![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
‘No sovereign nation, no reservation’: producing the new colonialism in Cayuga Count(r)y. Territory, Politics, Governance. Since 1980, the Cayuga Nation has worked through various US politico-legal mechanisms to establish sovereignty over land taken from them by European settlers and their descendants in what is today New York State beginning in the 1700s. When, in 2005, the US Supreme Court refused to review a lower court’s dismissal of their case, the Cayugas began purchasing land they claim from local (non-Cayuga) property owners. Relatedly, they petitioned the US Bureau of Indian Affairs to place the land that they collectively own into federal trust, which would exempt them from various taxes. These efforts have engendered strong opposition from elements of the non-Native population, particularly the organization Upstate Citizens for Equality (UCE). This article interrogates the discourse of UCE, and its allies and antecedents, one that effectively nationalizes the Cayugas by producing them as ‘normal’ US citizens, as well as that of the federal courts. It illustrates how a discourse emphasizing equality, fairness, (US) nationhood and private property obfuscates the Cayuga’s dispossession and the nature of their land claim, to reproduce a colonized space, and to give rise to what we call ‘the new colonialism’, producing an impasse whose overcoming requires a far-reaching rethinking of territory and sovereignty.
摘要
‘没有主权的国族，便没有保育'：在卡育加郡（国）生产新殖民主义. Territory, Politics, Governance. 自1980 年开始，卡育加族便透过涉入不同的美国政治—法律机制，以在1700 年代开始由欧洲迁佔者及其后裔从他们身上掠夺的今日为纽约州的土地上建立主权。2005 年，美国最高法院拒绝再审理较低层级的法院驳回的卡育加族案例后，他们便开始从地方（非卡育加族）的产权所有者购回其所宣称的土地。于此相关的是，他们诉请美国原住民事务委员会将该族集体拥有的土地纳入联邦信託，而这将能使这些土地免除各种徵税。这些努力导致了非原住民人口的强烈抗议，特别是 ’上州公民平等组织’（UCE）。本文探讨UCE及其盟友与先行者的论述，该论述透过将卡育加族生产为 ’一般的’ 美国公民以及 ’一般的’ 联邦法院，有效地国族化卡育加族。本文阐明，强调平等、公平、（美国）国族身份与私有产权的论述，如何模糊了对卡育加族的强佔迫迁，以及他们对土地所有权的宣称，从而再生产一个殖民化的空间，并促成了我们所谓的 ’新殖民主义’ 的兴起，且製造了一个必须透过对领土与主权进行深远的再思考才能克服的困境。
RÉSUMÉ
‘Pas de nation souveraine, pas de réserve’: création d’un nouveau colonialisme dans le pays Cayuga. Territory, Politics, Governance. Depuis 1980, la nation Cayuga a participé à plusieurs mécanismes politico-juridiques afin d’établir sa souveraineté sur des terres qui leurs avaient été prises, au dix-huitième siècle, par des colons européens, et leurs descendants, dans ce qui est aujourd’hui l’État de New-York. Lorsqu’en 2005, la Cour suprême des États-Unis refusa de se saisir de cette affaire, qui avait été rejetée par un tribunal inférieur, les Cayugas commencèrent à acheter des terres, qu’ils revendiquent à des propriétaires locaux (non Cayugas). Ils déposèrent ensuite une requête au Bureau of Indian Affairs des États-Unis pour placer les terres qui leur appartenaient collectivement dans une fiducie fédérale, ce qui devrait leur permettre d’être exonérés de différentes taxes. Ces initiatives suscitèrent une forte opposition de la part de la population non autochtone, en particulier l’organisation Upstate Citizens for Equality (UCE). Le présent article se penche sur l’argument de l’UCE, et de ses alliés et antécédents, un argument qui revient à nationaliser les Cayugas, en les déclarant être des citoyens américains «ordinaires», ainsi que sur celui des tribunaux fédéraux. Il illustre la façon dont un discours axé sur l’égalité, l’équité, le concept de la nation (américaine), et la propriété privée, masque la spoliation des Cayugas et la nature de leurs réclamations territoriales, en reproduisant un espace colonisé pour donner lieu à ce que nous appelons «le nouveau colonialisme»: sortir de cette impasse nécessite une refonte fondamentale des principes fondamentaux du territoire et de la souveraineté.
RESUMEN
‘Ni nación soberana, ni reserva’: creando el nuevo colonialismo en la tierra de los cayuga. Territory, Politics, Governance. Desde 1980, la nación cayuga se ha esforzado a través de diferentes mecanismos político-legales en los Estados Unidos por establecer la soberanía sobre su territorio arrebatado por colonos europeos y sus descendientes en lo que hoy es el Estado de Nueva York desde principios de 1700. Cuando en 2005 el Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos rechazó revisar una desestimación de su caso por parte de un tribunal inferior, los cayuga comenzaron a comprar tierra que reclamaban de los propietarios (no cayuga) de viviendas locales. En este escenario, solicitaron a la Oficina de Asuntos Indígenas de Estados Unidos mantener la tierra que poseían colectivamente en un fideicomiso federal que les eximiría de pagar varios impuestos. Estas acciones han generado una fuerte oposición por parte de miembros de la población no nativa, sobre todo de la organización Upstate Citizens for Equality (UCE). En este artículo cuestionamos el discurso de la UCE, y sus aliados y antecedentes, uno que de hecho nacionaliza a los cayuga al considerarlos ciudadanos estadounidenses ‘normales’, así como el discurso de los tribunales federales. Se ilustra cómo un discurso que hace hincapié en la igualdad, la justicia, la nacionalidad (estadounidense) y la propiedad privada ofusca la expropiación de los cayuga y la naturaleza de la reclamación de sus tierras, para reproducir un espacio colonizado, y generar lo que denominamos ‘el nuevo colonialismo’ llegando a un callejón sin salida cuya superación requiere un ambicioso replanteamiento del territorio y la soberanía.
PALABRAS CLAVES:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank David Jansson, Emily Levitt, Patricia Wood, and two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. We also extend our gratitude to Neil Curri for making the map, Wrenaye Matzen for connecting us with Nation leadership, and Richard Bryenton for assisting with editorial matters.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 This article draws upon Wolkin (Citation2012).
3 The Cayuga people today are politically and geographically dispersed. For purposes of this manuscript, our use of ‘Cayuga Nation’ refers to the federally recognized Cayuga Nation based in Seneca Falls, New York. We make no claims regarding an ongoing leadership dispute within the Nation (see, for example, Craig, Citation2016). We instead focus on reactions of the Cayuga Nation’s non-Native neighbors to steps aimed at enhancing Cayuga sovereignty and taken in the name of the Cayuga Nation.
4 The constituent nations of the Haudenosaunee confederacy, commonly referred to as the Iroquois or the Six Nations, include: the Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, Mohawk, and Tuscarora nations.
5 See ‘Tribal History’ section of the Cayuga Nation of New York website at http://www.cayuganation-nsn.gov/About/TribalHistory.
6 See the ‘Land Claim History’ section of the Cayuga Nation of New York website at http://www.cayuganation-nsn.gov/LandRights/LandClaimHistory.
7 Private interests bought all the land in question from New York State (Heath, 29 July, 2016, in-person interview). A very small slice if it (141 acres) is today part of Cayuga Lake State Park.
9 Joe Heath is a lawyer who has advised the Cayuga Nation on various matters.
10 The BIA has suspended consideration of the application due to the ongoing leadership dispute (Craig, Citation2016).
11 Quote taken from Karch (Citation2004).
12 Upstate Citizens for Equality, Inc. (UCE), ‘Get the Facts on UCE’, undated, Web. Retrieved March 9, 2016, from http://www.upstate-citizens.org/getthefacts.htm.
13 UCE assumes that Cayuga sovereignty will result in a net loss to the local tax base. This is far from certain, however, given the potential for economic growth that could result from expanded Cayuga commercial activity.
14 Retrieved February 22, 2016, from http://www.upstate-citizens.org/getthefacts.htm.
16 ‘We would be governing the [64,000-acre] treaty-protected territory’, Karl Hill, a Sub-Chief of the Cayuga Nation, stated when asked what a robustly sovereign Cayuga Nation would entail, later adding ‘We are not “the public”, we are a nation, sovereign in every sense of the word’ (Hill, 5 August 2016, in-person interview).