Alkon and Agyemans Cultivating Food Justice, Essay Example

The Simple Joys Criminalized: The Karuk Right to Recognition as a Minority

The casual explanation of “To the victor goes the spoils” oversimplifies the problems which the indigenous Karuk people of California faced during and after the massive white majority immigration of the 1800’s. Explicitly, the Karuk land simply took in new arrivals, who then paid handsomely for the specialized fishing skills and other resources of the tribe, and, as often happens, everything that the Karuk once owned and worked fell under the ruthless determination to fulfill the “manifest destiny” vision of the United States. The Karuk assets and skin color set the white majority in power against them so firmly that their generosity in welcoming strangers to the area precipitated their struggle to survive. In America and through much of Europe, the only sustainable right of land, property, and lifestyle belonged to white male landowners, who considered any indigenous people as little better than animals. At least their animals had land to roam and food to eat.

Not all indigenous groups settled anywhere- much less in a place where the game and natural food and foraging produced a rich and healthy variety which was fit for meeting all of their needs and producing extra for trading. However, their roots to the land provided them with cultural traditions which equipped them to deal with the natural circumstances faced in that area- not with the influx of technologies which would change the availability of the natural resources. The Karuk people who settled in California and fished for rarer catches like sturgeons and salmon, and lived like royalty until- as practically every indigenous group before them- the majority swept in and overwhelmed their paradise. The marginalization of minority groups- and especially black or ‘tribal’ members- reached the Karuks and devastated them. Laying aside the issues of ownership of land, the basic rights to public use of natural resources limited the Karuk ability to provide for themselves in the only ways that they had ever known. California proposed treaties in the mid-1850’s, and these were accepted on good faith. This white system of government equaled nothing in the Karuk practices; these people knew nothing of degrees of commitment and government going through stages and steps to reach a binding decision. Knowing the importance of trust, reliability, and honesty to the Karuk, the modern reader may conclude that white political ploys and deceptions are a racialized majority part of decision-making. (33-34) In other words, the values which the Karuk subscribed to were the same as the Christian majority. The deception was about race, land, and money.

After the majority colonization of their indigenous Californian lands, the Karuk people today can expect to earn about twenty thousand dollars per year- far below the amount necessary for a comfortable family life. (Alkon and Agyeman 23) To add insult to injury, the fish which the Karuks ate and sold became rarer in the Klamath river after the construction of many dams in the area. The indigenous Karuks of this land of abundance require government assistance to receive enough food today, and the irony of this situation does not overpower a pattern of complaisance toward the displaced tribal groups throughout the world. (24) The authors credit three major courses of action with this sudden change in the Karuk tribesmen’s fortunes: 1) the legal lack of acceptance for Karuk fishing and land rights, 2) the regulation of water, and 3) the licensing of dams which disrupt the natural ecosystem of Karuk lands. (24-27) These changes minimized Karuk lands and access to fish, nuts, and water, but other laws directed at all Americans further limited their options for survival. (33-35)

Majority domination went even further. After these three majority changes challenged the Karuk way of life, these families often lost their children to schools which forced American English on them or to social organizations which deemed them unfit. (36-38) Alkon and Agyeman write about the casual arrangements made for children from the ages of six to eighteen, children who would be “separated from families at young ages and taken to Bureau of Indian Affairs boarding schools… for the specific purpose of assimilation. Boarding schools… were mandated.” (37) This forced assimilation ensured that the tribe’s ways would not survive free of American majority influence. Australian aboriginal people faced the same consequences- even when the second-class citizens among the white majority, the prisoners, colonized along their shores. The racialization of the ancient occupants of any minority group ignores the virtues of some of these differences.

American majority influence deprived the Karuk people of their rights, the cherished cultural traditions established and maintained through their customs of survival (Karuk management, harvest practices, and social structure), their distinct language, and their own children. For American parents, such intrusions would be unthinkable and protected under the law. While the majority has its rights to control the policies throughout its lands, it does not have the right to make restrictive policies which virtually eliminate an indigenous tribal group. The white majority historically eliminates the indigenous people based on an assumption that their way of life is ‘civilized’ or right and sometimes even comes in the form of people who truly want to help. The white majority America victimized the Karuk families and still profits.

Works Cited

Alkon, Allison Hope, and Julian Agyeman. Cultivating Food Justice: Race, Class, And Sustainability. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2011.