The Commons’ Cost: The Price Native Americans Pay for America’s National Parks

In taking over the lands that are now National Parks, the federal government has denied access to the Native American tribes who have used many of these landmarks and areas for religious and ceremonial purposes. The 26 Native American tribes who have ancestral connections to the natural sites at Yellowstone are, in theory, just as much a part of the public as the tourists who frequent the site each year.

In practice, however, the emphasis on the accommodation of tourists who visit these sites has resulted in the prioritization of the interests of the whiter, more economically advantaged parts of the public. A 2013 survey done by the National Parks Service found that only one in five of its visitors is nonwhite. This tourism focus has come with the prioritization of the traditions and beliefs of the white public over those of indigenous people, resulting in the commodification of native peoples, cultures and traditions within and around the National Parks system.

This imbalanced prioritization of certain portions of the public has occurred because the National Parks system was never made for native peoples. Through early exclusion, it has discredited the relevancy of the religious, cultural and social needs of native peoples who derived benefits from these areas.

Instead, the first National Park was developed with the specific intention of attracting the economic might of tourism. A.B. Nettleston, a lobbyist for the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, first suggested that the Great Geyser Basin in Yellowstone be put aside as a public park. Doing so would increase tourist draw to the park and passengers on the railroad, which at the time was being built by Northern Pacific right near Yellowstone. Though there were lofty and important philosophies about preservation and environmentalism also at work at that time, this economic suggestion is what first led Congress to pass the bill that reserved the Great Geyser Basin as a public park forever. This foundational context in which the first National Park was created set a precedent — the focus was on tourists.

Today, this underlying emphasis on the needs and concerns of predominantly white tourists continues. At Devils Tower National Monument, the first national monument, controversy has erupted between rock climbers and the 20+ indigenous tribes that claim ties to the tower, which has been used for tribal practices for thousands of years. Though the use and significance of the Tower differs for each tribe, some such as the Lakota use the landmark for fasts, funerals, prayers and ceremonies like Sweat Lodge. Rock climbing on Devils Tower has been cited by the tribes as disruptive and, by some, as offensive to the sacred nature of the tower. The noise and presence of climbers can frequently be distracting to practices that require complete silence.

The National Parks Service has tried to intervene by imposing a voluntary ban on climbing during the month of June, but climbers are by no means obligated to follow it. Instead, they maintain that they also have a spiritual connection to the Tower through their climbs. “Some of the natives don’t think that climbing up and down the Tower is showing reverence. Well, until they go climbing, they don’t understand what a spiritual experience climbing is,” said one climber, Frank Sanders, in a feature on Climbing.com. This is a frequently echoed sentiment by climbers in this debate — that they also find spirituality in climbing the Tower.

But this argument, and the reactions by the Parks Service, are reflective of the larger way in which the interests and beliefs of tourists are prioritized over those of native peoples. That the Tower was turned into a National Monument under federal control means that it has been explicitly promoted as a sight to see that was not controlled or run by native people, thus intentionally bringing in people who see it as an attraction and catering to their interests.

This has stripped away the autonomy of the ways in which native peoples can use these sites. The spiritual practices of rock climbers and the spiritual practices of native peoples are not in equal standing. The cumulative history and policies associated with colonization and assimilation of native peoples in the United States has meant that there is continuous hindrance of native religious practices. Up until 1978, with the passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native Americans did not enjoy the same religious freedoms as non-natives. This is not the case for rock climbers.

Legal precedents set forth by the Supreme Court have upheld this prioritization of white economic interests and their corresponding religions. The 1988 Supreme Court case Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association ruled that timber harvesting and road construction could occur in the Six Rivers National Forest in California, despite the fact that it was a key religious site for the Yoruk, Karuk and Tolowa tribes. An Environmental Impact Statement done by the United States Forest Service found that constructing a road through this region would destroy the religion of these tribes and that alternate routes for the road construction could be found.

Despite compelling evidence for the case of a substantial religious burden – and thus a violation of native peoples’ First Amendment right – the Supreme Court denied any violation and instead created new requirements for proving substantial burden in this case ruling. Substantial burdens on the free exercise clause were re-defined as existing only when the government imposes a sanction or denies a benefit to individuals that they would otherwise be entitled to receive. However, similar court cases involving the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause of larger religions have been upheld. Most recently, the Hobby Lobby decision ruled that mandating Christian corporations to provide contraception to women was a violation of the corporations’ right to religious freedom. The dichotomous treatment of both cases represents larger systemic preferences for the part of the public with the greatest economic power that is seen in the National Parks Service. When Native people brought the case to the Supreme Court under the Free Exercise clause, the Court changed the definitions of a “substantial burden” and ruled that their case did not fall within those new rules. When a white-owned Christian company brought the same argument up to the Supreme Court, companies were ruled to be individuals.

With these preferences have come the commodification and commercialization of native cultures and people within and around the National Parks system — often being advertised as destinations and experiences for the millions of tourists who come to these areas each year. Online articles and websites like CNN boast about the “best places to experience Native American culture.” This sort of advertising of native cultures as “experiences,” things to see and look at, objectifies native people, making native people things to be marveled at. This process of commodification turns native peoples into experiences for other parts of the public to have.

Although the National Parks System has done a lot of valuable work in preserving national landmarks and environmental sites, it does not currently serve the public benefit and enjoyment of all people, thereby violating its charter. Currently, the legal and social attitudes surrounding national land uphold the interests of those who can pay to see them or profit off of them. If we truly want the whole public to be able to derive equal benefits from these lands, then we have to recognize who these parks were made for, and who they excluded. Currently, ignoring this exclusion only enables it to flourish.