As of February 1, 2000, Navajo families living on their aboriginal lands within Hopi Partitioned Land who had not signed an Accommodation Agreement with the Hopi Tribe were supposed to have relocated (Begaye, no date). As a result, under pressure from the United States government, many Navajo families have given in and relocated. However, despite this, there are still a number of deeply rooted and traditional Navajo families who have refused to sign the seventy five year Accommodation Agreement. As a result of not signing this Accommodation Agreement, the Navajo people are coming under greater pressure to compromise their spiritual and traditional beliefs.
It is becoming more evident that the long-standing dispute between the Navajo and Hopi regarding the land has resolved itself to approximately ten families representing approximately eighty people in total. As stated by Williams (2002) the Navajo-Hopi battle is not about “numbers anymore, its about ideologies…it’s world views…at least according to the resisters of the ‘Sovereign Dineh Nation,’ it is about religious oppression” (in Begaye, no date). Even to the Hopi religion, daily life and land are considered inseparable.
On October 30, 1992 the Hopi Tribal Chairman, the President of the Navajo Nation, the Manybeads Attorney, and the United States government lawyers, signed an Agreement in Principle (AIP). This agreement stated that the Hopi would receive approximately 500,000 acres of land in trust, plus certain other lands inside the Navajo reservation. The Dineh or Navajo on the other hand would be split into an “A list” and a “B list”. The people on the “A list” would be granted the permission to lease 112 3-acre home sites and another 112 10-acre cornfields. In addition they would also be able to graze 2800 sheep on top of what was already given to them. Under this AIP, any Dineh families that did not sign a lease would be evicted (Burrows, 1993).
As a result of the Navajo-Hopi land dispute, both the Hopi people and the Navajo people have faced acts of exclusion and oppression concerning both the Navajo and Hopi cultures and spirituality. In addition, for the Navajo, the federal relocation process has aided in disrupting lives, breaking up families and undermining traditional belief systems. As the President of the Navajo Nation states: “as America’s first peoples, it is our responsibility to teach the newcomers to our land about how red and white, and black and yellow, can live in harmony and walk in beauty” (Begaye, no date).
|
|
Summary
In terms of the four theoretical frameworks discussed in lectures, the Navajo and Hopi Land Dispute has ties to all four frameworks, production of space, geographies of exclusion, geographies of resistance, and legal geographies. The following are examples of these frameworks.
Production of Space
The Hopi and Navajo productions of space are evident through the progression of their land dispute. The Hopi organized their space to be sophisticated farming communities that were clustered together. The Navajo were sheep herders who had scattered settlements throughout their land base. Both groups organized their space according to their dependence on the surrounding landscape. As settlers began arriving the Navajo and Hopi lands were threatened through conflicting ideas regarding productive land use.
Geographies of Exclusion
When dealing with geographies of exclusion it is important to remember that power is usually expressed through the monopolization of space and the delegation of a less important group to a less desirable space. When looking at the Navajo-Hopi land dispute no matter how the United States Government ruled, both tribes believed themselves to have ties to the land. Therefore, prioritizing of one tribe's right to land over another results in the exclusion of the other de-valued tribe. It is a socio-spatial type of exclusion that is faced by both of the tribes as each is not allowed to live off the others land due to different traditional and cultural uses of the land.
Geographies of Resistance
Resistance can be demonstrated in many different ways. In the case of the Navajo and Hopi resistance has been demonstrated through their disapproval of the United States government with the lack of protection regarding their traditional lands. As well, both tribes demonstrated resistance towards each other by continuously appealing previous rulings set forth by the United States government and the judicial system. This resistance was a way in which to preserve their cultures, traditions and lands.
Legal Geographies
Law and space differs amongst aboriginal groups. In the past the Navajo and Hopi shaped their lands according to their differing governance systems. The Hopi had a strong government structure whereas, the Navajo had a loosely organized government. In the case of the Navajo and Hopi, law attempted to determine who had entitlement to the land in which both tribes believed to be their own. Law has shaped the space in which the Navajo and Hopi people have lived in and continues to shape their land today.