Unlikely Alliances: Treaty Conflicts and Environmental Cooperation between Native American and Rural White Communities

Abstract

Native Americans and their white rural neighbors have long been archetypal enemies in conflicts over natural resources. In particular regions of the country in the late twentieth century, tribes fighting for their treaty rights dealt with local white farmers, ranchers, commercial fishers, or sportfishers as the main obstacle to securing treaty-guaranteed access to fish, game, or water. As the tribes secured these rights, many rural whites joined an anti-Indian movement to oppose tribal sovereignty.\nYet in some of these same resource conflict zones, beginning in the 1970s, members of Native and rural white communities unexpectedly came together to protect the same natural resources from a perceived outside threat. Environmental alliances began to bring together Native Americans and rural white resource users in areas of the country where no one would have predicted or even imagined them. In an evolution that has continued into the 2000s, some Native and rural white communities formed grassroots alliances that have become a key element in the protection of natural resources. By comparing case studies of these “unlikely alliances” in the states of Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Montana, South Dakota, and Wisconsin, I hoped to find reasons why these communities turned from conflict to cooperation. \nThe evolution went through four general and often overlapping stages. First, Native Americans asserted their cultural autonomy and tribal sovereignty. Second, a backlash from some rural whites created a conflict around the use of land or natural resources. Third, the conflict declined in intensity, and the two groups initiated dialogue. Finally, the communities increased collaboration around the protection of their community livelihood and common natural resources. The neighboring groups believed that if they continued to contest the place, to fight over resources, there may not be any left to fight over. The stages of this evolution were complicated by divisions within both Native and white communities.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 51 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.