In preparation for the sessions, Interior issued a press release in which it listed six issue areas about which it wanted to listen to views. Though I'm not a tribe, and hence can't expect even to be listened to and ignored, I took the liberty of preparing the following responses, which I'm happy to share with tribes for whatever use they may make of them.
Meanings of “sacred sites” and whether the Department should
attempt to define the term.
· It is fundamental that a “sacred” place must be sacred TO
someone.
· Only that someone can say which places are and are not sacred to
him or her.
· It follows that a tribe’s sacred sites must be defined by that
tribe. The Secretary has no role to
play.
· Tribes should not be forced to identify all their important
cultural places as “sacred” in order to get the Department to pay attention to
them. Any place of cultural significance
to a tribe should be respected.
Personal views of existing Departmental practices and
policies…..
· Bureaus of the Department seem to have trouble respecting a tribe’s
right to define the significance of its own cultural environment; hence they
tend to rely on expensive and time-consuming studies by professional
archaeologists and cultural anthropologists to “filter” a tribe’s views and
decide what is “really” significant.
This disrespectful practice should end.
There are times when archaeological and anthropological studies are
necessary and appropriate, but if a tribe says that an area (whether site,
object, or landscape/riverscape/seascape) is significant to the tribe, that view
should be respected, not subjected to analysis by people from another
culture.
· The Department should not apply culturally inappropriate technical
standards to tribal cultural places. For
instance, many such places are extensive landscapes with vaguely defined
boundaries. This is reality, however
inconvenient it may be to Departmental employees. Bureaus of the Department should not hold
such places, or tribal consultation, hostage to the definition of arbitrary
boundaries – which often have no relevance to management.
· Even if a cultural place is not physically disturbed by
Departmental or Department-permitted activities, tribal associations with it may
be impacted by visual, auditory, and other changes. These effects should not be ignored because
they are perceived somehow to be “indirect” or “secondary.”
Potential development of Departmental practices and
policies…
· The Secretary should adopt it as policy that any place (including
any landscape, riverscape, or seascape) identified by a tribe as culturally
significant is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and must be
treated as such under the National Historic Preservation Act.
· It should be policy and practice to define project areas of
potential effects (APEs) under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act in consultation with tribes, and to ensure that such APEs embrace all areas
where tribally valued cultural areas may be subject to direct, indirect, or
cumulative effect.
· All Interior bureaus that interact with tribes should ensure that
key decision-making personnel are trained in effective tribal
consultation.
· Training should be built around the Secretary’s Standards and
Guidelines for Federal Agency Programs under Section 110 of the National
Historic Preservation Act, particularly Standard 5 and its guidelines (See
http://www.nps.gov/hps/fapa_110.htm).
How
the Department should facilitate access to sacred sites (on lands controlled by Interior)
· Bureaus of the Department should negotiate agreements
with tribes about how tribal members can access culturally important areas, and
about what they can do there.
· These agreements should respect tribal cultural values and avoid
imposing undue technical requirements.
How
the Department should control and grant access to tribally provided
information.
· Bureaus of the Department should not seek or demand more
information than the absolute minimum they need to meet a given management
requirement.
· When Bureaus of the Department do gather cultural information from
tribes, they should absorb the minimum information necessary into their own
management databases, and return the data to the tribes.
· Bureaus of the Department should enter into agreements with tribes
under which the tribes themselves hold and manage cultural data, providing
access to such data by Bureaus when needed.
Whom
should the Department include in determining whether a “site” is
“sacred?”
· See above about not requiring that tribes identify all culturally
valued areas as “sacred sites.”
· The question of whether a place is culturally valued by a tribe can
be answered only by the tribal government, in consultation with the tribe’s
membership.
· Authoritative tribal members should be consulted about culturally
valued places and their management, and they should receive the respect due any
American citizen by representatives of the U.S. government. Any information they provide about “sacred
sites” or other culturally valued places should be carefully and respectfully
addressed in planning, and they should be sensitively and responsibly
consulted. Cultural authorities outside
a tribe (e.g. State Historic Preservation Officers, archaeologists, cultural
anthropologists) may provide important insights, but do not themselves define
what is and is not “sacred” or culturally significant to a
tribe.
No comments:
Post a Comment