As a result of colonialism, indigenous people have been uprooted from the land which their communities and ancestors have been tending to for centuries. Today, still seeking justice from the repercussions of colonialism, indigenous groups are threatened by a new enemy, coined “biocolonialism.” Similar to colonialism, biocolonialism is further restricting the access indigenous people have to their crops. Because power houses in the agricultural field have developed the means to expand world wide, indigenous populations around the globe are threatened. By examining practices, and policy formation in communities worldwide one might begin to understand the complexities that differentiate each community.
The concept of food sovereignty, the power to independently provide the food and nutrients for a community to survive outside of large scale agriculture, has structured the methodology of many indigenous food systems. However, what happens when traditional farming practices are being disabled by policy formation in favor of large scale agriculture? For example, the harvesting of wild rice by the Ojibwe people has been severely hindered due to the patent of wild rice by the corporation Nor-Cal. With the patent of wild rice came many legal issues surrounding the tribe’s rights to their harvest and the fear of contamination from this new genetically engineered monocrop. When a community loses access to part of their crop they lose access to part of their heritage. Winona LaDuke states in her article, Ricekeepers, the importance of gaining access to lost crops, explaining “A cultural community that persists in its farming tradition does not simply conserve indigenous seed stock because of economic justifications. The seeds themselves become symbols, reflections of the people’s own spiritual and aesthetic identity, and of the land that shaped them” (LaDuke.)The Ojibwe tribe’s history with Nor-Cal can be mirrored across many cultures and enterprises, all ending in a similar story of a community left with little to no access to their food sources.
In 2012 I had the opportunity to learn from and work with The Confederated Tribes of Coos Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians. During my stay with the tribe they explained to me their many (failed) attempts to work with the Federal Government in regaining access to their ancestor’s land. On their website, the tribe provides their mission statement to regain lost land, stating, “We are seeking to right this wrong. We are not seeking money. Money is not sacred, land is…Today we are neighbors. Today we sit around the same table. Today we face the same issues, and today we work together and create common solutions. We are proud to be members of the communities in our Ancestral Watersheds” (ctclusi.org.) As a tribe, this indigenous community recognizes that their history is now inevitably intertwined within a larger community. They are not trying to seek revenge towards the government. Their main goal is not to kick their neighbors off of sacred land. The CTCLUSI is rightfully fighting for the land they need to sustain their community’s identity; both culturally and economically.
It is for this reason that policy formation needs to take into account the expertise indigenous cultures have with their land. In his article, Michael S. Carolan explains the implications of applying expertise to scientific data involving policy making. He argues the importance of a “public expertise’ which speaks to the explicit incorporation of [public] values into the decision making process” (Carolan, 665.) Stories similar to Ojibwe tribe and CTCLUSI have become universal. The voice of the people has not been valued in the decision making process and large scale agriculture is driving traditional agriculture to the ground. However, by reimagining policy making into an institution that values various types of expertise a more holistic approach can be cultivated, ultimately giving the strength back to indigenous communities to continue harvesting the crops that have shaped their cultures for many generations.
Works Cited
Carolan, Michael S. “Science, Expertise, and the Democratization of the Decision-Making Process.” Society & Natural Resources 19.7 (2006): 661-68. Web.
“Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians Ancestral Lands Restoration Proposal March 2013 | Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Tribes.” Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians Ancestral Lands Restoration Proposal March 2013 | Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Tribes. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Oct. 2014.
LaDuke, Winona. “Ricekeepers.” Orion Magazine. N.p., July 2007. Web. 19 Oct.2014.
Great blogs post, these issues seem overly complicated from the outside but when you realize its the same pattern of power and control repeating it’s self. I think it was good you pointed out how “money is not sacred, land is.” This shows a fundamental difference in worldview between native and western cultures. This perspective we are likely to lose if we continue to ignore rights of Native Americans.
I do agree with you in that we need to not rely on “experts” to make some of our food decisions. We should rely on an integration of local knowledge, expert knowledge, and populace opinions to make decisions pertaining to a bioregional area. Biocoloialism is becoming a huge problem, especially in third world countries. I would almost attribute biocolonialism as an extension of western values. This perpetration of western agriculture is what is hurting out biodiversity.