The Hopi Tribe
Land Team
P.O. Box 123
Kykotsmovi, Arizona 86039
(520) 734-3000
Hopi.nsn.us
EDITORIAL
For Immediate Release
For more information contact:
Eugene Kaye
WHO WILL PROTECT THE HOPI?
Our Turn: Ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Hopi People
Kykotsmovi, AZ, November 29, 1999 -In its August 5 1999 edition, the New Times
Los Angeles ran an article titled "Power Play," purporting to expose the truth
about the resisting Navajo of Big Mountain. The writer, Victor Mejia, set a
new low for creating myths and misconceptions through journalistic
irresponsibility. He lied to the public by misrepresenting and manipulating
facts. His story is unfair, unbalanced and without Hopi input.
Mr. Mejia starts his article on the premise that the Hopi Partitioned Lands
are Navajo lands. Not true. The Hopi Partitioned Lands are Hopi lands under
Hopi jurisdiction.
The writer consistently quotes outside sources as "experts" which is misleading
to the public. For instance so-called United Nations activist Marsha
Monestersky states "Navajos are being removed simply because the land they
occupy now belongs to the Hopi Tribe . ." Her statement is like putting a band
aid on a gaping wound. Ms. Monestersky has no history with the Hopi Navajo
land issue. She is not Navajo nor is she Hopi. To simplify a complex and
sensitive issue between two tribes to suit her own cause is callous. Ms.
Monestersky has no credibility with the Hopi people since she has shown
absolutely no respect for the sovereignty of Indian nations, especially the
Hopi Nation. A respect, the Hopi feel, is crucial to the representation of any
nation before the United Nations as Monestersky professes to do. Time and time
again, she has done nothing more than obstruct and attempt to unravel the
current accommodation process between the Navajo and Hopi people which allows
Navajo families to stay on Hopi land via a longterm lease arrangement. An
agreement endorsed by both the Hopi and Navajo Nations, effected HPL Navajo
families themselves, the Department of Interior, the Department of Justice, and
Congress. Worse, as an outsider, she has propagandized false hope for the
Navajo resistors and opened old wounds between the two tribes. Wounds both
tribes have tried hard to heal.
The writer would like the public to believe that the Hopi-Navajo land issues
are simple. That by closing down the Mohave Generating Station and Peabody
Coal Company, the issue will simply go away. Nothing is further from the
truth. Whether these companies remain on Hopi (or Navajo) lands or not, the
fact remains, Navajo families who did not sign a lease agreement with the Hopi
must move off of Hopi land. This is the decision of the Hopi people. That is
the truth that Mejia overlooks.
What the Big Mountain so-called activist have failed to inform the public of is
their solution to the problem. What do they propose as the answer? Can
outsiders like Marsha Monestersky really think of a solution that the Hopi
people, the Navajo people and their governments, and the federal government
have not given thought to before? The accommodation agreement, which was
ratified by Congress in 1996, took years of discussion between the Hopi and
Navajo Nations. It required the will and focus of several tribal
administrations on both sides and the inclusion of Navajo families on the HPL
to arrive at the Accommodation Agreement.
The writer neglects to mention Hopi relocatees and thereby implies that only
the Navajo are suffering and to a greater extent and in greater numbers. What
the writer does not tell the public is that Hopi people were also relocated and
suffered the same hardships and trauma. Furthermore, if you compare the
numbers of Hopi relocatees against the numbers of Navajo relocatees in terms of
what percentage of the total population were effected, the percentages are
about the same. The difference is - the Hopi relocatees complied with the law.
The Hopi relocatees have shown their good faith effort to put an end to the
Hopi-Navajo land dispute and without the benefits of new lands, new roads and
other infrastructure, or new schools built for Navajo relocatees by the federal
government.
The writer states that the 1996 Settlement Act arose out of a New York
Attorney's lawsuit against the U.S. Government charging that the relocation act
was unconstitutional. In the article, the attorney for the Center for
Constitutional Rights, Gabor Rona, states that "the Hopi began lobbying
Congress to partition the joint use zone so they'd have exclusive use of it."
Once again, the writer relies on outside sources who profess to be experts.
First, the 1996 Settlement Act arose out of Navajo Nation President Zah's plea
to the Hopi Tribal Council to allow Navajo elders to stay on Hopi land. The
Hopi Tribe agreed to try to find a way to do that. To imply that an outsider
could influence the tribal political decisions of two sovereign nations is the
same "outside" paternalistic attitude Indian people have endured for
generations.
Furthermore, the Hopi Tribe has always asserted complete jurisdiction over its
ancestral lands which once covered over 18 million acres in northeastern
Arizona. Mr. Rona implies the Hopi had insidious ulterior motives in their
lobbying for the exclusive use of the Joint Use Land. Insidious? Hardly.
What Mr. Rona and others do not understand is that these lands are Hopi
ancestral lands. The Hopi don't need an ulterior motive to claim title to our
lands - these lands belong to the Hopi plain and simple. And yes, the small
Hopi tribe has fought in the courts and before Congress to keep our homelands
and we will continue to do so. In otherwords, we don't need outsiders to
fabricate reasons for Hopi actions regarding our homelands.
But that is not all what Mr. Rona has implied. He states that "the U.S.
offered to pay the Hopi tribal Council $25 million for a certain number of
Navajo signatures, an incentive that led to fraud and intimidation as Navajos
were pressured to sign (the accommodation agreement). A bounty was placed on
Navajo signatures." Mr. Rona lied to the public. Once again, Mr. Rona does not
tell the public that the HPL Navajo families are not obligated to sign a lease
with the Hopi Tribe. In the short history of the accommodation process, the
Hopi Tribe has never intimidated a single Navajo family to sign a lease. Mr.
Rona and the writer neglect to tell the public that the $25 million is a
settlement of Hopi lawsuits against the federal government. The Hopi Tribe
agreed to settle four major lawsuits stemming from the federal government's
failure to protect Hopi lands from Navajo encroachment as part of the 1996
Settlement Act. Mr. Rona's statements place the Center for Constitutional
Rights in a bad light, especially when the constitutional rights of the Hopi
are ignored.
The article also implies that the tension between the Navajo and Hopi were
myth. Antrhopologist David Brugge states, "There was tension between some Hopi
and Navajos who were competing for land, but it never got too serious." Mr.
Brugge obviously was asleep during much of the 100+ year history of the Navajo
and Hopi. If the tensions were never too serious, then the Hopi, Navajo and
Federal governments must have spent millions of dollars on lobbyist, lawyers,
and other agents to resolve illusions of conflict. Maybe Mr. Brugge would like
to tell the Hopi people personally that losing over 90% of their ancestral
lands to the Navajo was not a serious matter.
For the writer to encourage subliminal messages of violence on Hopi territory
is irresponsible. He writes, "John Benally, 48, (a resisting Navajo) doesn't
want violence but says there might be a confrontation with the government,
similar to the Zapatista uprising in Chiapas, Mexico. One Navajo woman is
already known to have fired her rifle at BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs)
rangers. . ." With information about firearms and the potential for harm to
the public safety of individuals on the Hopi Reservation in the Big Mountain
area, it is no wonder the Hopi Tribe has stepped up its monitoring of Hopi
lands. As one Hopi elder once said, bullets don't kill, people do. Is that
what the resisting Navajo are advocating? Anyone who has fired a gun on
another human being should be arrested immediately. In a lawful society, this
is nothing but criminal and the Hopi people will not condone these acts of
aggression on their lands. Neither should the general public.
The Hopi and Navajo Nations were correct in coming to a peaceful resolution of
the longstanding Hopi-Navajo, an agreement between two sovereign Indian nations
the United Nations should support and endorse. The writer is wrong.
Perpetuating violence, myths, untruths, and "outsider" viewpoints without
talking with the Hopi people who are the subjects of the article is
irresponsible journalism.
Sincerely,
Lenora Lewis, Upper Moenkopi Village
Norman Honanie, Kykotsmovi Village
Leroy Lewis, First Mesa Consolidated Villages
Cedric Kuwaninvaya, Sipaulovi Village
Leon Koruh, Mishongnovi Village
Bradley Balenquah, Bacavi Village