The Cultural Preservation of the Navajo Nation. A multicultural and assimilation policy analysis on the Navajo Nation and cultural preservation

(1)

The Cultural Preservation of the Navajo

Nation

A multicultural and assimilation policy analysis on the Navajo Nation and

cultural preservation

Lotte Twaalfhoven

International Migration and Ethnic Relations

One-year master’s program

Master thesis 15 credits

Spring Semester 2019

(2)

Abstract

In this thesis the cultural preservation of the Navajo Nation is analyzed through a multicultural and assimilation framework. The Navajo Nation is a case study in this research. A policy analysis is used in this thesis and analyses policies in three proxy categories of culture: education, land ownership, and self-governance. The main policies analyzed in this thesis are the current

(federal) policies regarding education, land ownership, and self-governance. Current means the policies that are in place and in effect today. This thesis also analyses past policies in order to create a foundation. It further analyzes these policies to examine the outcomes and implications of the policies on the cultural preservation of the Navajo Nation. Gerd Baumann’s theories on culture, Kymlicka’s liberal multiculturalism, Margalit and Halbertal’s communitarian

multiculturalism, and assimilation are used as the theoretical framework of this thesis. The findings cannot be generalized. Some policies have the outcome that was intended whereas other policies have the opposite outcomes of what was intended in the policy. Thus, multicultural policies do not necessarily have a multicultural outcome, sometimes the outcomes of the policy can have an opposite outcome of what the nature of the policy is.

(3)

Acknowledgments

“Acknowledgment is a simple, powerful way of showing respect and a step toward correcting the stories and practices that erase Indigenous people’s history and culture and toward inviting and honoring the truth.” - U.S. Department of Arts and Culture

The first acknowledgment I want to make is a land acknowledgment. Usually land

acknowledgments are done on the territory one is currently residing, however, my thesis is about the Navajo Nation, one of the many Native American/Indigenous peoples who live and who have lived in the United States. Land Acknowledgments are made because “to acknowledge the traditional territory is to recognize its longer history, reaching beyond colonization and the establishment of European colonies, as well as its significance for the Indigenous peoples

who lived and continue to live upon this territory, and whose practices and spiritualities were tied to the land and continue to develop in relationship to the land and its other inhabitants

today” (University of Alberta). “Land acknowledgments do not exist in a past tense, or historical context: colonialism is a current ongoing process, and we need to build our mindfulness of our present participation. It is also worth noting that acknowledging the land is Indigenous

protocol” (lspirg.org/knowtheland).

So I am making a land acknowledgment for all the Native American/Indigenous peoples and groups that are currently living in the United States and the groups who used to live in what is now the United States. I am doing so because it is easy to historicize Indigenous peoples struggles and talk about them and their struggles as a past occurrence. I want to take this opportunity to make sure people know the systems of oppression, that have taken away indigenous land and denied indigenous people of rights, still exists today and we must not let their struggles and rights be something of the past. Those people and groups are the: Abenaki, Arapahoe, Assiniboine, Cherokee, Cheyenne, Chickamauga, Chisca (Kispoko), Choctaw (Chahta, Flathead), Coharie, Comanche, Conoy, Coushatta (Koasati and Kaskinampo people), Coyaha (Yuchi), Creek Confederacy (Muscogee), Fauk, Guale (Oade), Hasinai (Texas Caddo, Angelina and Neches Rivers), Hidatsa (Hiraacá, Minnetaree), Hitchiti, Houma, Iron Confederacy, Kadohadacho, Lumbee,

(4)

Mingo Seneca, Natchitoches (Louisiana Caddo, Red River), Oabano, Odawa (Mississaugas), Ojibwe, Paiute, Pequot, Sauk (Ozaagiiweg, Sac, Saag), Schaghticoke, Seminole (Lower Creeks), Shawnee, Tiontatecaga (Gwiandotte, Little Mingo), Tomahittan, Wea, Westo, Wyandot, Yamasee, A'ani (Haaninin, Atsina, Gros Ventre), Acopsel (Tlacopsel, Lacopsel), Acuera, Ahtna (Ahtena), Ais, Akenitsi (Occaneechi), Akokisa (Horcoquisa, Orcoquizas), Aleut (Unangax, Unangan), Alibamu, Alsea, Alutiiq (Sugpiag, Pacific Yupik), Amahami (Awaxawi), Androscoggin (Arosaguntacook, Ameriscoggin), Anishinaabeg (Chippewa, Anihšināpē, Saulteaux), Apalachee, Aranama (Texan Coahuilteca, Tamique), Arawak, Arikara (Sahnish, Ree, Arickaree, Adakadaho), Assiniboine (Hohe, Nakota, Nakoda, Nakona), Atsa'Kudok-wa, Awatixa, Bannock, Bidai (Ishak, Quasmigdo), Biloxi, Blackfoot Confederacy (Niitsitapi, Sikasikaitsitapi), Cahto (Kato, Kaipomo), Cahuilla (Ivilyuqaletem, Ivilyuat), Calicua, Calusa, Canaragay, Cascangue,

Catawba (Inna, Iswa), Chemehuevi, Cheraw (Seraw), Chickanee, Chickasaw, Chilula, Chimakum (Aqokúlo), Chimariko, Chiricahua (Tsokanende), Chitimacha (Chetimachan, Sitimacha), Chonnonton (Neutral Nation, Niagara), Chowanoke, Chumash, Ciboney (Taino), Ciwāt, Clatskanie, Clatsop,

Congaree, Coos, Coosa (Uchis, Chiaha, Coste, Tali, Talisi), Coquille (Kokwell), Coree, Coso, Cowasuck, Cowlitz (Taitnapam), Croatan, Crow Nation (Absaroka), Cui Ui Ticutta, Cupeño (Kuupangaxwichem, Cupa), Cup'ig (Nunivak), Cusabo (Corsaboy), Dakota Oyate (Lakota, Nakota, Santee, Teton, Sioux), Deadose, Deg Xinag (Deg Xit'an, Kaiyuhkhotana, Deg Hit’an), Dena'ina (Tanaina), Dichinanek' Hwt'ana (Upper Kuskokwim Athabascans, Kolchan, Goltsan, Tundra Kolosh), Do:lkabya (Western Yavapai), Duwamish, Edistow (Stono), Eno (Wyanoke), Erie (Eriez, Riquechronon, Cat, Chat), Esselen, Eyak, Gidi'tikadii, Guwevkabaya (Southeast Yavapai), Gwich'in —(Kutchin), Haida (X̱aadas, X̱aat), Halchidhoma, Havasupai, Hiratsa (Hiraacá), Ho-chaaqa (Winnebago), Holikachuk (Innoko, Tlëgon-khotana), Hopi, Houma, Huaco, Hualapai, Hupa (Natinixwe, Natinook-wa), Hwech'in (Han, Hankutchin), Ibi, Icafui, Iroquois Confederacy (Hodinoso:ni), Illinois Confederation (Ilinoweg, Illini), Iñupiat (Inuit), Ioway (Iowa, Baxoje), Jicarilla, Juaneño (Acjachemen), Jumano, Kalapuya (Clackama), Kalingo (Carib), Kalispel (Pend d'Oreilles, Ql̓ispé), Karuk (Karok, Chum-ne), Kathlamet (Guithlamethl, Kwillu'chini, Klamath, Yahuskin, Goyatoka), Katkoc, Kaw (Kansas, Kanza), Kawaiisu (Nuwa), Kennebec (Kinipekw), Keresan, Keyauwee (Keawe), Kichai -- Kitsai, Keechi, K’itaish), Kiowa (Gaigwu, Cáuigù, Kútjàu, Kwu-da, Tep-da), Kitanemuk, Kittitas, Klickitat (Qwû’lh-hwai-pûm, Awi-adshi, Máhane, Wahnookt),

Koa’aga’itoka, Konkow, Koop Ticutta, Koroa, Koyukon, Ktunaxa (Kootenai, Flathead), Kucadikadi (Kotsa’va), Kumeyaay (Tipai-Ipai, Kamia, Diegueño), Kwapa (Cocopah, Cucapá, Xawiƚƚ kwñchawaay), Lassik, Lenape (Leni-Lenape, Delaware), Liksiyu (Cayuse), Lipan, Luiseño (Payómkawichum),

Madqwadabaya (Desert Yavapai), Mahican (Mohicans), Makah, Makuhadokado, Maliseet (Wolistoqiag), Manahoac (Mahock, Meipontsky), Mandan, Manso, Mascouten(Miami Du'Lac, Gen D'Feu, Maumee, Wea), Mattole (Bear River, Tul'bush, Ni’ekeni), Mayaca, Mayaimi, Mayeye (Macheye, Maiece, Malleye, Maye, Maghay), Meherrin, Menominee (Mackinac), Mescalero, Miami (myaamiaki, Kickapoo,

(5)

(‘Aha Makhav), Mohawk (Kaneng’hega), Molala (Molale, Molele), Moneton, Mono (Nyyhmy), Moosonee (Moose Cree, Monsonis), Mosopelea (Houspe, Ofo, Ofogoula), Multnomah (Chinook), Nabedache (Nabáydácu, Wawadishe), Nabiltse (Applegate , Dakubetede), Nacho Nyak Dun (Tutchone), Nacono, Na'isha, Nanticoke, Navajo, Ndee, Niāl, Niimiipu (Nez Perce, Watapala, Watapahlute), Nisenan, Nisqually, Nomlaki (Noamlakee, Central Wintun), Nongatl, Nottoway (Cheroenhaka), Northern

Cheyenne, Ocale, Ohlone (Costanoan), Omaha, O'odham (Pima , Tahono O'odham, Papago), Osage, Otoe, Otse, Ozav Dika, Palus, Pascagoula, Passamaquoddy (Pestomuhkati), Patiri (Petaros, Pastia), Patwin (Southern Wintun), Pawnee (Panis, Skidi), Pedee, Pennacook, Penobscot, Petun (Tobacco Nation, Wenro, Tionontati, Kentatentonga), Piipaash (Kokmalik’op), Piro, Piscataway (Piscatawa, Doeg, Conoy), Pit River, Pomo (Kashaya), Ponca (Ponka), Potano (Alachua , Potavou), Pottawatomi (Bodewadmik), Powhatan, Puyallup (Spuyaləpabš), Quapaw (Arkansas, Ugahxpa), Quechan (Yuma, Kwtsaan), Quileute, Salinan, Santee, Saponi (Monacan, Sapon, Eastern Blackfoot, Christanna), Saturiwa, Sawawatodo, Senandoa (Shenandoah), Serrano(Taaqtam, Maarenga'yam, Yuhaviatam), Sewee, Shakori (Shaccoree, Cacores), Shasta (Chasta, Sasti), Shoshone, Siletz, Sinkine (Sinkyone), Sissipahaw (Haw), Siuslaw Umpqua, Skitswish (Coeur D'Alene, Schitsu’umash), Snohomish, Snuqualmi, Sokoki (Missiquoi), Spokane, Stillaguamish (Stoluckwamish), Sugaree, Suma (Zuma, Jano, Jocome), Suquamish, Susquehannock (Andastes), Sutaio, Swinomish (Skagit), Syilx (Okanagan), Sotaae,Tacatacuru, Taga Ticutta, Takelma (Dagelma), Taltushtuntede (Galice), Tanan Gwich'in, Taos, Taovaya, Tataviam

(Alliklik), Tawakoni (Tahuacano), Tenino, Thawikila (Hathawekela, Fort Ancient), Tigua (Ysleta del Sur), Tillamook (Nehalem), Timbisha (Panamint), Timpanogos (Ute), Tioux, Tlingit, Tocobaga, Toi Ticutta, Tockwogh (Trokwae), Tolowa (Talawa Dini’), Tongva (Gabrieleño, Fernandeño, Tobikhar), Tonkawa (Ticanwatic), Tsetsaut (Wetaŀ, Jits’aawit), Tsikip (Appalousa, Opelousa), Tsitsistas, Tübatulabal, Tukabatchee, Tula, Tunica, Tuscarora (Tomahittan, Kuskarawock), Tutelo (Tutero, Totteroy, Tutera, Yusan), Tututni, Umatilla, Umpqua, Utina (Agua Dulce), Waccamaw (Waxmaw), Wadatika (Harney Valley Paiute), Wailiki, Waluulapam (Walla Walla), Walpapi (Huipui), Wampanoag (Massasoit), Wanapum, Wappo, Washoe, Wateree -- (Guatari), Whilkut, Wichita, Willapa (Kwalhioqua),

Wi:pukba (Verde Valley Yavapai), Wintu (Northern Wintun), Winyaw (Weenee, Wineaw, Yenyohol), Wiyot (Wee-’at, Weyet), Woccon, Yakama, Yamosopo Tuviwarai, Yana (Yahi), Yaqui (Yoeme), Yatasi (Yáttasih), Yavbe' (Northwest Yavapai), Yazoo, Yojuane, Yokuts (Mariposa),Yufera, Yuki,Yupighyt, Yup'ik,Yurok (Olekwo’l), Yustaga, and Zuni (A:shiwi) people. And all those I may have missed to mention.

I want to thank my supervisor, Prof. Anne-Sofie Roald for all the support and guidance on this thesis. I want to thank Kalina for all her help and I also want to thank my friends and family for supporting me during my thesis.

(6)

This thesis is about the cultural preservation of the Navajo Nation’s culture in the United States (U.S.). The Navajo Nation is the largest federally recognized Native American tribe in the U.S. The Navajo reservation spans three states: Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico. However, ancestral Navajo lands also spanned Colorado. The reservation is 27,000 square miles, which is larger than ten of the 50 states in the U.S. The Navajo Nation’s reservation is referred to as Diné Bikéyah or Navajoland (Navajo Nation Tourism Department, 2019). Navajo tribe members are known as Diné, which means people in Navajo Language which is also Diné language. The Navajo Nation believes they are “a nation within a nation” (ibid). The Navajo Nation has its own language, territory, government, culture, natural resources, and economy.

Nonetheless, like most Native American tribes in the U.S., certain aspects of their culture are in danger of disappearing (Wisniewski, 2016). In the last few decades, the Navajo Nation has been involved and concerned with the revitalization of their culture (The Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department, 1999). There are certain aspects which fall within the competences of the Navajo; however, there are federal laws which the Navajo Nation are bound to. Thus, cultural preservation and the revitalization of Navajo Culture is partially dependent on the federal and state governments in the U.S. There are federal policies that have an effect on the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation is a case study in this research, as it is the largest Native American tribe in the U.S. and therefore there is more available information about them.

I choose to research this topic because I find multiculturalism interesting. Scholars and various politicians are using multiculturalism, specifically liberal multiculturalism in relation to

immigrants and refugees. Kymlicka’s liberal multiculturalism is based on the first nations and not on immigrants. Kymlicka does mention immigrants in his theory when talking about group rights. He states that immigrants should get groups to help them integrate and assimilate into mainstream society (Kymlicka, 1995). Kymlicka’s mainly uses multiculturalism to analyze indigenous peoples and support group rights that would give them self-governance within mainstream society. For these reasons, I want to use multiculturalism and the Navajo Nation because I will be using multiculturalism for what Kymlicka intended it for. I choose the Navajo

(9)

Nation because I used to live in Flagstaff, Arizona, which is next to the Navajo Nation reservation. I took some classes on Native American history and had members of the Navajo Nation in my class. This sparked my interest in the Navajo Nation and how the federal government is treating them.

2. Aim and Research Questions

The overall purpose of this thesis is to contribute empirically and theoretically to the Native American and multiculturalism fields of study by conducting a policy analysis and case study. The aim of this thesis is to identify the possible implications and outcomes of current policies on the cultural preservation of the Navajo Nation and analyze these implications and outcomes within a multicultural and assimilation theoretical framework. Policies in this thesis refer to policy documents, laws (legislation), and court cases on federal and state level. Current policies are policies that are in place and in effect today. This could mean that a policy was implemented in the 1970s or more recently. Older policies will be analyzed for background information and for a foundation; however, the current policies are the main focus of analysis.

This leads to the research questions for this thesis:

-

How do current policies affect the preservation of the Navajo Nation’s “culture”?

-

What kind of multiculturalism or assimilation aspects can be found in the policies? This thesis is qualitative and uses policy analysis. In order to answer the research questions, policies will be analyzed from three categories: education, land ownership, and self-governance. Three categories are chosen due to the fact that it is impossible to analyze policies on all aspects of Navajo Culture. Therefore, education, land ownership, and self-governance are chosen as proxies for culture. These proxies are chosen because after carrying out preliminary research for this thesis, these three categories are a crucial part of the Navajo Nation and represent important parts of society and a community in which culture can play a role. Education plays a crucial role in language and history transference. Language is specifically important for the Navajo Nation as most of their history, religion, and traditions are passed down orally. Land is important for

(10)

Navajo spirituality and religion. The Navajo have four sacred mountain ranges that they believe have a close connection to their ancestors, which is why land ownership is an important aspect (Navajo Nation Tourism Office, 2019). Lastly, self-governance is equally included as it is important to examine the extent of the Navajo Nation’s power over its own people and reservation. This can have an effect on cultural preservation. Consequently, education, land ownership, and self-governance are acceptable proxies for culture.

2.1 Delimitations

One delimitation is that not every current policy will be analyzed. The restricted length and time restriction on this research does not allow for this. That is why the policies that are analyzed are from three proxy categories: education, land ownership, and self-governance. The thesis is delimited in the analysis of the data as well. Policy analysis consists of six stages: research and analyze, design and recommend, clarify values and arguments, advise strategically, democratize, and mediate (Thissen and Walker, 2013). However, for this thesis, the analysis will focus on one of these points: research and analyze, as this is the sole point focusing on the possible outcomes of a policy. The remaining stages are beyond the scope of this research.

3. Academic relevance and contribution 3.1. Previous Research

3.1.1 Literature on Multiculturalism and Assimilation

The literature on multiculturalism and assimilation is vast. This next section will briefly mention the current academic developments in this theoretical field. There are those who believe there is a political retreat of multiculturalism in society, specifically in Europe and Asia (Joppke 2004, McGhee 2008). Whereas others believe that multiculturalism is still relevant (Kymlicka 1995, Taylor 1994, Margalit and Halbertal 2004). The academic debate sees the same pattern with assimilation. Both multiculturalism and assimilation are written about a considerable amount in the U.S. Richard Alba wrote an article on “Immigration and the American Realities of

Assimilation and Multiculturalism”. This article examines the role of assimilation and

(11)

that assimilation and multiculturalism will have an effect on the future of the U.S. and all the minority populations living in or coming to the U.S. In his paper, Alba uses the U.S. as a case study to which he applies these theories to.

3.1.2 Literature on Multiculturalism, Assimilation, and Native Americans (Navajo Nation) There is a considerable amount of literature on assimilation and Native American populations (Black, 2002, Deyhle and Swisher, 1997, Simonsen, 2006), specifically also about the Navajo Nation (Lee, 2008, Allison, 1982, Atwood, 1998). The focus of most of this literature is in the past, examining the forced assimilation of Native American tribes in the U.S. There is literature on Multiculturalism and Native Americans and multiculturalism and the Navajo Nation (Wilson and Gutiérrez, 1995, Jay, 1991, Denetdale, 2009). The literature does not do policy analysis of the effect of multicultural or assimilation policies on Native Americans.

Policies are analyzed in order to see their effect, in particular, the effect on the majority of the people. Policy analysis is rarely done on minority populations within the U.S., specifically in relation to Native Americans, Multiculturalism, and Assimilation. Policy analysis’ that is done on the Navajo Nation, is the Navajo government doing a policy analysis on their policies and how it affects their community.

There is a considerable amount of literature on this subject; however, none as specific as this paper. Alba did a case study on the U.S. society as a whole, whereas this paper is using the Navajo Nation as a case study. Scholars have written about the Navajo Nation and assimilation and/or the Navajo Nation and multiculturalism but there is not a lot of literature mixing the theories with a policy analysis. This is the gap, in which this thesis finds itself.

3.2. Contribution of the thesis

This thesis makes theoretical and empirical contributions by producing and examining new empirical material on the outcomes and implications of policies on the Navajo Nation with a theoretical framework of multiculturalism and assimilation. It makes a theoretical contribution by illuminating the consequences of policies by applying multiculturalism and assimilation to a real-life case study. This case study helps develop the theory into real-life examples. There are

(12)

two empirical contributions in this thesis. The first empirical contribution is closing the gap. There is no research done on how policies affect the cultural preservation of the Navajo Nation with a focus on multiculturalism and assimilation. By analyzing policies and the outcomes and implications of policies this research is aiming to gain a deeper understanding of

multiculturalism, assimilation, and cultural preservation with regards to the Navajo Nation. The second empirical contribution is in relation to the method of this thesis: a policy analysis. According to Thissen and Walker, policy analysis is not only a form of analysis but also a form of knowledge creation (Thissen and Walker, 2013).

4. Background (policies on Navajo Nation)

This background section will first provide a brief historical background on Native Americans in the U.S., followed by a brief history of the Navajo Nation. and lastly, briefly addresses the background policies in the three previously mentioned categories (proxies) that are analyzed in this thesis.

4.1.1 History: Native Americans

From the first point of contact with European colonizers in the 1500s to the U.S. becoming a country, Native Americans and European colonizers fought with each other a considerable amount of times. Some Native American tribes established some trading agreements and alliances with the Europeans. When the United States became a country, treaties were created with Native American tribes. These treaties mainly concerned land. During the western

expansion of the U.S., more battles and violent conflicts ensued with Native American Tribes for land and resources. Many Native American tribes lost land to European “settlers”. Treaties were signed by the federal government that removed tribes from their land and other treaties were signed giving Native American lands elsewhere. In 1851 Congress passed the Indian

Appropriations Act, which created the reservation system. However, Native Americans were not allowed to leave their reservation without federal permission. This is no longer the case since Native Americans are now allowed to move on and off their reservation freely. From the 1800s to early 1900s many treaties were signed with Native Americans. In 1924 the citizenship act was signed and Native Americans were granted full U.S. citizenship. During the 1950s and 1960s,

(13)

Congress terminated many tribes’ relationships with the federal government by taking away reservations and no longer providing aid or benefits to certain Native American tribes. In 1968 the Indian Civil Rights Act was signed that made Native Americans equal citizens in the U.S. This next section will go into a slightly more detailed history of the Navajo Nation within the U.S (History.com Editors, 2018).

4.1.2 History: Navajo Nation

It is believed that the Navajo settled in the southwest, mainly New Mexico, around the year 1300 (Navajobusiness.com, n.d.). As the population grew, people started moving and settling in other places. In the year 1700, the Navajo people were living in what is now Colorado, Arizona, and Utah (ibid). The Navajo learned to farm from the Pueblo people (Native American Tribe) and horseback riding from the Spanish. The Navajo were involved in a number of battles with the Spanish conquistadors, other Native American Tribes, Mexicans, and the Anglos

(Navajobusiness.com, n.d.). In 1864, the Navajo Nation was forced to surrender by American soldiers. The Navajo were forced to march over 3000 miles (about 4800 km) to Fort Sumner. This march is referred to as “The Long Walk”. Many Navajo died on the walk, especially the old, sick, and children who were shot by soldiers for not keeping up with the group (ibid.). When the Navajo arrived in Fort Sumner they were imprisoned in bad conditions for four years. In 1868, the treaty of 1868 was signed which gave the Navajo territory in their traditional homeland (ibid). Since the treaty of 1868, the Navajo have received more land through special legislation and executive orders, including the 1884 executive order which gave the Navajo Nation land in Utah (Utah American Indian Digital Archive, 2019). The most recent special legislation giving the Navajo Nation land was passed in 2019. The Navajo Nation reservation now spans three of their traditional four state homeland. The Navajo reservation does not include any land in Colorado, however, a considerable amount of Navajo people do not live on the reservation and do live in Colorado (ibid). In 1924, Native Americans were granted U.S citizenship (ibid). The Navajo helped the U.S fight in World War One before they became citizens and also fought in World War Two. The Navajo created a code in WWII which could not be deciphered by the Japanese and helped the U.S. win the Pacific. This is known as the Navajo “Code Talkers” (ibid).

(14)

The Navajo government was established in 1923 as a tribal council. In 1989, the Navajo Nation adopted the three branch government structure (executive, judicial, legislative) that the U.S. government has as well. The Navajo, like the U.S federal and state government, hold elections for government positions (Navajo Nation Tourism Department, 2019). According to the 2010 census, there are 173,667 Navajo living on the Navajo Reservation (Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico); however, the total population of the Navajo Nation in 2010 was 332,129 (The United States Census Bureau, 2011).

4.1.3 Proxy Background Policies

The federal government of the U.S. started creating policies pertaining to Native Americans in the 1800s. This is the starting point for most of the background policies discussed in the findings and analysis section of this thesis. For education, the policies historically have been more

assimilation in nature until about the 1990s. Then the policies started having more multicultural aspects. The background policies on ownership of land follow a similar trend for some Native American tribes like the Navajo Nation; however, for others, the federal government terminated tribes’ rights to own land (Indian Relocation Act 1956) (The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 2016). The Navajo self-governance is and was established by many Supreme Court cases. The level of self-governance and the limitations of it has been established from the 1800s to the present day.

5. Theoretical Framework 5.1 “Culture”

Gerd Baumann explains “culture” in terms of an essentialist understanding and a processual understanding. Baumann explains the essentialist theory of culture as “a thing one has” and processual theory of culture as “a process one shapes” (Baumann, 1999). He states that the more influential one of the “two theories is the essentialist one, which regards national cultures, ethnic cultures, and religious cultures as finished objects” (ibid). Processual theory of culture views culture as “something one makes and reshapes through constant renewing activity” (ibid). Baumann also states that these two theories are not opposites, “[r]ather, the processual theory is

(15)

implicit in all essentialist rhetoric” (ibid). Thus, according to Baumann culture can be fixed, shaped, or both. Culture can include many different aspects such as language, religion, traditions etc. Some of these can be fixed like a certain tradition. Other aspects are shaped and changed over time this can include certain religious practices which over time are changed or never done again. Culture can also be both essential and processual like language. Language can be a fixed part of a culture; however, language changes over time to include words and references that were not used hundreds of years ago. This thesis adapts both Baumann's theories of culture because essentialism and processual are not opposites or mutually exclusive. As explained above there are certain elements of culture which can be essentialist and other aspects of culture that are processual. Culture is evolving and changing, therefore it is important to note that the essentialist and processual aspects of culture have a dialectical relationship.

5.2.1 Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism emerged with an increased interest in group rights and diversity in a liberal democratic society (Kymlicka, 1996: 8). These group rights protect minorities and diverse communities in society by allowing them to preserve their culture and identity through certain rights and policies. Multiculturalism also arose as a critique of assimilation giving people the opportunity to keep their culture, identity, and community instead of assimilating into the mainstream culture. There are two main versions of multiculturalism: Liberal Multiculturalism (Kymlicka) and Communitarian multiculturalism (Margalit and Halbertal).

5.2.2 Liberal Multiculturalism

Kymlicka’s liberal multiculturalism, also known as Egalitarian Liberalism, places value on cultural membership and values autonomy and equality (Kymlicka, 1995, 1996). Kymlicka, therefore, suggests different types of rights to different groups. Kymlicka distinguishes between three different types of group rights. The first type of rights is self-government rights for

indigenous peoples and national minority groups. This is the most elaborate and strongest group right that Kymlicka proposes as he believes that these groups need it because their minority status was unchosen. The second type of rights is polyethnic rights. These are for immigrants or

(16)

as Kymlicka views them “voluntary migrants”. He believes that immigrants chose to leave their native culture, therefore, they should not get the strongest rights but do deserve rights to help aid integration. These rights are external protections. The last type of rights is special representation rights (affirmative action) which are for minority groups in society such as racial minorities and sexual orientation minorities (Kymlicka, 1995: 113–115).

Kymlicka views culture as having instrumental value for personal autonomy and self-identity. Kymlicka believes in equality between cultures because of the “context of choice” (Kymlicka, 1995: 89). Cultures provide meaningful alternatives and options. This helps people pursue, alter, and construct their goals (ibid: 89). Culture plays a crucial role in a person’s self-identity. Being a member of a group provides people with an “anchor for their self-identification and the safety of effortless secure belonging” (ibid: 89). In order for culture to have a deep and productive effect on a person’s self-identity, one needs to be a member of their own culture. Thus being a part of one’s own culture is vital for one’s cultural identity and sense of belonging (ibid). Since cultural identity is crucial to Kymlicka, he believes minority groups and communities are entitled to special rights to protect themselves from the mainstream culture. These rights are there to protect culture and identity. Kymlicka states that these rights and protections are needed due to the fact that people born into minority groups, communities, or cultures are at a disadvantage to mainstream culture (Kymlicka, 1995).

This disadvantage, according to Kymlicka, is an unchosen inequality. An unchosen inequality, in liberal multiculturalism, is when a certain group becomes a minority within mainstream society without the consent of this group. An example of this is the First Nations in Canada. They are now a part of Canadian society and a minority within that society but not by choice. Kymlicka believes that this is an unchosen inequality thus he believes liberal multiculturalism “emphasizes the importance of rectifying unchosen inequalities” (ibid: 109). Minority groups are at a

disadvantage of accessing their own culture within the mainstream culture, therefore, the First Nations are entitled to group rights.

(17)

5.2.3 Communitarian Multiculturalism

Communitarian multiculturalism has two sides: progressive and conservative. Communitarian’s conception of culture is derived from Herder and Hegel. Herder and Hegel believe that culture is part of one’s identity and that our identity is not defined or formed in isolation of others, but rather, in relation to others and the struggle with others (Taylor, 1994: 33). Thus an important part of a culture is based on “politics of recognition” (ibid). Culture is a source of identity and is unique, it is an expression of authenticity. People need others to recognize their culture for it to have worth. Culture is a source of personal worth and group dignity. It is important for

communitarians that people recognize others. This public visibility gives the cultural minority group emancipation (ibid). Seclusion from mainstream society is one way to protect (ibid).

Progressive communitarian multicultural scholars like Charles Taylor believe that diversity should be celebrated in public. This will boost the minority group’s self-esteem. Charles Taylor states that the role of culture is crucial for the development of human identity and agency and that society should presume an equal worth of all cultures (ibid: 66).

Conservatives communitarian multiculturalists like Margalit and Halbertal believe that minorities should be protected from mainstream society, especially if their culture is not democratic

(liberal) or capitalist, like mainstream society is (Maraglit and Halbertal, 2004). These protections can come in the form of special accommodation or public visibility. Margalit and Halbertal state that this right for one’s own culture is also “the right to maintain a way of

life” (Maraglit and Halbertal, 2004: 537). This right to maintaining a way of life is only available to a group not to individuals. As Margalit and Halbertal state “[t]he right to culture is, thus, not only the right to identify with a group but the right to secure one’s personality identity” (ibid: 539). Margalit and Halbertal argue that special rights and privileges that protect culture are applicable not only when a culture is in danger of disappearing but also when certain aspects of that culture are difficult to maintain without help (ibid: 545). Conservative communitarian multiculturalists do believe that there are limits to how many privileges and rights are given to groups. Margalit and Halbertal state that“[t]he privileges granted to the minority culture must be

(18)

balanced against the restrictions they impose on others, and so they must not be granted in cases where the freedom of other individuals would be unduly restricted” (ibid: 545). Another crucial aspect of communitarian multiculturalism is the freedom of exit. Any person inside these

protected minority cultures should have the freedom to exit these communities if they wish to do so (ibid).

5.2.4 Critiques of Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism has many critiques. This section will briefly run through some of the most prominent multiculturalist critiques. The Constructivist critique scholars state that cultures are socially constructed and that cultures should not be singled out. Each culture deserves equal treatment thus no special rights should be given (Kukathas, 1998). The Pluralist critique scholars state that people do not necessarily belong to one culture and that most people belong to more than one. Multiculturalism assumes that people belong to one culture. Multiculturalism,

according to pluralist does not take into account that a person can be a member of more than one culture within a society. Multiculturalism according to pluralist scholars forces people into one culture. States should promote pluralism instead of mono multiculturalism (Kukathas, 1998: 690, Barry, 2001: 30). The universalist critique scholars state that everyone has the same needs and the state should avoid sponsoring differences (Barry, 2001: 37). Barry argues that cultural, religious, and national minorities are responsible for the consequences of their own cultural practices and beliefs, therefore, no special rights or accommodation should be made by a government for a culture (ibid: 37). The minimalist critique scholars state that multiculturalism distributes resources to selected cultures for preservation. According to minimalist scholars, states should do nothing, be neutral, and maintain basic structures of society. States should only intervene when individual rights are violated (Kukathas, 1998).

The realist critique scholars believe that multiculturalism does not help a country reach

integration or assimilation of its population. Special rights and the administering of special rights and protections to certain groups does not aid integration or assimilation, according to Joppke.

(19)

Therefore, if a country aims to integrate or assimilate its population, then special rights and protections should not be given to minority groups in society (Joppke, 2004). If the goal of the country is not assimilation or integration, then multiculturalism still does not work for realist scholars due to the fact that it creates a hierarchy between minorities groups within a society (ibid, 2004). The last critique discussed in this section before discussing assimilation is the feminist-individual critique. This critique is concerned with the increased vulnerability of minorities within the minority group. The feminist-individual critique scholars argue that multiculturalism increases the vulnerability of women and children within minority groups and that multiculturalism keeps internal power structures in place (patriarchy) (Moller Okin, 1998). The special rights, protections, and accommodations that multiculturalism gives certain

minorities build a wall around the minority group protecting the internal power structure and increasing the vulnerability of internal minorities.

5.2.5 Assimilation

Assimilation is when people conform to the mainstream culture and there are no differences between people over time. Assimilation is the opposite of multiculturalism as it does not protect diversity, culture, or identity. It assumes that everyone in a minority culture will let go of that culture and instead conform to the mainstream, resulting in the loss of diversity and cultural differences (Samers and Collyer, 2017: 342). As Richard Alba states, the caricatured and simplified definition of assimilation is that it “is a radical, unidirectional process of

simplification: ethnic minorities shed themselves of all that makes them distinctive and become carbon copies of the ethnic majority” (Alba, 1999: 7). This is the type of assimilation that is strongly present in countries like the U.S., where the idea of the melting pot is still important (Samers and Collyer, 2017: 342). However, as Alba points out in reality assimilation does not work in this simple and radical sense. In the U.S the intention is assimilation as it is defined above but that does not take into account that “American society is far from homogenous and… that immigrant ethnicity has affected American society as much as American society has affected it” (Alba, 1999: 7).

(20)

Assimilation can be broken down into three main parts. There is cultural assimilation where minority groups adopt mainstream culture and practices over time. There is socioeconomic assimilation where immigrants and minority groups achieve the same level of socio-economic status that the native population has over time. Lastly, there is a spatial pattern assimilation. Over time, minorities adapt to the same spatial patterns for employment and residence as the native (majority) population (Samers and Collyer, 2017: 342). These three aspects are what make assimilation. The concept of assimilation has changed in different parts of the world, making it more diverse or less hard-line. Assimilation has even left public discourse in many countries. However, in the U.S., assimilation is important and manifested in public discourse. The

citizenship exam is an example of how assimilation is present in government and discourse. This exam emphasizes the “Americanness” that each American citizen should have (ibid: 343). There are different ways to look at the process of assimilation (linear or non-linear) or which aspect has a greater impact on assimilation (culture, economics, spatial patterns). In the U.S. assimilation is seen as linear and there is an increased focus on the cultural aspect of assimilation. Hence, assimilation can be measured over time when looking at immigrant groups or minority groups. Every generation will be more assimilated to the mainstream (majority) culture (ibid: 343).

One of the main critiques of assimilation is multiculturalism theorists. This is because where assimilation is trying to eliminate someone's culture and conform them to the mainstream culture, multiculturalism is protecting a person’s native culture within mainstream society.

6. Methodology, methods, and material 6.1. Philosophical considerations

Before explaining the methods and materials of analysis for this thesis it is important to discuss the philosophical standpoint of this thesis. Discussing and explaining the philosophical

standpoint of this paper will reinforce the reliability and validity of this thesis and the

conclusions are drawn. Furthermore, addressing the philosophical standpoint will recognize how and what knowledge this thesis is producing as well as what the limitations of that knowledge are (6 & Bellamy, 2012: 49-50; Rosenberg, 2012: 2-4).

(21)

This research has the philosophical standpoint of relativism. Relativism is the ontological standpoint of this thesis. Relativism scholars do not believe in objective reality, rather relativism assumes that reality exists in relation to the observer and is socially constructed. Social

constructivism is the epistemological standpoint of this thesis. This type of ontology has an effect on the epistemology of the thesis. Since relativism does not believe reality is an objective truth the findings and conclusions of this thesis will not be part of objective truth. Therefore, the knowledge that is produced is of a subjective nature (6 & Bellamy, 2012: 55-59). The ontology and epistemology of this thesis assumes that the analysis and findings are, hence, one perspective and interpretation of the material (data). The data does not create any predictability either (6 & Bellamy, 2012: 57- 58, Rosenberg, 2012: 31, 118-119, 134-135). This philosophical standpoint is in line with qualitative research.

6.2. Research Design

6.2.1 Approach (Case Study)

Following John Creswell's (2007) distinction between five approaches to qualitative research, the present thesis is a case study. A case study according to Creswell, is a qualitative approach which “explores a real-life, contemporary bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded system (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information… and reports a case description and case themes” (Creswell, 2013: 97). There are three types of case study designs: inartistic case, instrumental case, and collective instrumental case (Stake 1995). The intrinsic case uses one single case and examines the particulars of this case (Hyett, Kenny, and Dickson, 2014). The instrumental case is one case used to analyze an object of interest and usually also contributes to refining theory (Hyett, Kenny, and Dickson, 2014). This research uses the collective instrumental case that is “an instrumental case which is studies as multiple, nested cases, observed in unison, parallel, or sequential order. More than one case can be simultaneously studied; however, each case study is a concentrated, single inquiry, studied holistically in its own entirety” (ibid). In this research, the case addresses is that linked to the Navajo Nation and multiculturalism and assimilation. There are three different aspects that are

(22)

analyzed in this case study: education, land ownership, and self-governance. As in many case studies, these three are proxies for examining the preservation of Navajo culture. It is also a comparative case study as it looks at how multiculturalism and assimilation affect culture preservation. It analyzes the similarities and differences between these two theoretical

approaches. Case studies use different and multiple methods of data collection and analysis. The methods and analysis methods are chosen depending on the researcher (ibid). However, often, and in this research, it “makes use of naturally occurring sources of knowledge, such as people or observations of interactions” (ibid). As this research is not a field study and is not collecting its own data, the “naturally occurring knowledge” will be used from previous research and

interviews (ibid).

6.2.2 Material

This research is built on qualitative research and explores the implications and outcomes of policies on the cultural preservation of the Navajo Nation through policy analysis. Policies in this research also include policy documents, laws (legislation) and court cases, on the state and federal level. The material used is policies. The policies are specific to Native Americans and to the three areas of research: education, self-governance, and land ownership. This paper will briefly mention most of the policies and laws on these subjects since 1776 (the United States became a nation) to create a solid foundation and background on the matter. These background policies are used as part of the analysis of the current policies. The policies that will be analyzed and examined more in-depth will be the most current policy on the matter, which are in effect today. The policies needed for this research can be found on government databases (federal and state) and on the Navajo Tribe’s own database. An example of a policy used in this research is the policy implemented by the Obama Administration in 2016, which gave resources and control to the Navajo Nation of the schools on reservation land. This policy gave the Navajo Nation the power to control how the schools are run on reservation land. This policy is in effect today (Schilling, 2016). It is the current federal policy on education within the Navajo Nation

Reservation. For land ownership, the land trust policy will be analyzed. This policy is the current federal policy on land ownership of the Navajo Nation Reservation. Lastly, for self-governance,

(23)

multiple Supreme Court cases and acts are analyzed as there is not one policy which defines the self-governance of the Navajo Nation. The multiple Supreme Court cases and Acts are important in order to understand the level of self-governance that the Navajo Nation has and the restrictions that are placed on that self-governance.

To supplement the policies and the policy analysis this research will use previously conducted research and interviews to further analyze the effect of the policies on the Navajo Nation. These materials are collected with the care that the information is reliable and valid for the research. The previous research and interviews will help analyze more in-depth the effect of a policy. Some examples of this material are newspaper interviews and Navajo Nation government reports.

6.2.3 Method/Analysis Analysis

This research implores two methods of data/material analysis: policy analysis and a general analysis of the texts that supplement the policy analysis. Policy analysis is used to analyze the specific policies chosen in this case study. The general analysis is used to analyze previously conducted research and interviews (naturally occurring knowledge).

Policy Analysis

The method of analysis of policies, laws, legislation, and court cases is policy analysis. In the practical sense and sphere policy analysis is usually done before a policy is implemented in order to examine the effects of the policies and to investigate if any changes need to be made to the policy. In the academic research sphere, policy analysis is also done on existing and implemented policies. Policy analysis is used likewise in this manner in this paper. The main focus of the policy analysis is to examine the implementation and the effect that the policy has on the Navajo Nation. According to Thissen and Walker, policy analysis is not only a form of analysis but also a form of knowledge creation (Thissen and Walker, 2013). Consequently, by conducting policy analysis, this paper is contributing to knowledge production about the specific policies that are analyzed.

(24)

Policy analysis in the academic sphere consists of six stages: research and analyze, design and recommend, clarify values and arguments, advise strategically, democratize, and mediate. This research will focus on the first point: research and analyze (Thissen and Walker, 2013). This is the most relevant part of this research and is the only relevant part of policy analysis to answer the research questions since the first step is concerned with the effect of the policy. The other steps of policy analysis are beyond the scope of this research paper. Policy analysis thus digs deep into the policy. The policy analysis in this thesis is guided by the following questions: What is the aim of the policy? Where and how is the policy implemented? How is the policy enforced? What is the effect of the policy?

A policy analysis by itself is not enough to analyze the outcomes and implications of a policy. This is because the desired effect of policy might not be the effect that has occurred in reality. More information and data is therefore often needed to supplement the policy analysis

(Huberman and Miles, 2009: 308). In this research, a general analysis of previous research and interviews will be used to supplement the policy analysis, in order to answer the research questions.

6.2.4 Limitations

The main limitation is the time frame of this thesis. The thesis has a restricted time frame of fewer than two months. This research mainly focuses on policies and previous research, it is not a field study. Alternative methods could have been used such as a ethnographic anthropological field study; however, the time restraint does not allow for this. The data gathered will; however, be sufficient in order to answer the research question, but maybe not to the degree that a field study would be able to. This research would benefit from interviews; nevertheless, the research time limit does not allow for face to face interviews. However, the data gathered will be valid and reliable for this research even without the interviews but it would have greatly benefited with the addition of interviews.

(25)

6.3 Final Methodological Reflections 6.3.1 Ethical Considerations/Implications

This research is not a field study or an ethnographic research project, therefore, it does not have many ethical implications. However, it does use previous research and interviews. Before using any interviews in this research it is important to check that the person who conducted the interview did follow ethical guidelines. It is important to examine if there was consent from the participant to be interviewed and for the interview to be published. This includes that the person was not deceived in any way. Furthermore, this interview and the using of any interviews in this research project should not cause the interviewees any harm. Hence, it is important to examine the previously conducted interviews and if ethical guidelines were used. Examining the previous research and interviews is also crucial for the validity, reliability, and credibility of this research project. Interviews published in peer-reviewed academic journals are required to follow ethical guidelines and are thus a safe option to use in this research paper. Other interviews in

newspapers or online need to be examined on this front. Ethically, it is important to also think about the other research and data collection and ensure that it does no harm to the Navajo Nation. This research is done independently from the Navajo Nation.

Another important aspect to keep in mind with this research is that the researcher is white and not part of the Navajo Nation. The researcher is an outsider to the Navajo Nation and therefore will have a different interpretation and perspective on the findings of this research.

6.3.2 My Role as a researcher

It is important to reflect on my role as the researcher, in order to develop reliable findings. That is why it is crucial to discuss my position on this topic (Pezalla, Pettigrew & Miller-Day, 2012). I have an outsider status on this research. This status, according to Sherry can have an effect on a researchers entrance to the research field (Sherry, 2008: 434). I am not a member of the Navajo Nation or any Native American tribe. I am a white and not part of any racial minority. Thus, it is important to note that my interpretation of the data is my interpretation and not linked to the Navajo Nation. As a researcher I have a position and bias on this subject matter, I believe that the

(26)

Navajo Nation has a right and should be aided in the preservation of their culture. Even though I am aware of this position and biased with respect to this subject, I will use that knowledge to be as objective as possible.

6.3.3 Validity and Reliability 6.3.3.1 Validity

6 and Bellamy define validity as having two aspects: external and internal validity (6 and Bellamy 2012: 259). External validity, according to 6 and Bellamy, “is a standard of

correspondence with facts” (ibid: 259). This also suggests whether the research findings can be generalized and applied to more situations. External validity is lower in this research due to the fact that it is socially constructivist research, meaning it is a subjective research project. The research study findings will most likely be one perspective/interpretation of the data and thus in nature be subjective and not easily generalized or applied to other situations. According to 6 and Bellamy, internal validity “measures the extent to which the inference supported by the research is well designed to eliminate bias” (ibid: 259). This is important for the researcher to keep in mind when analyzing the data. No preconceived notions or bias’ should have an effect on the interpretation of the data. Validity is also concerned with the research actually answering the research questions. Even though this research uses proxies, the methods and the data analysis do lead to the research questions being answered. Therefore, the methodology of this research is valid.

6.3.3.2 Reliability

Reliability is “the extent to which results are consistent over time and an accurate representation of the total population under study…and if the results of a study can be reproduced under a similar methodology, then the research instrument is considered reliable” (Joppe, 2000: 1). In qualitative research, because of its subjective nature, it is not guaranteed that researchers who reproduce a study will get the same results, however, this does not mean that qualitative studies are not reliable. 6 and Bellamy break down reliability into two aspects: applicability and

(27)

interpretation to the data, and it’s transferability to other domains that are similar in relevant respects” (ibid: 261). Qualitative research can have high applicability if it is transparent in its methods. This research is transparent with its research methods. It is transparent because this thesis explains the steps that are taken in order to collect and analyze the data. It is a case study and policy analysis, both valid methods and also applicable to the research. Consistency, according to 6 and Bellamy, is the “ability of other researchers to follow the methods used to build the interpretation; and the dependability of the ways they are applied” (ibid: 261). The transparency of the methods makes it possible for other researchers to conduct the same research, however, since it is social constructivist research the interpretation of the data can differ. Thus, when weighing the applicability side and the consistency side of reliability, the overall the reliability of this research is at a good level.

7. Findings and Analysis 7.1. Education

Education is a proxy for culture because it is closely tied to Navajo language and history. Schools are an important aspect when it comes to learning the history and the language. This is especially important for the Navajo Nation. Most of the Navajo Nation’s history and traditions are tied to their language and much is passed from generation to generation through oral history. Thus, losing their language would be losing part of their culture. This is because the Navajo Nation has a considerable amount of oral history, traditions, and religious activities that require a member to speak the language. The policy that will be analyzed is the Obama Administration’s Navajo Nation agreement of 2016 (U.S. Department of Education, 2016).

7.1.1 Education Background Policies

In the mid-1800s, the U.S. federal government forced Navajo children to go to federal boarding schools. In these boarding schools, they were forced to learn English, to dress like a white man, and to learn to be “civilized” (Tapahonso, 2016). The goals of these schools were to assimilate Native Americans to the “American way of life” and eradicate Native American culture. These Navajo children were punished for speaking their native language and punished for being “native” (ibid). The Navajo were not taught about their history, language, or culture. This is an

(28)

example of forced assimilation (ibid). In 1975 the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act was passed. This policy allowed Native American tribes to work with the federal government to provide education and services to tribe members (Department of the Interior and Department of Health and Human Services, 1975). However, even after this act passed Navajo children were still being forced into boarding schools. These boarding schools existed for more than 100 years. It was only in the 1990s after Congress passed a law to protect Native American languages (The Native American Language Act of 1990) that Native American tribes like the Navajo Nation were involved in the education system of their children. This policy again let Native American tribes work with and mostly under the federal government. This act did; however, embed Navajo history and culture into the education curriculum of reservation schools (Tapahonso, 2016).

7.1.2. Current Policy: The Navajo Nation Agreement of 2016

The Navajo Nation Agreement was implemented in 2016 by the Obama administration. This specific policy was part of a larger policy giving Native American Tribes more resources (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). The Navajo Nation Agreement granted the Navajo Nation’s “request to implement an alternative system of accountability for schools” (ibid). This agreement was granted by the Department of Education and the Department of the Interior. It allows the Navajo Nation to take (more) control of the 66 schools that are on reservation land in Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico (ibid).

Through this policy the Navajo Nation can:

Adopt and implement the same set of college-and-career-ready content standards in reading/language, arts, and mathematics in all its schools, rather than implementing the standards and assessments of each individual state where schools are located; Select and administer an assessment that will be comparable across Navajo schools in New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona; Set and use its own high school graduation rate targets and attendance for elementary and middle schools in its accountability system (ibid).

(29)

The alternative accountability system launched today provides a plan to replace a cumbersome multi-state system and promote unified and rigorous standards, curriculum, and student assessments that reflect the academic and cultural values of the Navajo community. Recognizing the Navajo Nation's right to govern tribally-controlled schools is another step in the President's Generation Indigenous initiative to reform the Bureau of Indian Education system, raise student achievement, and advance tribal

self-determination and support tribal sovereignty (ibid).

Dr. Lewis, the Superintendent of Schools, at the Department of Diné Education Administration, said that with the implementation of this policy, “Navajo child[ren] regardless of where they reside on the reservation will have equal standards and will enjoy a strong curriculum that highlights Diné language, history and culture” (Lewis and Benally, 2016).

The Navajo Agreement also distributed 24.9 million U.S. dollars for tribal education projects as well as laying down groundwork and rules for schools not on the Navajo reservation with a student population that is half or more Native American (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). These off-reservation schools plan to create partnerships with the Navajo Nation so they can help develop cultural identities as well as provide a standard of education. On the University level funds were also allocated in this agreement (ibid). Both Northern Arizona University and the University of Arizona received funds to assist, develop, and support Native American students. Navajo leaders believe that this agreement of support will “make amends for years when tribal language and culture were stifled and Native American students were not given quality

educational opportunities” (Caulfield, 2016). The President of the Navajo nation at the time of this agreement Begaye said: “We have been wanting to do this for quite a number of years because we have the capacity to become a state-level education system” (Lewis and Benally, 2016).

(30)

7.1.3. Analysis of The Navajo Nation Agreement of 2016

Education in the U.S. is regulated and created by the state. Since the Navajo Nation spans three states this creates three different educational systems on the reservation. This education system also did not teach the Navajo language or go in-depth about Navajo history and traditions. The Navajo Nation Agreement gives the Navajo Nation the power to create and control the education system and schools on the Navajo reservation (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Kymlicka (1995) believes that everyone has the right to culture; however, not necessarily their own culture. If a minority is the victim of “unchosen inequality” Kymlicka believes that they do have the right to their own culture (ibid: 113-115). The Navajo Nation is also an example of “unchosen

inequality”. The Navajo Nation was in North America before the United States became a country and without their consent, they were incorporated into the U.S. society. They became a minority but not by choice. Therefore, according to Kymlicka, they have “a valid claim, not only to tolerance and non-discrimination but also to explicit accommodation, recognition and representation within the institutions of larger society” (ibid: 147). The “explicit accommodation” in this case is the Navajo Nation Agreement.

This approval of control of their own educational system is a multiculturalist act. Kymlicka believes that culture is important for personal autonomy, self-identity and a sense of belonging (Kymlicka, 1995). Allowing the Navajo Nation to control the education of their youth instead of forcefully assimilating the youth through education is protecting Navajo Culture. In reservation schools, Navajo youth learn about Navajo history, culture, and learn the language (Lewis and Benally, 2016). This act gives the Navajo Nation a level of self-governance, which is one of the types of rights that Kymlicka believes certain minority groups should have to protect their culture (Kymlicka, 1995). This act gives the Navajo Nation external protection from the mainstream through the control of education.

The effect of this liberal multicultural education policy for the Navajo Nation is that the Navajo language is growing again (Thompson and Brock, 2015). There has been an increased number of tribe members speaking native Navajo since the implementations of education policies that

(31)

incorporate the Navajo Nation and allow for a certain degree of self-governance (ibid). This allowed the Navajo Nation to have Navajo language classes in their schools. Out of all Native American languages, Navajo is the most robust today (ibid). It is hard to attribute this fact of language increase only to this policy. The Native American Language Act of 1990 was

implemented to help protect Native American languages. However, this is also a multicultural policy. Therefore, it is safe to say that multicultural policies on language and education have aided the preservation and increase the Navajo language.

Communitarian multiculturalism also applies to this case. Like Kymlicka, communitarian multiculturalist scholars argue that people have a right to their own culture (Maraglit and Halbertal, 2004: 537). Communitarian multiculturalist like Margalit and Halbertal believe that the right to one’s culture is the same as “the right to maintain a way of life” (ibid: 537). This right of culture and maintaining one's way of life is available to a group and not individuals, according to communitarian multiculturalists. As they state, “[t]he right to culture is, thus, not only the right to identify with a group but the right to secure one’s personality identity” (ibid: 539).

Communitarian multiculturalism applies to the Navajo Agreement. It benefits a group and not an individual and helps maintain a culture and a way of life. Communitarian multiculturalists believe that special rights and privileges should be given to protect culture not only when a culture or an aspect of culture is in danger of disappearing but also when that culture is difficult to maintain without help (ibid: 545).

Communitarian multiculturalists are concerned with the freedom of exit. They believe everyone has the right to leave a culture when they wish too and should have the rights and the abilities to do so (Maraglit and Halbertal, 2004). In actual fact, it can be very difficult to leave one’s culture even with the right tools. However, it is important that people have the right and are prepared. The Navajo Agreement Act gives control of the education system to the Navajo Nation. This means the Navajo Nation can control what is taught and the grading system. It does not need to be the same as the state’s education system. This could pose potential problems when trying to get into higher education. However, the Navajo Nation has expressed the desire that their students get as educated as possible. Former President Begaye said that the educational system

(32)

would be like a “state-level education system” (Lewis and Benally, 2016). This means that all Navajo students that complete their education on the Navajo Nation reservation can go on to public and private universities. Communitarian multiculturalism applies to this case because it helps with the “freedom of exit”, as the education gives Navajo youth the tools to be able to qualify for university and jobs outside of the reservation (Maraglit and Halbertal, 2004).

Due to the fact that the Navajo have control over their educational system, this policy is not assimilation. The education system is helping the Navajo preserve their culture. That level of self-governing and sovereignty is multicultural. Thus assimilation does not apply in this case.

Kymlicka’s liberal multiculturalism is the most applicable form of multiculturalism in this case as Kymlicka believes that Native American groups are entitled to special group rights in the form of self-governance (Kymlicka, 1995: 113-115). The Navajo Agreement policy is giving the Navajo Nation that level of self-governance in education. Communitarian multiculturalism can also be applied because communitarian multiculturalist scholars believe in special

accommodation of groups (Maraglit and Halbertal, 2004).

One of the critiques of this type of multiculturalism and special rights is the feminist-individual critique. This critique argues that multiculturalism increases the vulnerability of women and children and that the special rights keep internal power structures in place (patriarchy) (Moller Okin, 1998). Giving control of the education system to the Navajo Nation, individual-feminists would argue that this could perpetuate power structures and stereotypes that are harmful to minorities within the Navajo Nation (ibid). However, traditionally, the Navajo Nation is a

matriarchal society. Women own property and resources and have many rights within the Navajo Nation (Indian Health Service, 2019). These rights include that land and resources in households are owned legally by women and when a parent or multiple parents die, the children go to the women’s side of the family (ibid). Therefore, multiculturalism, in this case, is not protecting the internal power structure of patriarchy in place, instead, it is helping preserve a culture which supports a matriarchal society.

(33)

7.2. Land Ownership

Land ownership which subsequently also relates to resource ownership is the second proxy in this research. Land is tied to religion and spirituality. The current policy on land ownership of the Navajo Nation reservation, Navajoland, is trust land.

7.2.1 Land Ownership Background Policies

The relationship the Navajo people have with the land is best described by Mary T. Begay, a Navajo elder, who said “Our way of life is our religion and our teaching. If we are relocated by force, we will die slowly. The people would not be in balance with Mother Earth and Sky Father and the spiritual people. In every way, here we are connected to the land. We belong

here” (Luther, 2017). The Navajo people perceive the earth as their spiritual mother. Land and religion are intertwined for the Navajo. “Navajo religion is defined by relationships to specific geographical places”, these include burial sites, sacred sites for religious events, and ancestral places (ibid). Before the European colonizers came to the American continent, the Navajo lived in harmony with the land (ibid). The Navajo people had no sense of land ownership. The land belongs to the spiritual mother and the Navajo were there to take care of the land. No individual person owned a particular piece of land (ibid). The closest the Navajo came to land ownership was fighting with other tribes for hunting grounds. The idea of property and owning land was brought by the European colonizers (ibid).

In 1864, the Navajo were forced off their land and moved into a camp. Then in 1868, the Navajo and the U.S. federal government signed the treaty which gave them reservation land in their ancestral homeland (Native Voices, n.d.). This land was held by the tribe but owned by the federal government of the U.S (ibid). Since the 1868 treaty, the Navajo have received more land. In 1887, the Dawes Act came into effect. The Dawes Act (General Allotment Act) broke up reservation land into smaller allotments which could be sold to individual tribe members. The purpose of this act was to protect Indian property rights during the western expansion of

The Cultural Preservation of the Navajo Nation. A multicultural and assimilation policy analysis on the Navajo Nation and cultural preservation