I would like to thank the members of the Sokaogan Community as well as Tom King, Anna Willow, Glenn Reynolds, and this article's anonymous reviewers for their guidance and suggestions.
Law and Ojibwe Indian “Traditional Cultural Property” in the Organized Resistance to the Crandon Mine in Wisconsin
Version of Record online: 21 FEB 2011
© 2011 American Bar Foundation.
Law & Social Inquiry
Volume 36, Issue 1, pages 151–169, Winter 2011
How to Cite
Nesper, L. (2011), Law and Ojibwe Indian “Traditional Cultural Property” in the Organized Resistance to the Crandon Mine in Wisconsin. Law & Social Inquiry, 36: 151–169. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.2010.01227.x
- Issue online: 21 FEB 2011
- Version of Record online: 21 FEB 2011
Section 106 of the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that federal agencies “must take into account” the impact of their regulatory actions on historical properties, among them the “traditional cultural properties” of American Indian tribes. Conceiving of tribes' own social practices in terms of property creates the possibility for making claims about its loss for tribes, but it also problematizes their cultures' inherent dynamism that implicates its putative authenticity. This article offers commentary on the implications of practicing a form of action anthropology for the concept of culture via discovery and explication of such property under the NHPA. The context is a small American Indian community's effort to resist the development of a copper-zinc mine adjacent to its reservation, on land that holds significant meaning for the community.