The Native American College will welcome its first cohort in Fall 2025 and integrate tribal values, traditions and community engagement to s
"In a historic move Friday [November 8, 2024], Sacramento State announced its new Native American College, a first of its kind in the California State university system.
The college, a co-curricular institution housed at Sacramento State, will support Native-based education with a focus on leadership and career building. It will offer a diverse range of programs that integrate "tribal values, traditions and community engagement," according to a press release.
This marks Sacramento State's second ethnic-based institution. The university launched the the nation's first Black Honors college earlier this year.
The announcement was made at the California State Capitol by President Luke Wood and Dr. Annette Reed, an enrolled member and citizen of the Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation, who will be the first dean of the Native American College.
Reed said students will have access to faculty mentors, advisors, outreach coordinators and more who have the expertise to work closely with Native American students and can support them holistically.
She hopes this historic initiative will address low enrollment of Native students pursuing higher education across the state and in the country. Native American students face significant barriers to enrolling in higher education, such as financial constraints, feelings of isolation, historical trauma and lack of culturally relevant curriculum.
"And so I'm hoping this impacts the students where they go through as a cohort. They can create networks, they can be able to have more of a support system going through and beginning together and hopefully graduating at the end together," Reed said.
Reed recalled taking her first class on Native American studies in 1980. She would later on serve as the director of Native American studies at Sacramento State and chair of the Department of Ethnic Studies. For her, advocating for Native American education was a natural top priority.
"People always ask me, 'What is Native American studies?' It is history. It is looking at culture. It's looking at teaching sovereignty, federal Indian law. It's teaching social work, art. It's teaching about Native cultural expression, it can be literature," Reed said.
The Native American College will introduce two new courses, according to Reed, which will be focused on Native American leadership.
"It means that maybe some of the ones that start in Fall 2025 will end up here at the Capitol. Maybe they'll end up being the future senators or assembly people or the future of people in business. They might be leading our nation as tribal chairs, they might be going into the medical field," Reed said. "But whatever field they go into, leadership is really key."
Students who want to be in the Native American College can apply after being accepted into the university's general application process. All students will be required to minor in Native American Studies, with an emphasis on Native American leadership."
Many critical aspects of nature have been downplayed, ignored or rendered invisible by mainstream science in order to maintain the status quo. A goal of queer ecology is to critique biased science created within dominant Western paradigms.
Queer ecologists argue that the sexual diversity of animals matters. Modern theory often assumes a radical separation of nature and culture and thus minimizes the significance of animal sexuality and ‘queer animals’. But, as with other ‘keys [to the] Human Kingdom’ such as language and tool use, sex disconnected from reproduction has been similarly accomplished across a range of species (Alaimo, 2010).
This is important because it makes us reconsider our anthropocentric viewpoint of ‘natural’ sexuality as being inherently tied to reproduction (heteronormativity). The sexual diversity of the relatives that share the planet with us is meaningful because, “animals help us tell stories about ourselves, especially when it comes to matters of sexuality” (Terry 151, quoted in Alaimo). Moreover, “an understanding of animal cultures critiques the ideology of nature as resource, blank slate for cultural inscription, or brute, mechanistic force”(Alaimo 60, 2010). The more we understand animal naturecultures, the better able we are to protect them and help them thrive.
On The Origins of Species
The scientific term species was invented in the late eighteenth century (Coined by naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon), “but the term has never been free of controversy” (McWhorter). During the Nineteenth century, it was used in debates over whether “Negros and Indians” were Homo Sapiens or not and was again destabilized when Charles Darwin released his work, On the Origin of Species. “Politically charged from its scientific conception, the concept of species has often brought great harm to both racial and sexual minorities over the past two hundred years” (McWhorter).
According to Foucault, “concepts […] are for cutting. They are never merely benign representations of a natural arrangement” (1969). Essentially, the concept of “Species could be made to function oppressively to separate white from blacks because […] it was already a tool for marking separations in natures heterogenous continuities in the interest of prevailing human practices” (McWhorter).
Animals within the western paradigm are animals because they are considered a different species from humans. According to Darwin, however, the concept of rigid species boundaries is practically meaningless, given the inevitability of evolution (The Origin of Species (1859). Darwin never answered the question on the origin of species, except to say that, “there are no eternally fixed types, nor are there eternally distinct lines of descent. All life on earth, no matter how morphologically or functionally distinct at present, conceivably could be traced back to a single germ line” (McWhorter , 81).
Morton suggests that queer ecology might abandon using 'animal' and adopt a term like 'strange stranger'. Indigenous paradigms, like mitakuye oyasin, would consider ‘animals’ to be ‘relatives’ or ‘relations’.
According to Albert White Hat, Lakota elder, the wisdom in Indigenous paradigms aren’t “merely a collection of historical ideas or words” but “ a system of powerful knowledge applicable to the lives and struggles of people right now” (2020). Vine Deloria refers to mitákuye oyásįn as the ‘Indian principle of interpretation/observation,’ calling it “a practical methodological tool for investigating the natural world and drawing conclusions about it that can serve as guides for understanding nature and living comfortably within it. . . . We observe the natural world by looking for relationships between various things in it. . . . This concept is simply the relativity concept as applied to a universe that people experience as alive and not as dead or inert” (1999, 34) (Posthumus 2022 p219 f). According to the Tapestry Institute, “The Lakota phrase Mitákuye Oyás’iŋ describes Reality by addressing it as ‘All our Relations.’ All humans, all animals, all plants, all the waters, the soil, the stones, the mountains, the grasslands, the winds, the clouds and storms, the sun and moon, stars and planets are our relations and are relations to one another. We are connected to each other in multiple and vital ways. When one is in pain, all are harmed. When there is justice for one, there is more justice for all” (2020).
Mitakuye oyasin is about relationships and the decentering of humanity as ‘master’ of the land. In fact, in almost direct opposition, “the normative cultural values encompassed by mitákuye oyásʾį are the very foundation of kinship, relational ontology, and the overarching interspecies collective, of which humans are only one hoop, one oyáte ‘people, nation, tribe’, in the company of many others. The key constituents of this animist ontology and worldview, of mitákuye oyásʾį, are persons, a category that extends beyond human beings to nonhuman or other- than- human persons. [...] Importantly, the Lakota worldview sees humans as the least knowledgeable and powerful beings, requiring the most aid and pity (see V. Deloria 1999, 50; 2009, 99– 100). MItakuye oyasin as a paradigm has great potential to work in symbiopoesis with queer ecology.
Queer ecology is a critical response to biased Western science, especially about our animal relatives' naturecultures. However, by centering discourse around EuroAmerican culture, even if in critical consideration, we run the risk of reinforcing concepts such as ‘species’ which has been used by the colonial project to reinforce oppressive structures and separate us from nature. Mitakuye oyasin, is one example of an indigenous paradigm that might be an ancient answer to queer ecology’s goal of disrupting current colonial ideology. Moreover, both queer ecology and mitakuye oyasin, when they are used symbiopoetically, can provide us with the necessary imaginatory and observatory skills to contend with our current environmental issues.
Works cited:
Adams DH (2020) Mitákuye Oyás’iŋ. Tapestry Institute. Available from: https://tapestryinstitute.org/mitakuye-oyasin/ (accessed 19 March 2024). Referencing Sicungu Lakota Elder Albert White Hat.
Gaard G (1997) Toward a queer ecofeminism. Hypatia 12(1): 114–137.
George O (2023b) Climate Solutions Need Queerness. YES! Magazine, YES! Magazine. Available from: https://www.yesmagazine.org/environment/2023/06/08/queer-climate-solutions (accessed 6 May 2024).
Is nature queer? | out & about. YouTube. Available from: https://youtu.be/FtnkGtQygOg?si=KPBlbzpVGTjRyGgg
Article Series (U.S. National Park Service) (n.d.) National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Available from: https://www.nps.gov/articles/series.htm?id=4dff8155-1dd8-b71b-0b4c2713f34ea25c (accessed 6 May 2024). LGBTQ America: A Theme Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer History, a publication of the National Park Foundation for the National Park Service--Chapter 9: Sexual and Gender Diversity in Native America and the Pacific Islands by Will Roscoe
Mortimer-Sandilands C and Erickson B (eds) (2010) Queer ecologies: Sex, nature, politics, desire. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. The chapters cited from include: Eluding Capture: The Science, Culture, and Pleasure of “Queer” Animals by Stacy Alaimo, Enemy of the Species by Ladelle McWhorter, Queernaturecultures by David Bell, and Non-white Reproduction & Same-Sex Eroticism: Queer Acts against Nature by A. Gosine.
Morton T (2010) Queer ecology. Crittheory2020science, Modern Language Association. Available from: https://crittheory2020science.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/queer-ecology.pdf (accessed 21 March 2024).
Posthumus DC (2022) All my relatives: Exploring Lakota ontology, belief, and ritual. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Rahder M (2019) Queering the Wild. Autostraddle. Available from: https://www.autostraddle.com/queering-the-wild/ (accessed 6 May 2024).
Sharpe S (2019) Queering Biology Lecture. Google Slides, Google. Available from: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1HykSaiRoxGia5SUr4ZVk80GWC4Au4T4U/edit#slide=id.p32 (accessed 7 May 2024).
White Bird F (2008) Levels of Lakota Language. Lakota Country Times , Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, 18th April. https://web.archive.org/web/20170222134353/http://www.lakotacountrytimes.com/common/PastArchives/1237.html
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781119179313.wbprim0135 Natureculture NICHOLAS MALONE and KATHRYN OVENDEN, University of Auckland, New Zealand
When the factory fur trade of North America was abolished in 1822, the US Government was left searching for a way to maintain control in Indian territories. John C. Calhoun, then Secretary of War, created the “Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)” on March 11, 1824. He did so without authorization from Congress, which is against the general practice although not expressly forbidden by the Constitution. John Calhoun would go on to become the Vice President of the United States the following year.
1825 was an interesting year in US history, representing the end of the Era of Good Feelings that followed the War of 1812. The presidential election would split the previous first party system into the Democrat and Republican system we now know today. The country was taking its first steps to limit the expansion of slavery into its newly aquired territories. As Jacksonian Democracy extended the privilege of voting to most white men aged 21 or older, removing the previous requirement to own land, racist and colonial mentalities spread in the form of “manifest destiny”. The US needed to remove Indian peoples from their homelands and they needed a way to do it.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs would go on to forcibly remove native peoples from their nations under the direction of Senator and then Secretary of State, John C. Calhoun. In the late 1800’s, after succeeding in removing many tribal nations from their homelands, the Bureau of Indian Affairs created the Residential Schooling system to assimilate Indian children into American culture. Missionaries had already established the practice, but the Bureau of Indian affairs built their schools specifically off-reservation and incorporated “students” from a variety of different tribes to aid in their goal of assimilation. Their model was the infamous Carlisle Indian Industrial School in Pennsylvania.
The 1960’s and 1970’s saw a rise in activism for and among American Indians. The Bureau faced a number of displays of public opposition by Indian people and those who supported them, like the 1972 Occupation of BIA Headquarters. Today, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for quite a few different things, all concerning the affairs of American Indian people on Tribal lands.
The Bureau as a whole is responsible for the federal recognition of tribes, most recently the Little Shell Tribe of Montana. The Office of Field Operations is responsible for regional operations, working with tribal governments on the management of natural resources, agriculture, fish and wildlife, and parks. The Office of Justice Services operates several programs and also provides funding for law enforcement, tribal courts, and detention facilities on federal lands. Their jurisdiction is surprisingly expansive, holding authority over all crimes committed on reservations and all federal crimes, as well as all crimes committed within “dependent Indian communities” or on trust lands. It is also the responsibility of the OJS to enforce tribal criminal codes and assist tribes in maintaining their courts and justice systems. They also operate the Indian Police Academy, where agents are trained to work specifically in Indian Country. The Office of Trust Services is responsible for overseeing land and resources that are recognized as tribal but owned in trust by the US federal government. Finally, the Office of Indian Services comprises a wide range of different programs, including social services and child welfare, transportation infrastructure, awarding federal funds to tribes, and providing resources to tribal governments. It is generally in their mission statement and enumerated responsibilities to uphold tribal sovereignty under the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act.
"Teaching Native American Histories" A Summer Institute for Teachers
"Teaching Native American Histories" is a 2-week program held in the Wampanoag homeland (aka Cape Cod), July 16-28, 2017. The co-directors are Linda Coombs (Aquinnah Wampanoag) from the Aquinnah Cultural Center and Alice Nash, who teaches History at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. This Summer Institute is funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities. There is no cost for the program itself and each of the 25 Summer Scholars will receive a $2,100 stipend to defray the cost of travel, lodging, food and books.
It would be great to have a mix of Indigenous and non-Indigenous teachers from different parts of the country, with a range of teaching interests, who can thrive on long days and intensive learning. A major benefit of the format is that teachers get to meet and work with other teachers.
The application deadline is March 1, 2017.
For further information, see http://teachnativehistories.umass.edu/neh-programs/2017.
*Please forward this information to current teachers you may know (K-12, any topic, incl. librarians, information technology specialists, and home schoolers).
*The admin of the blog thanks the UMASS Amherst Native American & Indigenous Studies program for making this announcement easily shareable from their Facebook page with our readers.
Across the world, there are many indigenous peoples existing within established countries who maintain their national identity, unique cultures, and individual methods of government. In the United States, those that the government officially recognizes are referred to as “federally recognized tribes”. This means that they are being recognized as sovereign nations that exist within the physical boundaries of the United States. Although legal recognition can come in a variety of forms and be standing on an international level, the US government has enumerated 3 ways of establishing formal federal recognition; an act of Congress, a decision made by a US court, or a petition by the tribe in question to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Notice that these enumerated forms of recognition put a lot of the responsibility for decision-making on the US federal government, rather than on the government or people of the tribe in question. According to these terms, an act of US Congress or decision by a US court can grant a tribe federal recognition without the tribe recognizing that distinction themselves. Historically, this has led to the erasure of many traditional tribal lines. If the US government says that all Indians living in a specific area and speaking a specific language are part of a particular tribe, that decision stands in the eyes of the US Government, even if the people themselves consider themselves to be different tribal nations. One can only imagine the level of intertribal conflict this policy has created over just the last two hundred years.
In order for a tribe to petition for their own recognition, they must file officially through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The BIA is very strict on its definition of “tribe”, requiring any tribe in question to reach all seven qualification standards.
First, a tribe must have been considered an American Indian entity continuously since 1900, meaning that the tribe would have already had to have been established at that point.
Next, the majority of the tribe must consist of a distinct community that is recognizable from the others around it, also continuously.
Third, the tribe must have maintained political authority over its members, uninterrupted, from “historical times” to present.
Next, the nation must be able to provide a governing document (like a constitution) including and specifying citizenship criteria and political procedure, or else otherwise be able to provide a detailed explanation of that criteria. Basically, you must have a way of defining who your tribe is and how you do things.
The citizens of the tribal nation must themselves be descendants of historical nation(s) acting as a single political entity. I believe this might be the basis of blood quantum laws, because too much intermarrying could possibly threaten that claim.
The majority of a tribal nation must not be enrolled in any other federally recognized tribe.
Lastly, there have been acts of Congress expressly ending or forbidding the federal recognition of certain tribes. Those tribes are completely ineligible for federal recognition, even if they manage to meet all of the other requirements of the BIA.
