Indigenous tribes pitted against each other over a state bill to redefine land protection

[quaint]

LATimes

In the last year, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation has worked to protect its cultural sites from more than 850 land development projects around the Los Angeles Basin, thanks to a 2014 state law that allows tribes to give input during projects’ environmental review processes.

"This is an atrocity,” said Andrew Salas, chairperson of the Kizh Nation. “Let’s not call it a bill. [It’s] an erasure of non-federally recognized tribes in California. They’re taking away our sovereignty. They’re taking away our civil rights. They’re taking away our voice.”

The new bill, AB 52, was proposed by state Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters) and co-sponsored by three federally recognized tribes: the Pechanga Band of Indians, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake. Supporters say the amendments would strengthen and reaffirm tribes’ rights to protect their resources, granted by the 2014 law of the same name.

But shortly after the bill was substantively introduced in mid-March, tribes without federal recognition noticed that while federally recognized tribes would hold a right to full government-to-government consultations, their tribes — still sovereign nations — would be considered “additional consulting parties,” a legal term that includes affected organizations, businesses and members of the public.

More divide to conquer.

[stopdiggin]

1. a full reading of the impact and intent

(along with the authorship and sponsors) - makes it very hard (for me) to make a case for oppression or 'divide and conquer' here.

And nothing here to keep the various NA entities from getting their ducks in a row.

[quaint]

2. My reading differs.

[stopdiggin]

3. well - we keep being lectured that minority and demographic are not monolith

(so there is that ... along with those that voted for Trump .... )