Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery
Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery
S04E03: Reclaiming Sacred Ground: Indigenous Sovereignty, Environmental Wisdom, and the Path to Restorative Justice with Patrick Gonzalez-Rogers
Discover the lingering shadows of the Doctrine of Discovery as we journey through the historical and modern challenges Indigenous nations face, particularly in safeguarding sacred sites like Bears Ears. Joined by Patrick Gonzalez-Rogers of the Yale School of Environment, Philip P. Arnold Arnold from the Skä•noñh Great Law Peace Center, and Sandy Bigtree of the Mohawk Nation, we unearth the cultural significance these lands hold and the urgency for conservation efforts that honor Indigenous spirituality and sovereignty. Our conversation reveals the depths of exploitation that persist while advocating for policies that truly respect the voices and rights of Native American communities.
Embrace a future where humanity and nature coexist in harmony as we draw upon the wisdom of Indigenous environmental stewardship. By acknowledging the interconnectedness of all life, we challenge the prevailing narrative of human dominance over the natural world. Delving into traditional ecological knowledge, we discuss how reshaping our environmental laws and policies through Indigenous perspectives can lead to sustainable solutions that cherish the Earth for future inhabitants. Our discourse, informed by the richness of Native American philosophies, paints a vision of resource management that nurtures rather than depletes.
In the spirit of healing and justice, we examine the transformative potential of restorative justice and land reparations in mending the wounds left by centuries of colonial policies. We highlight the importance of concrete measures, like land return by religious denominations, as steps towards genuine restitution for Indigenous communities. Our dialogue with historians, attorneys, and thought leaders at Yale opens up discussions on legal and political strategies for righting historical wrongs. As we share insights from conversations with bishops, we sense an emerging willingness to turn apologies into action—signaling a hopeful shift toward reconciliation and balance. Join us as we honor these crucial narratives and the pursuit of a more equitable future.
View the transcript and show notes at podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org. Learn more about the Doctrine of Discovery on our site DoctrineofDiscovery.org.
Hello and welcome to the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery podcast. The producers of this podcast would like to acknowledge with respect the Onondaga Nation firekeepers of the Haudenosaunee, the indigenous peoples on whose ancestral lands Syracuse University now stands, and now introducing your hosts, phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree.
Speaker 2:Welcome back to Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery. My name's Phil Arnold. I'm faculty in the Department of Religion at Syracuse University and core faculty in Native American Indigenous Studies and the founding director of the Scano Great Law Peace Center.
Speaker 3:And I'm Sandy Bigtree, a citizen of the Mohawk Nation at Akwesasne, and I'm on the collaborative for the Scano Center and the Board of the Indigenous Values Initiative.
Speaker 2:And we're coming to you today, sponsored by the Henry Luce Foundation, and we really appreciate their continued support for this important conversation we're having Today. We're super happy to have Patrick Gonzalez-Rogers join us, and Patrick was kind enough to invite Sandy and myself out to Yale to give a presentation to his class you know last year and I think we really we really got to know a lot of good people there.
Speaker 3:The students were so engaged and well informed, so it was really one of our better experiences with such interaction from the students. Good job.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and so, patrick, I'll just let you introduce yourself. You know you can talk about what you're doing there at Harvard, or sorry? Yeah, oh, my gosh, I'm sorry to make that mistake. Yeah. Bite your tongue what you're doing out there in Yale.
Speaker 3:Yeah, just begin yeah.
Speaker 2:And then and then, and let us know what your work is currently.
Speaker 4:Yeah, so Pat Gonzalez Rogers. I'm a faculty at the Yale School of Environment. I teach a class this semester around tribal natural resources and sovereignty and I think it's worthwhile to just explain a bit about my background so people have a context to how I come about a lot of this. So, previous to Yale, I was the inaugural executive director of the Bears Ears Intertribal Coalition and have previously held more than a few jobs within the federal kind of apparatus, mainly along the lines of being the Senior Native Advisor for several federal agencies. But I've also served as the Assistant General Counsel to the US Senate Indian Affairs Committee and the Director of Federal Relations for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
Speaker 4:That said, while I do most of my work within Indian country, I always am clear I'm not Native American, I am Indigenous, I'm on my mom's side, both Tagalog, which is the largest indigenous group to the Philippines, as well as being Samoan.
Speaker 4:So you know, a lot of my work is really within the intersect and kind of construct of conservation and environmental issues, hence the Bears Ears Intertribal Coalition. But you know, one of the foundational pieces as I present the history of Indian law and policy and again this is within the context of the School of Environment is to really set a foundation towards those things that really set up the underpinnings and cornerstones to contemporary policy. And I think it comes as a surprise to many that the doctrine of discovery is not just this kind of historical affectation. It is living with us today and is quite prominent towards how we view, operate and implement many of the aspects of the federal trust relationship which are at the primacy to the government-to-government relationship, how every tribe conducts its business, and so I say that as a kind of a bit of framing for the rest of our conversation today, that's very helpful, thank you.
Speaker 3:Well, it's really difficult when, under the doctrines of discovery, colonists came into our territories and targeted sacred places. In Mexico, many of the sacred pyramids were leveled and the rubble was actually used to construct churches so they could shift the spiritual control of the narrative there in those places. So we see that with Mount Rushmore, those mountains were sacred to the Lakota, and then Bears Ears as well. Right?
Speaker 2:And many other sites all over the country. Yeah, maybe you could talk about Bears Ears and help fill in our audience what's going on there. You know historically and then recently.
Speaker 4:Yeah, let me just take a step backwards here. Let me just take a step backwards here, and this is kind of a foundational piece for maybe some of the listeners that may not have the kind of background to see how problematic this is. So we have the doctrine of discovery right, and Phil, you're a much, much more erudite and nuanced expert. But in many ways the doctrine of discovery is the template of modern genocide. It is one, the conquering of lands. Then two, saying that your particular theology, your God, is flaccid, it is insufficient. Let me replace it. And then telling the people to assimilate, and then telling the people to assimilate, and then followed by violence, the violence about snatching children away from their immediate family, the sexual assault of the women, and then doing this under the kind of guise that we have something better to offer. Right, and I think we've seen this play out in a kind of a contemporary global aspect did a 180 pivot and said we're now going to offer up Indian lands to private concerns and you can buy them. But what many people do not know is they had these intermediaries, and these intermediaries were not objective or balanced and in many times they were just crooked. But the biggest contingency of those intermediaries were churches. They were Christian denominations that then stepped in the road because they wanted to create land bases and still go about the business of proselytizing native people. And so in this period which, you know, you don't have to be a liberal or a conservative or anything in between was a very unproductive period in which millions of acres were lost by tribal communities, but the biggest benefactors were the Christian denominations, because they stepped in and then assumed the role of both negotiations as well as acquiring lands for their own vested interests. And so now you again have this continual kind of methodical process of taking away the real spiritual and theological kinds of values from these Native communities. And so let's fast forward.
Speaker 4:When we think about the Bears Ears, in many ways what we're trying to say is not only are tribes really valuable, productive and efficient land stewards. By advancing and elevating tribes as a co-manager to a national monument, you are really exercising this really profound force multiplier. And the other elements of that force multiplier is having traditional and native ways instruct the land management plan, which invariably allow for a greater birth of cultural and native practice on the landscape. The problem, as both Sandy and Phil know, is we view all of this within the Western construct of law right, and so the thing that has kind of plagued us all these years is this really nebulous term called substantial burden. But that substantial burden, ie substantial burden for that community to worship, is defined by Western standards and largely by a Judeo-Christian kind of instruction to all that. And I would say to all my brethren in Judaism it's largely Christian and very little Judaism on that, so it is a Christian construct to what creates a substantial burden and why that's so important to the conversation is from a native kind of perspective.
Speaker 4:We are not trying to make specific identification of a nave, of a stained window, of a confessional, of a pew. The entrance to a landscape like the Bears Ears, which is incredibly vast, is the gully that you walk in through a creek, the mesa that you climb, the enclosure that you get to has an equanimity to it and that equanimity creates the sacredness. Now that same kind of sensibility is incredibly valuable from a conservation, because now we are not trying to protect a 20 by 20 space, we are trying to protect a 15 mile radius relative to it. But what it says is all elements are sacred, they are just as meaningful to where the actual kind of ceremony or practice might be, and so, from a Western perspective, what they really want to do is create consistency and durability, but they also want to be really specific, right? So they want to say, oh, the overhang is important, so let's just protect that.
Speaker 4:And the reality is, the totality of landscape is the thing that creates this element to native people in which they want to protect, and so I think the better way to think about it is, if you had an entryway to a synagogue, you wouldn't defecate on it, you wouldn't have graffiti on it, and the entryway is just as important as the inner sanctum. And so we need to look at the totality, but also the sensibility of the people that actually worship, and so, in many ways, the Bears Ears is a great manifestation of that, because it allows the five tribes involved to not only have their particular idiosyncratic sensibility because not all tribes are you know, this is not monolithic but it also then allows us to protect the landscape in a much more comprehensive way. So, in many ways, you're getting a twofer off of that. You're protecting the total landscape and you're protecting everything inside of that. I just discovered that was the Utah delegation.
Speaker 2:That was so valuable, pat. I really appreciate that whole kind of exposition of really the problem of religion. I'd say I mean a problem of defining religion into kind of narrow Western sort of framework that we have in the academic study of religion. How do Indigenous people really participate in that worldview? It doesn't fit and this is why so many of our Supreme Court cases over the last 40 years really don't have any teeth when it comes to defending these sacred places. Right, if you look at federal Indian law, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act really has not helped in protecting these sacred places and I'm wondering if that's kind of what we're dealing with when it comes to the kind of fallout around sacred places like the Bears Ears, you know. I mean the integrity of a landscape has to be present, it's not just a single spot where they might perform ceremonies at certain times of the year.
Speaker 3:It's a reciprocal relationship with the natural world. The natural world is a reciprocal engagement.
Speaker 4:Yeah, and so, Sandy, I think you make the perfect segue. You know, to me another great example is Mauna Kea is sacred in many different ways for Native Hawaiians, including. It is the place where they do burials. But it also is representative of this dynamic of Stop for a sec, we can edit that out.
Speaker 4:Okay, one second, just let it. Hey, I'm on an interview right now, yeah, yeah, speaking of religion and Jehovah Witness, they must have heard something, so you know where I was going to go with. This is Mauna Kea. Also represents this triangulation that is really reflective in many Native theologies, but for Native Hawaiians it is Keakua, god right, kekanaka, the people, and aina, the land. And so this representation on how it has equilibrium just go to the other side of the mountain, or why don't you just find some alternative so that substantial burden again is defined by their kind of what they think is a burden and not viewing it again in the totality of what that means to the people? And all these relationships really kind of define their spirituality.
Speaker 2:Well, that's great.
Speaker 3:Western religions are more ideological. They're not in this relationship with the natural world and in contact. I mean, it was crucial to penetrate this way of life and you talk about tribal governments today this way of life and you talk about tribal governments today. Many of those tribal chiefs came through the Bureau of Indian Affairs system, but they were selected predominantly because those were children who'd gone through the boarding school experience and had a lot of their culture stripped from them. So it's a very complicated, you know, series of problems in Indian country today because of the wrath of colonialism and what it did culturally.
Speaker 2:I think, too, what you're describing also is, you know, blatantly apparent. The doctrine of discovery is blatantly apparent in our environmental laws and policies, right? So the way that we tend to regard the natural world is as resource rather than as relation, right? And so I think what you're describing here is also a kind of worldview that impacts these sacred places, you know, like Bears, Ears and other spots Onondaga Lake, for example and I wonder if you see that there's a relationship between the doctrine of discovery and environmental law and policy.
Speaker 4:Yeah, most certainly right. So you know, the doctrine of discovery is the extension of a Western European sensibility, but the introduction of the legal fiction of private land ownership. And so, from a Native perspective, you know, we are all, in most instances, merely stewards, right, we are custodians of the land. And one of the first things, you know, I talked to the students about and I said you do not have to be Native. But if you ask me, one thing on how you can be a better steward is to revisit your relationship with both land, water and, to a certain extent, sentient objects. And when you view them as an extension of yourself, right, it becomes much more intimate. And by taking care of these things we are essentially taking care of ourselves, right.
Speaker 4:But I also think, you know, in a kind of a political kind of correctness, we have now said that man is the problem. But you know from, I think, from an indigenous perspective, when you have this concept that land and water and extension of yourself, you then can also say man can also be part of the solution, and you do not bifurcate this, right, because we are a part of this, we are a part of this, and so we can then add to it and not just be, you know, looking from it from just an academic window or a kind of a non-interested, you know, pedestrian perspective, and so it compels us in a way that we can be much more engaged, and I think our relationships with land and water then become both, you know, figuratively, as well as literally, much healthier.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I wondered about that. I mean, as you were speaking, what would it look like to have environmental law and policy? I mean, you've worked in Washington at a kind of urgent moment when students and others are really trying to think of a different way that we can be, that we can exist in this world, right, that human beings need to be in a better kind of relationship with one another, but also with the earth. You know, as Taradaho Sid Hill says here in Haudenosaunee territory, peace is only established when human beings are in proper relationship to the natural world. So this isn't a kind of puritanical notion or something that follows John Muir or somebody where you know the natural world has to be, remain untouched by humans. Rather, it's a different way of thinking about economics, of sane use of the earth, right? So I wonder Engagement, yeah, engagement with the earth. So how do you see, as somebody who's training students in this area, how do you see us moving forward with a new set of values? Us moving forward, you know, with a new set of values.
Speaker 4:Well, I think the biggest thing that you know comes to mind when I think about conservation from an indigenous perspective and really driven by that kind of precept, is durability and sustainability. We use those as buzzwords right now, but in reality Native people knew that all natural resources have a limitation, and that's not to say Native people were perfect in every instance. But because of traditional knowledge in at least one corner is steeped in the observational knowledge of what occurs over generations and decades, they were able to acquire information that they could then pass down to say if you did this, you may have the utilization of a waterway for 20 or 30 years, but if you did it this other way, it might be indefinite into the future, and so it really hallmarks that. You know, while people hear these terms like seven and eight generations out, it was at the kind of seven and eight generations out. It was at the kind of you know, the foundation of how they thought about conservation and the environment, because they knew they had to pass that down, and so it in many ways dilutes the kind of oh, you know what I call shooting for Q4. And that is.
Speaker 4:Oh, you know what I call shooting for Q4, and that is, can we make a profitability out of this? And then we will regroup and think about the future of everyone else. And so instead, what you're saying is our primary kind of goal is to preserve and pass it down better, and when you have that as your initial goal, you then are really in this kind of mode of real conservation and being stewards of the land, and so the first thing I think about in that is that that is a very durable way to manage lands and waters, and I'm rather certain the paradigms and models that we use now relative to most extraction, people cannot say with a straight face, there is a durability and sustainability to it. Straight face, there is a durability and sustainability to it. They're looking at such kind of small like elements of time on how they want to utilize it, and it usually has some profit margin or a dividend or a share kind of incentive to it, which really then confuse the objectives of conservation and environment.
Speaker 1:Do you need help catching up on today's topic or do you want to learn more about the resources mentioned? If so, please check our website at podcastdoctrineofdiscoveryorg for more information and, if you like this episode, review it on Apple, Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts. And now back to the conversation.
Speaker 3:When you interject that the earth is regenerative, it's ever-changing. Species die, species are born. It's a whole different connection to the earth. You can foretell what kind of fish will appear in the stream when they breed, by a certain wildflower that may be blooming I mean the Haudenosaunee, for example, had this language, as all Native people do. You know the world speaks to them and how things are changing and the rhythms and times, which are not according to a calendar, but they're according to these cycles of life. So it's so interactive and it's really hard to say. You can manage anything, but you need to tap into that regenerative machine of creation that we're part of.
Speaker 2:Right, right yeah.
Speaker 4:So, you know, one of the things and I haven't got to both of you and I was going to kind of tell you about is so one of the things that I'm working with at Yale now is doing something, probably in the fall where we would bring folks like yourself, but also with other people that you know may be more based from the historical, but also attorneys, to see if there is not a legal remedy, at least for tribes in the US as well as Alaska Natives, relative to the doctrine of discovery, I think we have had really robust discussions that really kind of provide a summation on the implications and what we are now living with. The thing that we have not done is figure out is there a way to confront the involved denominations on restoring tribal nations? And the reason why I say that is this is really. I think about it in a fairly simplistic way, as I do most things, I'm not the most nuanced thinker, but it is like an apology, right, it is, I am sorry. Two, this will not happen again. But three, and this is, you know, analogous to restorative justice, which is a Christian precept to all of these denominations. How can I make you whole? And so, while Mennonites, quakers and even the Catholic Church have apologized. They have not satisfied that third element, which is probably the most important how have I made these other parties whole for actions that I am culpable for? And so the convening would be to really kind of put in the thinkers of this world and maybe to get audience with these denominations to say is it there a pathway? Now, the reason I mentioned this one this is kind of your guy's life work, so I would like your engagement.
Speaker 4:But the other portion is portion is. I think if we can get the denominations, especially the Mennonites and Quakers, to move, it might create leverage to the Catholic Church. All of that is important. But I also think there's an organic, natural kind of segue to land back. All of these denominations have large land holdings, and so if they're talking about are we ever going to make Indian country totally whole no, that's not possible, it's too vast amount. But can they do in some way start returning lands, because we now have the apparatus to do? Can we start this conversation Because really, at the end of the day, relative to your own doctrinaire, you have not satisfied what is required. What do you think about that? I mean to reverse the role of the interviewing.
Speaker 3:Phil and Sandy Absolutely Returning land to Indigenous people who understand this proper relationship is only going to free up the land and help everybody to begin recovering from this disconnection that's been dumped on everybody through colonialism and the church.
Speaker 2:Unfortunately, you were not part of our Doctrine of Discovery conference last December and you should have been, but we had lawyers there and their whole orientation now is how do you put before the Supreme Court the doctrine of discovery Maybe not this Supreme Court, but you know, how do you test the doctrine of discovery, which, as we know, is part of property law, Doctrine of Discovery, which, as we know, is part of property law. The other part of what we did at the conference was we had a bishops panel where Lutheran, Episcopalian and Catholic bishops were on the stage in front of all these indigenous peoples and then they were responded to by Haudenosaunee leaders, a clan mother and someone who sat on the chief's council for 25 years, and essentially what came up was exactly what you're talking about, Pat. Was that essentially okay? Apologies are great. We've had over 350 you know repudiations of the doctrine of discovery. Now, what you know? Now, what are we going to do? It's a little like our universities giving land acknowledgements, you know and then no, and then now?
Speaker 2:what do we do now? What are you going to do about it? Sort of thing.
Speaker 4:Yeah, you make, as always, phil, a very nuanced point, and so the more I think about this. But I would like the convening to really instruct it, as opposed to, you know, some kind of guttural instinct, but my sense is it is less legal and more political. Right, there's a kind of a political thing that must occur, and so I agree with everything you say. But I think, like everything, we need to then really approach this from an iterative process and then set the stage for a dialogue that continues on the dialogue that you have and saying, all right, it might be a hard toll to kind of if you're thinking about you knowaterally kind of agree, this is the right thing to do, that's what they did.
Speaker 2:So the bishops in the Q&A in that panel basically admitted yes, that's what we're doing, those are the next steps. We are going to return land to the Onondaga Nation, right. So we got those verbal assent to what the next steps are going to be. So I think that's what you're describing as a kind of political shift, but that's also a kind of value shift within these Christian denominations, right, and it's across the board. And these are big denominations, you know, these are mainline churches, you know so. And, as you say, they have major land holdings across the country and it goes right back to the early colonial period where they are the, as you said, the intermediaries between the evangelical or the missionization of Native people and the state right, the state takeover. So I think we have a basis for the kind of convening that you're suggesting there, pat. I think there's really some real possibilities.
Speaker 4:And I think there's an inflection point, and this is how I'll bring in back the Bears Ears. The inflection point of the Bears Ears is one of competency, and it's not that we needed the validation of the federal government or this kind of Western construct, but the federal trust relationship, right, is one really saying tribes are not competent? It is as if the federal government is viewing tribes as if they're Britney Spears. Right, you cannot make decisions. If it's a big thing, you got to run back to Papa and we got to decide for you. Now there's a little wrinkle to this and both you and Sandy know this. So, while they're doing this and preaching assimilation, the single biggest feature of assimilation they did not give to tribes is fee, simple ownership over the lands.
Speaker 4:So the single biggest component to acquiring legacy wealth was then not given to tribes while they're still talking all this BS that you should assimilate.
Speaker 4:So they basically say you all need to drive a car, but I'm not giving you any carburetor or nor will I give you any cylinders in the car. Right, they just want to give you the thing. But I'll go back to this kind of belabored point. When they said the tribes should be co-managers, they were really saying is we trust the competency of tribes? Is we trust the competency of tribes? And so it elevates it in a way, now that we can go on these other kind of attendant issues that are related to the doctrine of discovery, and what happened through these many denominations is to say you know you should give back these lands because we've always known this, but we're incredible stewards and custodians of lands and they will be well taken care of, Maybe even better taken care of than under your particular leadership. Historical kind of recognition of tribes being the first co-managers of a national monument, I think gives momentum to these other movements that have land back as part of their narrative no-transcript but that is not the case where we are from.
Speaker 3:So I have to just clarify the Onondaga. They never fell under that control. The FBI will not step foot on their territory unless they get permission or any police. There's no police state, there's no taxes, there's no prisons.
Speaker 2:So I mean. So we have a model here, I think, and even though recently there was the return of a thousand acres of land, the trust relationship is something that the Onondaga will not enter into with the federal government. They say essentially, either you're returning land or you're not, I mean, and it becomes part of our nation, or it doesn't. So there are steps that each individual case will have to be considered, but I think getting Christian denominations in this post-doctrine of discovery moment is a really good idea in these conversations about the return of land. I'm very excited about this.
Speaker 3:Post-era. Post-era.
Speaker 2:Post-era yeah.
Speaker 4:Yeah, and it's something that I think, like so many things that have a kind of political context, is, you know, sometimes you're just in the right place at the right time, and while it may have nothing to do with the you know the topic of the doctrine of discovery I think about during the Obama administration, where there became an opening that was very kind of apparent and vivid, in which he then could put into law about the legal rights for gay people in their communities, and so some of this is to constantly be on the vigil that we're creating a momentum, because when that opening appears it's not something that we've planned but we've been prepared for, and so, in reality, what I'm taking is, you know, the kind of conference that you did and then continuing answers at once, but it may instruct that we need to create an organization that is doing this 24-7 and having, you know, these kinds of conversations with all of these denominations, because I do think in some ways we're much closer than we have ever been, and so this is all kind of compounding through everyone's, both education as well as advocating through many conversations and doing our own kind of advocacy.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and I think it's such an important lesson really for students. I mean, you know, we're training the next generation of, you know, indigenous advocates for the environment, for the natural world, and I think, as you say, religion needs to step up, or these Christian denominations need to step up and really make a difference, because what we're facing, what's coming, is really going to be catastrophic if we don't start changing our practices quickly. So, yeah, I think there is also the urgency of the moment, as well as the kind of opportunity that has been handed us by previous people working on these issues.
Speaker 4:Right, you know, and I think about this, and I think that you know, many people don't realize how Native communities have pride, not equally, but they have pride in being an American. Pride not equally, but they have pride in being an American. They have pride in the community they're from. But the kind of greater landscape in which they're involved, and I can't help but think about the turmoil of the kind of challenge of those feelings. Right, you're here, but you're also under the foot of something, and this foot in some ways you still have love and pride for. And I think about, you know the words he was not native but they're still prescient words of Frederick Douglass. He was in these series of conversations back in the day with someone actually in, if I'm not mistaken, in Belfast, and he writes in thinking of America.
Speaker 4:I sometimes find myself admiring her bright blue sky, her grand old woods, her fertile fields, her beautiful rivers, her mighty lakes and star-crowned mountains. But my rapture is soon checked, my joy is soon turned to mourning when I remember that all is cursed with the infernal actions of slave-holding, robbery and wrong. When I remember, with the waters of her noblest rivers, the tears of my brethren are borne to the ocean, disregarded and forgotten, and that her most fertile fields drink daily of the warm blood of my outraged sisters, I am filled with unutterable loathing. You know that conflict is the thing. That, on a personal level, is what we're trying to do, right? We try to reconcile these relationships, and so we have to prompt the other party to do the right thing.
Speaker 3:And to really know equity and freedom.
Speaker 4:Exactly, exactly, sandy.
Speaker 3:And that was integrated into this whole forming of this nation when they met with Haudenosaunee Loyani, the men of the good mind. We don't have a hierarchy of chiefs. It's all about integration and coming together and thought and purpose and living in proper relationships. So everybody has that hope, but we've not experienced freedom and equity yet, right.
Speaker 2:What a great way to end our conversation. Pat, Really really appreciate you and all you're doing there, and we hope we can continue this conversation into the future.
Speaker 4:We will. I appreciate you guys and we'll be talking soon.
Speaker 3:Thank you so much.
Speaker 1:The producers of this podcast were Adam DJ Brett and Jordan Lone Colon. Our intro and outro is social dancing music by Oris Edwards and Regis Cook. This podcast is funded in collaboration with the Henry Luce Foundation, syracuse University and Hendricks Chapel and the Indigenous Values Initiative. If you like this episode, please check out our website and make sure to subscribe.
