Bowers and Carpenter on Lyng in “Indian Law Stories”

Amy Bowers and Kristen Carpenter have posted their excellent chapter on Lyng from “Indian Law Stories” on SSRN — “Challenging the Narrative of Conquest: The Story of Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association.” Here is the abstract:

In Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protection Association (1988), the Supreme Court held that it would not violate the Free Exercise Clause for the U.S. Forest Service to build a road through the “High Country,” an area that is sacred to Yurok, Karuk, and Tolowa Indians living in Northern California and Southern Oregon. Unable to show “coercion” of their religious beliefs, the Indian plaintiffs could not rely on the First Amendment to protect their interests in aboriginal territory now owned by the United States. As Justice O’Connor wrote: ‘‘Whatever rights the Indians may have to the use of the area, those rights do not divest the Government of its right to use what is, after all, its land.’’ Scholars have criticized the case as narrowing individual Free Exercise rights and expanding the government’s property rights, to the detriment of religious freedoms. While Lyng deserves this notoriety, an exclusive focus on defects in the holdings obscures other important dimensions of the case. In particular, the Supreme Court’s opinion comes close to silencing altogether the Indians’ perspective on their sacred High Country. Law and religion scholarship, with few exceptions, also ignores tribal voices both on the religious practices and advocacy strategies that were so key to the Lyng case and its aftermath. Indeed, the Forest Service road was never built and the tribes continue to practice their religions in the High Country.

This article offers a tribally-centered version of Lyng, one that is rarely told, at least outside of tribal communities. Based on interviews with tribal members who participated in the case, as well as interdisciplinary research into the anthropology and religion literature, this is a story of cultural revival fueled by the Indian way of life. It is a story of a community forced to defend itself against the assimilationist agenda of the federal government — and developing a contemporary political identity in the process. It is a story of the inextricable relationship between Indian people and lands, in which the Tribes’ attachment to their sacred sites ultimately triumphed over the Supreme Court’s narrow application of religion and property laws. In the final analysis, we argue, the Indian story of religious and cultural persistence has prevailed over Lyng’s ostensible narrative of conquest. Today, as Lyng’s doctrinal legacy threatens to undermine advances made under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the broader story told here is potentially revealing for everyone concerned with religious liberties in the United States.

Salon: Ethnic Mascots are Never Winners

Here. An excerpt:

Each of the three standard arguments used to brush off such substantive criticism is more inane than the next. Let’s debunk them one at a time:

Nonsensical Argument #1: A mascot is designed to honor, not lampoon, an ethnicity

To know this is idiotic is to replace a Native American mascot with a caricatured mascot depicting another ethnic group — and then ask if that would really be considered an honor. Would anyone seriously defend a team called the Boston Blacks or the New York Jews, each with mascots of ethnic stereotypes? Probably not (sure, Notre Dame’s Fighting Irish embody a non-Native American cultural stereotype, but two wrongs don’t make a right). Nobody would or should defend those hypothetical names because we know what a mascot really is — we know its whole purpose is to draw attention through flamboyant spectacle. We also know, then, that when we turn an ethnicity into a mascot, we are not-so-subtly insinuating that the group is inherently an attention-grabbing spectacle of flamboyance — that is, we are insinuating that its otherness is so alien, strange or ridiculous, that its people are fit to be presented as glorified clowns. That’s not an honor — that’s an insult.

Nonetheless, the mascot-as-hero conceit is frequently trotted out by a majority culture desperate to continue the minstrelization of minorities via athletic logos. As the University of Akron’s Dana M. Williams reports, surveys show that “one of the most common storylines about the (UND) nickname offered by white supporters is: ‘It’s intended as an honor because Native people were brave fighters.’” To this, Williams offers a powerful rejoinder:

Such a claim minimizes the racism inherent in a predominantly white university using a discriminated-against racial minority as its sports nickname. The statement also reinforces the misleading stereotypes that all Native Americans were brave and were fighters, thereby making all Native people targets of an externally imposed “honor.” Ironically, in the past, attributing the labelfighting to Native Americans would have been perceived as highly negative, and would have helped to justify attacks by the U.S. Army on Native Americans, as well as white settler incursions into Native territory.

‘Nuff said.

Indian Arts and Crafts Case: Native American Arts v. Indio Products

Here are the materials:

DCT Order Granting Summary J to Indio

DCT Order Denying Atty Fees

Oregon Department of Education Considers Mascot Issue

The Oregon Department of Education is taking public testimony on the issue of American Indian mascots in public schools on March 8th and 9th. There are several newspaper articles on the topic including ones here, here, here, and here.

The Topic Summary for tomorrow’s discussion is here.

CNN In America on the Navajo v. Urban Outfitters Suit

Here.

Navajo Nation Sues Urban Outfitters for Trademark Violations

Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. Urban Outfitters (D. N.M.):

Complaint

ExhibitA

ExhibitB

ExhibitC

ExhibitD

ExhibitE

ExhibitF

ExhibitG_Pages1through21

ExhibitG_Pages22through42

And the press release (2012-02-28 Navajo Nation Press Release): Continue reading

Erich Longie on the Fighting Sioux

Here, via Pechanga.

An excerpt:

The committee’s lawsuit against the NCAA is intended not to win in court but to sway the voting public. I read the NCAA’s motion to dismiss, and it reads like a 30-page spanking. It would be laughable if it weren’t for the harm it will do to our sovereignty: Every time a tribe files and loses a frivolous lawsuit, it erodes our tribal sovereignty even more.

Selected Legal Docs in Custer Battlefield Museum/Christopher Kortlander Controversy

Interesting series of cases about a litigious dude (news coverage):

DCT Order Unsealing Case

Search Warrant Application

Kortlander v BLM FOIA Order

Kortlander v US Complaint

US Motion to Dismiss Kortlander Complaint

Federal Court Order re: Restitution for Killing of Navajo Members

Here is the opinion in United States v. Harwood (D. N.M.):

DCT Sentencing Order in Harwood

In short, the court disallowed restitution for the costs of Navajo healing ceremonies because they were not “funeral or related services” under the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982.

Minn.-Duluth Hockey Fans Taunt UND Hockey team with Racial Epithets — UPDATED

Yet another reason to make this nickname and image go away as soon as possible.

and response:
Update from A.K.:
In addition, an excerpt from the UMD student section (http://www.wdio.com/article/stories/S2508695.shtml?cat=10349) suggests that intentions cannot always control results.
“The UMD student section prides itself on being one of the loudest student sections in the WCHA. The cheers from this hockey series were meant to intimidate and poke fun at the UND nickname and hockey team, not the Sioux Tribe or any other members of the Native American community.
As a student section, we are embarrassed that this situation has become more than just cheers at a hockey team. We apologize for offending any parties and wish to portray a better image, both for UMD and for Duluth.”