One of today’s great Native American writers is David Treuer, a Leech Lake Ojibwe historian and author of “The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee: Native America From 1890 to the Present.” It is a great read about the relationship between native tribes and the U.S. government over the past 130 years, though mostly maddening, tragic, and heartbreaking. Treuer has now imagined a way America can right all the wrongs committed against these tribes since European settlement. He advocates giving them the national parks as restitution.
In a lengthy Atlantic article published in May, he traces the often-shameful history of broken treaties, though generally falling into the common trap of assuming all the violations were on one side. The truth is that when something goes that badly, there is plenty of blame to go around. America is not perfect, and never was. That’s why the founders charged “we the people” with the ongoing goal “to create a more perfect union.” The treatment of native tribes is certainly proof that America has not always lived up to its own ideals, though every generation strives to improve, and we have never abandoned those lofty principles.
The mistreatment of the tribes is a matter of history, beyond dispute. Whether repaying them with ownership of the national parks would make it right, though, is highly debatable.
Treuer is certainly right in describing the parks as jewels of America’s landscape, even calling them “the closest thing America has to sacred lands.” He is also right in pointing out that many of these places were sacred to the tribes that once inhabited them.
He mentioned the Miwok tribes that once inhabited Yosemite, but were removed by the California militia for obstructing gold rush settlers. He writes about the Havasupi that lived in the Grand Canyon, and about the Blackfeet tribes who were forced to sign away land that became Glacier National Park. The Ojibwe once inhabited Apostle Islands National Lakeshore; the Quinault tribe used to live in Olympic National Park, and the Seminole in the Everglades. He mentions the Shoshone and Bannocks that lived in Yellowstone for centuries, before President Grant’s signature on the first national park bill made them trespassers. He now calls Yellowstone “a crime scene.”
Today’s tribes suffer from numerous problems, including higher than average unemployment, poverty, alcoholism, and a lower average standard of living. Treuer believes ownership of these historic treasures might be a partial solution. “While the parks may be near us, and of us, they are not ours.”
The national parks are valuable. They comprise 423 areas totaling 81 million acres. A 2016 study estimated the value of those lands conservatively at $92 billion. Yet some would argue that turning over these deeds could actually be a curse, like an economic Trojan horse. Though the millions of visiting tourists pay some fees, these lands do not make money. That’s why Congress appropriates over $3 billion a year to the National Park Service, just to keep the gates open, never mind maintenance and repairs.
The backlog of needed maintenance at the national parks is now estimated at $11.9 billion, including $500 million at Yosemite and $330 million at Grand Canyon. Joshua Tree has an operating budget of $6 million, but a $60 million maintenance backlog.
These parks are also rich in natural resources, including minerals, but those are off limits in national parks. However, many tribes get substantial revenue from energy production, so some may see the parks as a potential bonanza. When President Biden ordered a drilling moratorium on public lands, one of the first to object was the Ute tribe in Utah, calling the order “a direct attack on our economy, sovereignty, and our right to self-determination.” So, could turning over the national parks to native tribes open them to oil and gas drilling, mining, logging, or other industries?
Treuer “solves” that concern, saying the deeds would be transferred subject to all existing restrictions on the use of those lands, “at least as stringent as what the park system enforces today.” Yet visitor fees would still be kept low, public access guaranteed, and ecological health preserved. How would that be funded? Continued federal subsidies, of course. So much for returning to self-sufficiency on their historic lands.
The scheme might work, but funding would still be subject to annual congressional appropriations – for lands the government would no longer own. If the writer trusts the federal government to keep such promises, he has not learned enough from the 130-year history he writes so eloquently about.
Comments on this entry are closed.