Sacred Sites Extend Conventional Dimensions of the Reservation

The New York Times offers a fascinating article about a Quechan (Southwest Arizona) challenge to the construction of an oil refinery. On the surface, this is another story of native people resisting development on the grounds of tradition and sacred places. The Times’ piece notes, however, that the Quechan are fighting a development forty miles from their reservation — and they are relying on arguments of sacredness to do so:

What makes this case different from more traditional fights between Indians and developers is that the refinery isn’t on the Quechan reservation or even next to it. In fact, the refinery is planned for a parcel of land some 40 miles to the east of the reservation, on the other side of Yuma and the Gila mountain range. But [Quechan leader] Mr. Jackson and the tribe’s lawyers argue that before the land can be transferred to the company building the refinery, Arizona Clean Fuels, or construction can start, an exhaustive archaeological and cultural inventory must take place.

Since when does creating reservations eliminate the traditional knowledge and history of native people outside of it? That the refinery is outside of reserve boundaries doesn’t eliminate history, certainly. Perhaps what is new here is that the Quechan leadership is actually pushing the fight for places outside of its reservation — perhaps outside of treaty lands?

The article also details the reaction of non-natives to the Quechan protests:

The dispute is about more than money, though. It has also brought resentment of the tribe’s newfound clout to the surface. David Treanor, vice president of Arizona Clean Fuels, calls the Quechans’ stance “psychological imperialism” and compares Mr. Jackson to Hugo Chávez, Venezuela’s left-wing leader.

Casey Prochaska, chairwoman of the Yuma County Board of Supervisors, adds: “My grandmother probably went across here in a covered wagon. This country didn’t stop because they walked over this land.”

Classic stuff! Allegations of hypocrisy — the Quechans aren’t opposed to all developments, afterall — and variations in the oral history of the refinery development add to the tenor of the dispute.

Share This