Albert Sandoval, Fred Nelson, Frank Cadman, and Jim Shirley
The Navajos or Diné delivered Collier a blow when they voted not to endorse the Indian Reorganization Act in 1935. During a congress held in Fort Defiance, Arizona, in March 1934, Diné delegates articulated some of the concerns that led them to this decision. Of paramount importance was a stock reduction program implemented by the federal government that led to the destruction of hundreds of thousands of sheep and goats—all of it done in the name of erosion control, soil conservation, and range management. Diné men and women could no longer provide for their families and struggled to find wage work. But stock reduction worked even greater hardships by attacking Diné identity. Consider the alternative solutions to stock reduction advanced by the delegates, the deep connections to livestock and land they attempted to get Collier to understand, and whether you find the Indian commissioner’s response to be adequate. In 1920 Porfirio Mirabel saw the issue of citizenship as inseparable from (and subordinate to) Pueblo concerns over the land. Would it be fair to say that a similar dynamic was at work in Dinétah?22
Albert Sandoval, Delegate from Southern Navajo: The speakers ahead of me have given little stories when they started their talks. When I was in school I read a little story. When the white people first came across the ocean and first came in contact with us, the Indians, they began to push the Indian back. Finally, a general and an Indian Chief had a meeting. They sat on a log together. The Chief kept telling the General to move over and give him more room. He kept pushing him over and pushing him over. Well, finally, the General said, “There is no more space left for me to move on.” He was on the end of the log. Then the Chief said, “That is just the way you people are doing us. You are pushing us back and pushing us back, until we are on the end of the log.”
That is the situation now with us, the Navajos. The white man gave us a little space, of grants. We found out right away that wasn’t big enough and we asked for extensions. The white man was beginning to say “No more room for me to move back.” But we know there is plenty of room, plenty of land back there. The only way I see to get enough land is to adopt the resolution that has been prepared here. That is the only thing, I think, that will help us out, because we have been fighting for this for years. I am much in sympathy with that resolution, although it is going to bring on a lot of harsh talk and scolding back home, but I do not see any other way out, except to take it the way the resolution reads.23
Fred Nelson, Delegate from Hopi Jurisdiction: Friends, Commissioner, and Staff from Washington: There have been a lot of things brought out in this Council, and before going on and adopting this new resolution that is afoot, we would like to refute a proposal that we made at the Tuba City Council, the resolution at the Council to reduce our sheep a hundred thousand. I think we should refute that resolution before we go ahead with this new proposal. At the time, when we passed that resolution that we were to reduce our sheep 100,000 head, most of you here, if not all, were present at that meeting.
Now, at that time, we tried to propose that this reduction of sheep be left until our next meeting. Our argument at that time was, that we would like to consult our people back home before going on with the proposal to reduce our sheep. In spite of the fact that we tried to carry over this proposal plan at the time, we were asked to make our resolution to reduce our sheep.
Now, the government, at that time gave us an outline of a program that we were to be compensated for, in this proposal. That we were to be given employment, and things in that line. It seems the program, as it was outlined at that time, is not fully carried out, and for our part, we have carried it out. We think it not fair to do our part and the government does not meet us half-way. I think we have done our part, and now the proposal that is afoot, that we were to be taxed at dipping time 10¢ per head for all the sheep and goats that we were to dip this summer, or that we were to be taxed 10% of the wages we were to earn from this E.C.W. work.24
Now, that is something complicated to us. It seems to us the wages are not sufficient for us, as wage earners, and it seems we should not be taxed, at that. We are only getting $42.00 a month on the E.C.W., at most. Out of this amount, $4.20 is to be taxed, out of the sum of money we are to earn in a month. If we were to get a loan from the Federal government in order to purchase these surplus goats, instead of using that money for purchasing our stock, is there any way that we could use that money for leasing land outside of the reservation. Would that save our goats? Is it possible that we could get a loan and lease some ranges in order to transfer what surplus stock we have, to control our range here on the reservation.
For the white people, the good old dollar is where they get their sustenance of life and the Navajos get their sustenance of life from the goats and the sheep, so it would not be fair to the Navajo to give up their goats and not the white people part of their dollars. We depend upon the goats and sheep for our life, our income, everything, the same as you depend upon your American dollar for your sustenance of life. That is what is puzzling us. We are wondering, having gone twice as far, and you have gone halfway back, which doesn’t seem to appeal to the Navajo. . . .25
Commissioner [John Collier]: I want to say something else, which is a confession, and which puts me in agreement with our friend, who has just been speaking about something that he feels. He feels it hurts him and it hurts you, this idea of giving up sheep and goats. It just hurts. Two years ago, at the beginning of the great storm that descended upon the Navajo reservation, I was going through the Navajo reservation and saw the terrible things it was doing to your stock.
I saw the cattle standing with icicles hanging clear to the ground, of their frozen breath and I saw sheep dead, frozen in the cold. And it hurt me just like it hurt you and I hurried back to Washington. I was not then the Commissioner, I was the Secretary of the Indian Defense Organization, and I started a very intense campaign back in Washington. A campaign to get money to save your goats and sheep and we got from Congress, as I recall, $150,000 to help get feed to your stock. And it was not enough and so I kept on fighting, I was so anxious to save the sheep and the goats, and the cattle. And there were people back in Washington who said: “You are making a mistake because there are too many sheep and goats. The range is overgrazed and the blizzard is sent by God to cut down the sheep and goats and save the range from overgrazing.” And that made me very mad when they said that. I wrote statements and the papers published them and members of Congress put them in the record and there was a very great to-do about it.
Well, later on, I have found that I was mistaken. That there were too many stock. That I was not really doing the right thing. But I tell you, I felt it just as strongly as any of you do about your sheep and goats. I had to learn that bitter fact which you all know now, that the range is overgrazed and has been very greatly damaged, and is going down fast so that if we go on the present way, there will be no food there for the goats or the sheep or the people in a few years. That is a hard fact and I have had to learn it and have had to admit my error of two years ago. And then having learned that, which is the truth, I went to work along with all of your other friends, to see if there was a way to save your soil and build it up again and restore your prosperity, and, therefore, all these millions of dollars are being spent because we know it is possible to save your range and restore your range, and to add enormously to your well being, but it does require a temporary reduction of stock.
The other question is, could not the money be used to rent land outside the reservation and move that many stock off and get them off the reservation in that way. We have gone into that rather carefully and the answer we get is that on the whole it cannot be done. Some help can be had from renting land off the reservation, but not enough. . . .
Frank Cadman, Delegate from Southern Navajo: . . . When we get very sick, when we need a physician, we go and look for the best physician and the best medicine we can find and when we find that medicine, we are satisfied. Now, in regard to our land—our land seems to be very sick. And the plan that is put out so that it can be brought back to normal state, I favor. That is the land erosion control. And the proposed plan to re-establish our reservation or bring back the soil that is in a state of deterioration, is the erosion control plan. That is the only thing that would solve it and bring back the soil. I favor it, and we should be willing to accept it.
We have been hearing about this plan for a long time, until they have actually come out here and actually brought with them an exhibition of what the erosion control really is and they have an experimental station at Mexican Springs now, so we may look at what is meant by erosion control. And another reason why I favor the erosion control plan, in that I would not fall out or be offended if these people did not succeed after they have put forth every effort to bring back the soil and bring back the range, if I neglected the seed, and let the seed fail; when I look at the soil, that is all patched, that if we lose it by putting forth every effort, then I would not feel bad. But when there is a solution that will solve the problem, we ought to be able to take it. The erosion plan is the remedy and solution for that thing. . . .
Jim Shirley, Alternate from Southern Navajo: There are two sources of life, of living, I wish to convey to you. The two forces are the land and livestock. One force is the land, from which we get mineral, from which we raise crops, from which we get our sustenances of life, and the other source is the livestock, and for the livestock, we cannot get by, we cannot profit by having livestock when our range is deteriorated. Therefore, we need to develop our soil that we may be able to take care of our livestock, and, therefore, we cannot put the livestock before land. We have to have the range before we can have livestock and for that reason, people may criticize and they may have the opinion that we are more or less deciding to handicap them in having reduction, in cutting off that source of living that we get from livestock, but the bigger question is the land question. If we have the land, we have everything.