tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7171420941776673660.post1872834179965656885..comments2024-03-28T02:29:13.507-07:00Comments on Legal Ruralism: The State of Jefferson-- a resource struggle centuries in the makingLisa R. Pruitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16469550950363542801noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7171420941776673660.post-3651722761471225502017-03-05T14:20:38.761-08:002017-03-05T14:20:38.761-08:00I do not disagree with you. I am left with a lot o...I do not disagree with you. I am left with a lot of questions, however, and one that stands out in particular: where are the voices of the Native American people themselves? What opinions do the Yurok, Hupa, Karuk, Wintu tribes (and others) share and not share with those who identify with the "State of Jefferson?" I looked around on the internet briefly and didn't find much of anything that could help me understand more about this, which confirms the unfortunate reality that those voices are notably absent in the larger, public dialogue.<br /><br />This does not mean that these conversations aren't happening between these tribes and the residents of the "State of Jefferson." Plenty of things are happening in the world that the internet hasn't caught wind of. I do think that the thoughts and experiences of the local tribes are important perspectives to consider when having this conversation, I think it is hard to be sure of an accurate analysis without learning more about these peoples' perspectives. Mollie Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15424956445753553359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7171420941776673660.post-6269957364289878532017-03-03T21:30:14.424-08:002017-03-03T21:30:14.424-08:00This commentary provides an interesting lens throu...This commentary provides an interesting lens through which to view the State of Jefferson. I was especially struck by your comments regarding the history of aggressive resource extraction and its impact on Natives, like the Karuk, Tolowa, and Yurok. I think conflicts of this sort are most often discussed from a political perspective: liberal environmentalists vs. pro-industry conservatives. The coverage of the Dakota Access Pipeline controversy is a recent example among many (see, e.g., an article from High Country News discussing the conflict's portrayal as a clash between "economic boon" and "climate bane" (http://www.hcn.org/issues/48.21/the-twisted-economics-of-the-dakota-access-pipeline)). Cursory research certainly suggests this is the dominant narrative — e.g., <br /><br />* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pit-river-marijuana-raid_us_55a938cfe4b0f904bebfe52a (describing the conflict between the Pit River Tribe and geothermal developers at Medicine Lake in Northern California)<br />* https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/sacred-places/pit-river-rallies-to-protect-sacred-medicine-lake-highlands-from-fracking/ (same)<br />* https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/us/arizona-navajo-tribe-peabody-energy.html?_r=0 (describing the dispute over the Kayenta mine in northern Arizona as a clash between "a federal energy project that fuels most of the Southwest" and the desecration of native lands)<br />* http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-02/local/me-7727_1_native-americans (describing the proposed expansion of a gold mine on the edge of the Ft. Belknap Indian Reservation in the Little Rocky Mountains)<br /><br />And the list goes on. Given that rurality is a defining feature of many (most?) resource-dependent industries, it is surprising that resource extraction is less commonly conceptualized as a conflict of rural interests, rather than as simply a conflict of political interests. Indeed, it would seem that resource extraction can accurately be described as both lifeblood (for rural economies) and scourge (for Native peoples).Wynter K Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10825975028818885821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7171420941776673660.post-23177665585519584132017-03-03T21:20:38.390-08:002017-03-03T21:20:38.390-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Wynterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01463589627987021684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7171420941776673660.post-69666704852280421652017-03-03T17:52:06.759-08:002017-03-03T17:52:06.759-08:00Your post made me think about how race is (or is n...Your post made me think about how race is (or is not) addressed by the State of Jefferson supporters and what the racial demographics of this proposed state would be. While California as a whole currently has the largest minority population in the US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California), this would not be the case for Jefferson. Currently, it looks like if Jefferson managed to succeed, it would be made up of the Oregon counties of Coos(90% White), Douglas (90%) and Lake (86% White) as well as the California counties of Humboldt (82% White), Trinity (89% White), Shasta (87% White), Lassen (70% White), Mendocino (82% White), Lake (84% White), Tehama (85% White), Plumas (91% White), Glenn (78% White), Butte (83% White), Colusa (68% White), Sierra (92% White), Sutter (65% White), Yuba (69% White), Nevada (92% White), Placer (84% White)and El Dorado (87% White)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state). So, while the supporters of the State of Jefferson do not currently feel represented in the California or Oregon governments, if they were successful in succeeding, their state would likely severely underrepresent the people of color who lived there.Jennahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14278751715490718989noreply@blogger.com