This article is part two of two. The first part was printed in the June/July issue and described the background to the conflict involving Dineh (Navajo), Hopi and non-Native people in a region in north-eastern Arizona. This part describes the activities of PBI during the two weeks in May that a team visited the area.
Our first visit was up to "the land" where we met with various Dineh elders, as a measure of respect for their leadership. The Dineh around Big Mountain live in widely separated homesteads, usually headed by women. Although many live in modern homes, they also usually have a "hogan," their traditional dwelling, on the property, and some have small gardens. None of the homes we visited had running water, telephone or electrical hookup, although some had solar panels and batteries to run small appliances like a refrigerator, TV &/or radio.Our first visit was with Maxine Kescoli, whose property backs onto the Peabody coal mine. She was pleased with our visit and told us about her concern that the coal mine was offering alcohol to the Navajo workers. We also visited Key Watchman who had recently returned from a visit to Europe to get UN support for their situation. Key invited us to come to the Dineh Spring Gathering the following week.
Our final stop was at the home of Roberta Blackgoat. Our initial invitation was from a group called "Sovereign Dineh Nation," and was signed by Roberta. She lives alone, tends her sheep and continues to be a major force for the Dineh who are resisting relocation. We introduced ourselves to Roberta and explained why we had come, and received her welcome.
On the following day, we tried to meet with Hopi traditionals. Because of the split within the Hopi community of "progressives" and "traditionals", this was not straightforward. A supporter of the Tribal Council who saw us visiting a traditional elder followed us for some time until we stopped and introduced ourselves. He initially expressed mistrust and hostility towards us as representatives of the outside world which has done so much to damage Hopi people and culture, but after some discussion of our intentions, he invited us to visit him at his home.
Our following five days were reserved for our second annual volunteer gathering. This was an occassion for our volunteers to spend time together to evaluate our field work practices and develop policy and procedures for improving it. Due to illness, prior engagements and unexpected events, only five volunteers were able to stay for the full five days of the gathering. Our second day was dedicated to sharing some of our nonviolence training with Dineh and other activists. Other days were spent in sharing stories, discussions of important issues in our work, and documenting processes that teams can use for dealing with conflict within teams.
The final five days took up again the exploration work of the Big Mountain conflict. We returned to visit with some of our previous contacts and learned more about the situation of the Dineh living on the land, and their difficult decision about whether to sign the Accommodation Agreement.
The latest chapter in the Accommodation Agreement began last fall, when US congress authorized legislation for the final version of the agreement. At that time, a deadline was set for the end of the year, by which the Navajo still living in HPL were to sign the agreement, or leave. After much lobbying, the deadline was postponed to March, during which hearings were held in federal court to determine whether the Accommodation Agreement was "fair," according to the stipulations set out in the terms of the mediation. The hearings lasted several weeks in February, and the outcome was that the judge determined that he would not rule on the fairness question - instead he would let the Navajo determine the fairness by whether they signed it or not (somewhat contrary to the whole point of the hearings...)
It was not public knowledge exactly who signed the agreement, but apparently, at least the 85% did sign it, at least officially. There were concerns about pressure, and also about who was eligible to sign, and on who's behalf, but clearly there were very few, perhaps ten households, who were willing to risk losing everything by neither signing nor agreeing to move out.
We heard from some of these, and though there numbers were few, they had a clear sense of duty towards both the land that they have occupied for many generations, and towards their children and future generations.
We also had an opportunity to meet with representatives of the Hopi Tribe. We met with Clayton Honyumptewa, head of the Hopi Lands division, and two others. They were pleased to be able to present another view of the situation. Particular issues were:
- the extent of traditional Hopi lands, which are much greater than even the original Hopi reserve, which has since been greatly reduced, and the state of the work to reclaim them for Hopi use
- use of land for religious purposes
- jurisdiction issues
This last issue seemed to be important at this time. The Hopi did not have policing or legal jurisdiction where there were still Navajo living on Hopi Partitioned Land (HPL) under the original terms of the joint use area [see the June/July issue for details]. Through the partition, and then the accommodation agreement, the Hopis had gained jurisdiction over most of the HPL.
One important question that will be answered over the next few years is: how will the Hopi use this land, and will the Navajo who signed the Accommodation Agreement really be able to continue living on it.
We also met with an employee of the Navajo Tribal Council, whose work is to provide services to Navajos living on the Hopi Partion Lands, and who expressed concern about the conditions facing those who have relocated - gaps in services, poor housing, and the difficult conditions facing these people.
Towards the end of our time, we were able to meet with a couple of Hopis who consider themselves traditional. We met briefly with Dan Evehema, who is over a hundred years old and has been witness to many of the changes in the Hopi and wider world of this century. We also met with Martin Manual, who described some of the traditional Hopi world view to us.
The twin goals of these interviews were to meet the different players in the conflict and understand some of the different perceptions and experiences, and secondly to present ourselves as Peace Brigades and let people in the area know of our availability and the services we offer.
We certainly learned a great deal about the situation, and also an awareness that there are complexities which we got no hint of. A summary of the political situation was published in the PBI Project Bulletin in June after our return, but because of our own Project's limited resources, we have not been able to stay closer in touch. Nevertheless, we hope to renew contacts this fall and consider various potential areas of deeper involvement, including monitoring and nonviolence training.
The above text may freely be reproduced, copied, or translated, in whole or in part, and without prior consent, as long as the source is stated as: Peace Brigades International.