging $1 million in grazing fees, which he had to those who don’t want him grazing refused to pay for two decades. cattle on it. The Dann sisters certainly were tough But the main fallacy is the contention and difficult, by anyone’s definition. They that the land isn’t the federal governdenied the authority of the federal govment’s because it extorted Nevada’s ernment over the land they claimed. Even acreage as the price of statehood some members of the tribes resented — which would be fine if anyone had the Danns and their allies for delaying a forced Nevada to become a state. No settlement, much as other ranchers and one did. Nevada could have remained advocates of federal divestiture of public a territory forever, completely under lands feel that Bundy has hurt their cause federal control, down to the president far more than he has helped it. choosing the governor, his cabinet and But neither of the Dann sisters ever the courts. Bundy wouldn’t much like went quite so far as to say, “I don’t recthat, either. ognize the United States government as The Danns ultimately represented even existing,” or claim that the sheriff a cause — Native American rights — of their county had the power to disarm centuries in the making. Meanwhile, the U.S. government. No militia groups Bundy and his allies demanded that the showed up to help them, or talked about sheriff arrest BLM representatives and placing women and children on the front threatened a lawsuit over his and the lines in case of violence. Nor did the governor’s failure to act. In a subsequent Dann sisters discourse on how slavery attempt to confront the BLM, Bundy’s had shaped the African-American supporters drove their ATVs over sacred experience. Native American land to protest federal Some of the comparisons between control of public lands. Like the Danns, Mary and Carrie Dann and Cliven Bundy they claim to have rights, and they will are apt: the use or abuse of federal govkeep claiming them. The question is how ernment powers; vast differences in how many other Americans feel similarly — the land is used and perceived; the sense and how many feel that those claims are that all of them may have belonged to trampling their rights.