Jessica Hill

Protected Species for Some, But Not for Others
Because Some People Are More Equal Than Others

Jessica Hill’s article, “An ongoing battle:  Tribal members still harassed for pursuing aboriginal fishing rights,” fails to pose certain uncomfortable questions.  

The article presents so-called tribal members as victims without spine.  And perhaps indeed that is what they’ve become; that is what they’ve been encouraged to become! 

Tribal member Marcus Hendricks says he has been getting harassed often lately while fishing for herring.  People will yell at him or call the police and say he is trespassing or fishing illegally.  One woman approached him last week without a mask on and began to holler at him to stop fishing, he said. 

Well, perhaps Hendricks should have responded with a “screw you, Karen!”  [Karen is slang for an entitled, obnoxious, middle-aged white woman.]. Did he have a mask on… or do natives not have to wear masks… in the name of Orwellian equal treatment under the law?  Hill mentions that some, perhaps many, people (i.e., non-aboriginals) are unaware “of aboriginal rights to fish and harvest.”  But she fails to wonder how special rights for some people reinforce the constitutional notion of equality, a supposed basic right in America.  Indeed, when will all people finally experience equal rights under the law?  How does giving more rights to aboriginals or any other group serve the important notion of equality under the law?  Clearly, it does not!  

Since January, the Massachusetts Environmental Police have received 12 calls from the public for alleged violations in state herring runs that were ultimately found to be tribal members legally harvesting fish, according to Craig Gilvarg, press secretary for the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. 

Well, I was unaware that the state had a special police force for the environment.  Will it soon also have a Massachusetts Harassment Police force to respond to people who complain that somebody called them a name?  Are we not heading in that direction, in the direction where freedom of expression becomes a “harassment incident”?  Isn’t the term “harassment” being thrown around like “racism” to the point where it becomes nonsensical?  Hill further reports that “Hendricks said there are no repercussions for people who harass tribal members while fishing.”  But “harassment” has become such a vague term, which is why it has a precise legal definition, though really applied only to situations in work environments.  Does fishing for herring for sustenance legally constitute a workplace environment?  Likely it does not.  But if somehow it does, legally harassment means one person over and over bothering another person to the point where the latter can no longer perform his or her duties, in this case, scooping a net in the water.  

Hill notes, “The harvest of river herring was prohibited by the state Division of Marine Fisheries in 2006, but that does not apply to Native Americans.” She fails to mention why precisely it was prohibited.   One might reasonably assume herring was on its way to become an endangered species.  But if indeed that were the case, how does permitting some Americans to continue killing possibly protect the herring?  Shouldn’t native Americans also be concerned?  Do they really need to kill the dwindling herring to survive?  Would they starve to death if they too were not permitted to kill the herring?  What about federal and state handouts (i.e., grants et al)?  For the lack of transparency with that regard, examine “Newspaper finds access to tribal records irregular, especially if you are a believer in the Indian good/white bad stereotype.  

Hill reports that Hendricks also said, “We get harassed, but no one’s issued a citation, no one’s issued a verbal warning.”  Well, perhaps the reason for that might have been that no law was actually broken.  She then cites another tribal member, Natasha Cash:  “If there was a sign at every single fishing spot (and) herring run of what our rights were nobody would say anything.  Cape Cod is a peaceful, communal place. They’re not trying to cause trouble. They just don’t know.”  So, how about a sign like WARNING:  ONLY ABORIGINALS PERMITTED TO FISH HERE / WHITES NOT PERMITTED!  

Hill notes that “Although some residents may be aware of aboriginal rights, their perceptions of what Native Americans look like may be skewed. Tribal members have been approached and told they ‘don’t look Indian.’”  And so in this age of PC, oddly today we have environmentalist Karens harassing Native Americans.  What’s next?  Burning Karens at the stake?    

Cash said people often scold her and her children about taking herring, saying they are a protected species. Herring are back to their original numbers now, but many tribal members who fish are cautious about the populations, Cash said.  […] We can’t even afford food right now really.  We have to hunt and fish.

So, now we know the herring is indeed a protected species.  If “we” means all of us, then are all the Mashpee aboriginals really so poor that they cannot afford to buy food?  Do they not even qualify for food stamps?  Well, I google that and, according to the USDA, they certainly do qualify, as well as for other financial perks (see https://www.fns.usda.gov/program/assistance-native-americans).  Hill cites several others, including an aboriginal Cape Cod Times freelancer, Rachael Devaney.  

They’re tribal people, and they do have rights that not everybody has.  And people get so upset about it. A lot of people here say, ‘Well, I’m native. I was born here,’ and there’s just a huge distinction. It’s something that’s not talked about enough and it’s why all of this backlash continues to fall on Wampanoag people to prove who they are.

And so I send this to the Cape Cod Times since the subject is “not talked about enough.”  Will it publish it?  From my long experience with the Times, it will likely not!