Sovereignty and Legitimacy in Hopi Country

BY MARC SILLS, Fourth World Bulletin

Ferrell Sekacucu, a businessman, cattleman, restauranteur, grocer and service-station operator from the village of Shipaulovi (Second Mesa), was elected chairman of the Hopi Tribal Council on 2 February 1994. In the campaign that preceded the election, Sekacucu and his opponent, Ivan Sidney (past Chairman of the Hopi Tribe [1981-89], as well as past Hopi Chief of Police), found exceedingly little to disagree about. One issue that clearly united them was their total opposition to continuing mediation with the Navajo Nation, concerning relocation of Dine people from Big Mountain and other communities that are now enclosed within the boundaries of the HPL (Hopi Partitioned Lands). Both candidates took hard-line positions on enforcement of the 1974 "Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act" (PL 93-531, referred to here as the "Relocation Act"), legislation that orders the forced relocation of some 10,000 Dine and about 100 Hopi people.

The intent of this article is to expand the information offered in the preceding piece on Dine resistance to relocation, with a focus on current issues in Hopiland. As explained in the preceding article, the relocation project has been modified, delayed and extended well beyond its 1986 deadline, due to many complicating factors, not the least of which is the international scrutiny to which the process has been exposed, and the serious argument that it violates Dine human rights. Both Congress and the Administration have been reluctant to begin forced eviction of people who are guilty of doing nothing more than having been born into Dine families that resided legally (until 1974) on particular lands within the 1882 Executive Order Reservation, for which they were criminalized (becoming trespassers) through the Relocation Act. A forced eviction, with clear potential to become violent, is certain to be televised and exceedingly embarrassing for the United States.

Delays on relocation have been very frustrating for the "Hopi Tribe" (as the centralized government is referred to, and which is distinguished here from the Hopi people). Members of the Hopi Tribe, especially the cattlemen like Ferrell Sekacucu, are anxious to take over full control of the HPL, which was awarded to the Hopi Tribe by the Relocation Act. The Hopi Tribe feels that its "sovereign authority as an Indian nation" has been unfairly limited, due to the continued presence of Dine families on the HPL. The greatest present cause of delay in getting rid of the Dine is the legal reconsideration of the relocation, in a court-ordered mediation that resulted in the 1992 "Agreement in Principle" (AIP). The AIP was signed by the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the attorney for the Dine Manybeads plaintiffs (who are resisting relocation), and the US Government (represented by the Justice and Interior departments). However, the AIP was rejected by the Dine resisters, when it was presented to them for ratification in August 1993. Since then, continuation of mediation has been uncertain, as the Hopi Tribe says it wants nothing more to do with the process.

Mr. Sekacucu apparently will continue the hard-line direction on relocation that was followed by out-going Chairman Vernon Masayesva, who did not seek re-election. Masayesva, over the course of his tenure (1989-93), travelled around the United States, speaking to various audiences of the importance of relocating the Dine. His speeches were typically vindictive denunciations in which he made several major points of argument, which are important to note as the point of departure of the new Hopi government.

First, Masayesva cast the struggle over the 1882 Reservation in terms of a national conflict between "the" Navajos and "the" Hopis, emphasizing the fact that "the" 200,000 Navajos greatly outnumber "the" 10,000 Hopis. The struggle can in fact be understood in this distortion of reality only since the 1930s, due to the imposition of a central Hopi government by the United States at that time (the "Navajo Nation" had been similarly imposed as a central government of the Dine in the 1920s). Before that, it was difficult to generalize about either people as a nation, as neither had any centralized locus of organization or political power, which was precisely the reason centralization was imposed to begin with. Any conflicts over land prior to 1882 took place between and were settled by various individuals and communities. While Navajos outnumber Hopis twenty to one, they are spread over a territory the size of Costa Rica, and Navajos who are not living in proximity to Hopiland often have little knowledge, contact or feeling about struggle with Hopi people, and in fact are (like other larger societies anywhere else) often unaware of the conditions of their own brethren elsewhere within their own territory. Hopis, meanwhile, are hopelessly divided among themselves, as discussed below.

Secondly, Masayesva's argument cast the Dine as "nomadic" encroachers, when in fact most of the people subject to relocation have a legacy in the region that dates back at least a half millenium, while others were shoved into the region as a result of US domination and expansion. Dine who inhabited the high ground of Black Mesa and the depths of Blue Canyon were not removed by Kit Carson during the Long Walk of the 1860s. Their presence certainly predates the establishment of the United States, while their distance of thirty miles or more from the Hopi mesas makes the idea of encroachment fairly dubious. Neither are the Dine nomads; as "transhumant pastoralists," they change residence over the course of seasons to bring their flocks to different pasture, but there is no evidence of a "national" encroachment with the object of dispossessing Hopis. There is no denying the fact, on the other hand, that Hopis were dispossessed of lands, due to policies of the United States.

Third, the argument cast the Dine as villains and criminals due to their long-term occupancy of land that had also been used traditionally by Hopis. Hopi use was primarily for religious purposes, however, since they actually resided on the three Hopi mesas, where they have been for a thousand years. Meanwhile, Dine occupancy was deemed legitimate by the United States from 1882 (at least) until 1974. Stories of Dine-Hopi traditional interaction, trading relationships, inter-marriage patterns, and wartime alliances are legion. There are also stories of conflict, and while all long-term relations go through conflict, not all seek resolution through external actors, like the US Government. The Hopi Tribe seeks to exercise its jurisdiction to evict Dine residents from the HPL, using the Relocation Act (passed by the US Congress) to substantiate the legitimacy of its claim, meanwhile asserting its independence from the US control over the ongoing events within the HPL. Why would a sovereign nation need to justify its actions with the law of a greater power? And why would that greater power be so eager to provide such authority?

Masayesva persuaded many people of the legitimacy of the Hopi Tribe he represented, through his character defamation of the Dine. However, although the Hopi Tribe has recognition from the United States as the legitimate representative of Hopi people, many of the Hopi people it claims to represent stand steadfastly in opposition to its legitimacy. Traditional Hopi political organization has always been at the village level; until 1936, the thirteen totally autonomous villages had no center of organization. The original Hopi Tribal Council was forced into existence in 1936 through the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) that required an election process which was boycotted by the vast majority of Hopis. That first Hopi Council fell apart, largely due to its lack of legitimacy, and it was not successfully resurrected until 1951. Then, the United States was anxious to quiet title to some four million acres of land upon which were being built the cities of Flagstaff, Winslow and Holbrook, Arizona. In those days of the Indian Claims Commission, in which many other cases were settled in similar fashion across the US, a legal entity was required to negotiate the quiet-title settlement. Mormon attorney John Boyden summoned compliant Hopi individuals together to conduct the transaction, entitled "Docket 196," which awarded the "Hopi Tribe" (an entity in name alone) about $1 per acre for the lands taken from them.

Immediately, traditional Hopis from various villages attempted to thwart Docket 196, but it was already too late, as the deal was closed for the United States. However, the traditionals adamantly refused to allow the Hopi Tribe to accept the $4 million settlement, and they have thus succeeded to this day in maintaining the Hopi claim to that land, since the transaction was never consummated by the exchange of the money (which has been forced to collect in an escrow account). The "progressives" who became the representatives of the Hopi Tribe fought bitterly with the traditionals over this issue; only recently has it been conceded (by Vernon Masayesva, in a 1988 paper) that the traditionals "were right" in attempting to prevent that land transfer.

Following the Docket 196 case, the progressives were moved into other similarly dangerous (so it proved) business deals directed by their attorneys and the US Interior Department. Those deals included leasing their lands for mineral and water mining, and suing the Navajo Nation for control of the 1882 Executive Order Reservation. The lawsuits which followed this latter issue eventually led to the act of Congress (PL 93-531) that ordered the forced relocation of thousands of Dine from lands they had occupied for centuries, credit (or blame) for which will always be borne by the Hopi Tribe.

Conflict between the Hopi Tribe and various Hopi villages has been continuous since those earlier days. The villages of Hotevilla, Shungopovi, Shipaulovi, and Old Oraibi have been the primary centers of resistance, while widespread apathy during tribal elections indicates broad discontent with the central government. During 1992, the problem of attaining a quorum within the Tribal Council was so severe that the BIA threatened to take over direct control of Hopi operations. It was only due to changes in quorum rules imposed by the BIA that the Hopi government has been able to operate since then. Other changes were made in the rules determining voter eligibility, such that in the recent February 1994 elections, a total voting population of 2180 was said to constitute 70% of the electorate within a general population of some 10,000 individuals (in 1935, the total electorate was about 2800). Meanwhile, various Hopi individuals (including Thomas Banyacya, Sr., Thomas Banyacya, Jr., Martin Gashweseoma, Manuel Hoyungowa, James Kootshongsie, Carolyn Tawangyawma and Titus Qomayumptewa) have carried on the role of alternative representatives of the Hopi people, often in national and international forums. Uninformed non-Hopi observers are frequently baffled by the divergent views represented in this endless contest for legitimacy and authority.

The issues that divide Hopis begin with the very existence of the central government and all its business dealings with the United States and other corporate entities (especially mining companies). The Hopis never signed any treaties with the United States, never ceded lands, nor fought wars, nor conceded sovereign authority. For the traditionals, these facts stand to define the basis for total Hopi independence from the United States, which necessitates rejecting the imposed central government as a representative to and/or agent of the United States. From there, the dividing issues have concerned the relinquishment of the lands of the Docket 196 case (described above), the disposition of the cash compensation for those lands, the leasing of other lands (especially within the 1882 Reservation) for mineral and water mining, the extension of water and electric lines to Hotevilla (where the traditionals prefer to live without "modernity"), the building of fast-food franchises of the reservation, the dumping of trash, the fencing of personal use-areas, the eviction of non-Hopis, and relocation of the Dine. In 1985, the "Sovereign Hotevilla Nation" issued a letter to the governors of Arizona and New Mexico denouncing the Relocation Act as "genocidal legislation" that should be repealed. During the 1960s, traditionals attempted to sue the Hopi Tribe within the court system of the United States for illegitimately leasing land for coal strip-mining; the case was thrown out after the court ruled that the Tribal Council had "sovereign immunity" from its own people.

Some 80% of the Hopi Tribe's operational budget (of about $10 million) derives from royalties paid by mining companies. The bulk of the income comes from the extraction of coal and ground-water (for the coal slurry) by the Peabody Coal Company, and thus, the Hopi Tribe is very dependent upon that one business. It shares royalties equally with the Navajo Nation, but the Navajos have other mining operations to depend upon. From the mid-1960s until 1987, the Department of Interior arranged for each Indian government to be paid $1.67 per acre foot for the water withdrawn from deep wells for the coal-slurry (about 3500 acre-feet per year). Then, Ivan Sidney, ex-Chairman of the Hopi Tribe, presided over renegotiation of the water leases, which now pay $300 for the first 2800 acre-feet and $600 per acre-foot thereafter. At about the same time, the Hopi Tribe suddenly realized that, after some twenty years of water-mining, their wells were going dry. Since then, they have scrambled to contend with what is surely a major crisis. Vernon Masayesva has recently conceded that water-mining, too, was a grave error (that the traditionals warned against).

Now the Hopi Tribe is attempting to negotiate the construction of a 100-mile pipeline that would bring water to Hopiland from Lake Powell (behind the Glen Canyon Dam). The water presumably would feed the existing coal-slurry, as well as supply the Hopi villages for residential and agricultural usage. It might also represent the source of the other 50,000 acre-feet per year that the Hopi Tribe has claimed, and with which it seems to want to expand its mining operations (see preceding article). However, the pipeline project would need the cooperation of the Navajo Nation in order to win the required approval of the Interior Department. The Navajo Nation has hinted that its cooperation could be negotiated through concessions on the relocation issue. The Hopi Tribe has indicated that it would refuse to give ground on that subject.

While it seems dubious that unity can ever be achieved among Hopis, it is clear that the court-ordered mediation concerning relocation of the Dine has distorted the picture of the situation, by presenting only the position of the Hopi Tribe. The Hopi traditional perspective has already proven to have represented long-term interests of all Hopi people on other major issues; one must wonder if they could be right about this one, too. While there may indeed be a broad discomfort among many Hopis concerning the amount of land the Dine occupy, the bigger question of whether the best long-term solution is to violate Dine human rights has not been adequately addressed. Hopis will have to be neighbors to the Dine, long into the future, and their decision on this issue will no doubt determine the character of that relationship. How easy will it be for the Dine to live next-door to people who stood for the destruction of their community and way of life?

Meanwhile, regardless of how much land the Dine in fact now occupy, there can be no doubt that the Docket 196 settlement deprived the Hopi of far more land than ever was lost in the HPL, and at least the Dine presence has prevented that land from being strip-mined, which may yet prove to be the reason why their removal has been ordered. But it may well turn out that strip-mining was one more grave error, as far as Hopi long-term interests are concerned; if that were the case, then relocation would be a similar mistake, as well. For the moment, traditional Hopis continue to insist that all their problems begin with the institution of the Hopi Tribe.

Marc Sills is co-editor of the Fourth World Bulletin. Thanks is given to Tom Tarbet for his research assistance in this article