Deconstructing the Construction
Following is an extrapolation from articles that appeared in several MA media outlets this week - which you can read in their brief entirety here at MassLive.com and at the Daily Hampshire Gazette. Briefly, a Northampton, MA DOT project is proposed to replace a busy three-way intersection with a roundabout approach; the pre-construction reviews included required archaeological assessments, which resulted in notable findings. Local Native groups subsequently offered their concerns and perspectives, well into the process due to a lack of inclusive and respectful consultation at the onset. And so the status quo repeats itself…
To illuminate the scene, a brief analytical commentary upon a single sentence from one of the articles follows. Why does this matter? Because public perception, inextricably linked with public policy, is driven by the media and its presentation of information. This framing is critical and it usually falls far short in promoting understanding. Addressing this gap is the only way that change can be navigated.
“Various Native American groups thought to have been possibly descended from the inhabitants of Northampton 10 centuries ago have weighed in. But none claim final jurisdiction. A petition signed by 55,000 people opposed the project.” MassLive article
Various…groups - Name them. There are only a few currently participating (Nipmuc, Abenaki, Wampanoag, Narragansett…) but to fall into a “various…groups” trope is to lump everyone into vagueness and delegitimize specific Indigenous relationships to specific places.
Native American - Again, a generalization and a deeply colonized one at that. The term exerts a political and legal ownership over Indigenous Peoples who pre-exist and continue relative to any claiming and naming of this continent as American.
Thought to have been possibly descended - About as weak a characterization of existence as could be stated, this is dismissive and questionable, and it is placed firmly in the past. Not only does this have the effect of challenging the continuity and complexity of Indigenous kinship relationships themselves, and the veracity of this traditional self-knowledge , but it succinctly invests the validation of such upon “those doing the thinking”, that is, self-selected, non-Indigenous, professional consultants and administrative officials.
From the inhabitants of Northampton - There is no relational link between the inhabitants of Northampton, MA per se (a politically-constituted municipality derived directly, and relatively recently, from the actions of aggressive settler colonization upon Indigenous homelands) and the Native Peoples being cited. These are different and often disparate entities. Once again, this invocation of English naming practices denotes a claim of revocation, usurpation, and subsequent assumption of authority, by Northampton and of Massachusetts, over Indigenous Peoples within their own homelands.
10 centuries ago - It is hoped that this is a typo, as the article itself plainly offers a context of 8000-10000 years elsewhere, which, of itself, is only a site-specific estimate, and not representative of the broader context of continuity of presence with the concommitant relationships engendered in the landscape of the Kwenitekw. And, again, it is placed in a tenuous, distant past.
Have weighed in. - Not a very convincing endorsement of valid, sovereign cultural perspectives, is it? Anyone else wanna weigh in?
But none claim final jurisdiction. - A statement entirely framed in Western binary hierarchies of authority… Rather than “But none”, what about “And all” ? Legitimate concerns expressed by the individual Native entities are, at least in part, shared and even outside of this proscriptive paradigm of decision-making. Note: time/space is not linear, change is constant, reality is subjective, and boundaries are permeable.
A petition signed by 55,000 people opposed the project. - Well, there you have it: a legal instrument signed by hordes of people, many of whom have a tenuous grasp of the implications (assumptions) they are addressing. This statistic seems to be the ultimate reason for the halted comment period and the restaging of the review process. The Gazette article does not mention Native folks once. The MassLive article mentions “Native Americans” (see above, second point) in vague, dismissive passing. Rather, private property owners; both state and municipal regulatory and administrative officials; and hired consultants are quoted verbatim, and the conversation continues to be driven by extant, benighted public policy and opinion.