A number of Torres' works appear in anthologies, such as Dawnland Voices: An Anthology of Indigenous Writing from New England and Recognition, Sovereignty Struggles, and Indigenous Rights in the United States: A Sourcebook, and she has facilitated many formal discussions surrounding indigenous rights in America (Rose). Along with a fellow Schaghticoke tribal member, Trudie Lamb-Richmond, Torres co-edited the section in Dawnland Voices focusing on the Schaghticoke tribe.
In Torres’ 2014 op-ed, “Six things you did not know about the federal acknowledgement of Indian tribes,” she presents the basics of federal acknowledgement of Indian tribes in clear, plain language, with plenty of humor and wit. The piece highlights the many struggles that Native people face when seeking recognition, and similar issues. Torres is particularly invested in Tribal Recognition practices, as the Schaghticoke, have been alternatively recognized and de-recognized at both state and federal levels over the course of history. Their status is still presently unresolved, and the Schaghticoke people remain in a kind of political limbo. Torres comes from a long pedigree of Schaghticoke writers addressing government entities, particularly concerning sovereignty and tribal rights.
Torres is particularly on point in her op-ed, wittily engaging a largely uniformed audience, while also insisting on the lasting presence of Native peoples in New England. It is a commonly held belief that all the Native people in New England died after King Philip’s War, which did result in the deaths of many Native people. Although many Natives lived on after Philip was executed, the public delusion that Native populations disappeared after the conflict still persists in the twenty-first century. Indians still live in New England, and our constant denial of that is harmful, which Torres underscores.
Torres' awareness of public perception of Native people is apparent in her bitingly accurate recognition of policies and media that continue to make Native struggles difficult today. Torres explains how changes to the federal recognition process are not actually making the process easier for tribes, and she notes how the media portray Indians as freeloaders who want to take advantage of tribal sovereignty (which then perpetuates broader public biases against all Natives). Torres highlights how reality is quite different than media scape-goating, citing the City of Sherrill vs. Oneida Indian Tribe case, which holds that tribal sovereignty will not be restored just because the historically tribal land was repurchased. Essentially, land that has been Indian land for generations (hundreds of years) that has moved to other hands, often through illegal processes, becomes no longer accessible by Natives. Torres highlights how such cases are unfortunately common, and that Native rights are consistently challenged, denied, or whittled away, despite constant effort to maintain them. Her writing is enriched by deep research and an awareness of mainstream media bias; she is careful and methodical in making her points clear and well-informed.
Again, aware of media presentation and public biases and false perceptions, Torres notes that the Obama administration has been trumpeted for making federal recognition “easy." While the changes to the process of federally recognizing tribes have definitely made it easier for Natives to have their tribes recognized, the process remains far from “easy”. Torres succinctly writes:
Rebuilding a tribal nation’s infrastructure after nearly four hundred years of purposeful demolition is difficult, and over the last decade, has been further complicated by U.S. Supreme Court rulings. And, by the way, this is a national issue – affecting the future of Indian peoples across the country – and none of the local media outlets are reporting on that.
Beyond defending her own community, Torres recognizes the jeopardy of all tribal Nations and peoples. While she writes from her own tribal perspective, her writing reaches beyond their sphere and recognizes the national import of these issues, both in the media, and in their impacts on the many Native peoples involved.
Torres writes beyond her own tribe, remarking that tribal recognition is only one issue amongst many that Native people face in a global context. Showing her vision beyond the local, Torres notes that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, released in 2007, announced that the rest of the world “must understand, negotiate with and live among the world’s indigenous populations" (Torres). The Declaration had been in process for over twenty-five years by the time it was revealed. Torres notes the magnitude of the many injustices Natives in our country must face, and the various frictions that exacerbate their ability to do so. As a powerful, persuasive living example, Torres has dedicated much of her life to fighting these injustices and educating other people about them, so that maybe they can do the same.
CharterOak State College. "Alumni Spotlight: Ruth Garby Torres." CharterOak State College. Jan. 2010. Web. 18 Apr. 2015.
---. Alumni. CharterOak State College. 2015. Web. 18 Apr. 2015.
Rose, Christina. "Connecticut Attacks Proposed Fed Rec Revisions, Fears Land Claims, Casinos." Indian Country Today Media Network. 10 June 2014. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.
Indian Legal Program. "Speaker Biographies." Who Decides You're Real? Fixing the Federal Recognition Process. January 16-17, 2014, Arizona State University, College of Law, Ventana Ballroom, Tempe, AZ. Tempe, AZ: Indian Legal Clinic, 2014. Web.
Rodriguez, Karla. "Spotlight on CAWP Member Ruth Garby Torres: A Woman of the Future." Connecticut Association of Women Police. Hollis Internet Marketing, LLC, 2011. Web. 18 Apr. 2015.
Torres, Ruth Garby. "Op-Ed: Six Things You Did Not Know about the Federal Acknowledgment of Indian Tribes." The CT Mirror. The Connecticut News Project, 03 June 2014. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.
]]>
To get at early Native American writing (like this penmanship exercise), one often has to sift through the works of white missionaries, administrators, and agents. For instance, William Henry Kilby, who met Deacon Sockbason, wrote in his 1888 Eastport and Passamaquoddy: A Collection of Historical and Biographical Sketches:
He could read and write, though his spelling, as shown in the sample in my possession, was rather imperfect; and he had been to Washington to see the President. He considered himself the greatest man in the tribe, and was continually trying to impress others with the idea of his dignity and importance. On special occasions, he wore a coat of startling style. Years ago, on one of my visits to Pleasant Point, looking over the fence of the little burial-ground I saw a rift of split cedar standing in place of a headstone, bearing in rude letters the inscription. (TIKN SOKEPSN)
Kilby's characterization of the phonetic spelling as “rude," and his obvious distaste for a Native man who displayed confidence or material wealth, tell us much more about the racist attitudes of the time than they do about Sockbason himself.
The Passamaquoddy reservations in the 19th century (and later) were grievously poor, because, as the Abbe Museum explains, the state of Maine--illegally, and continually--sold off and leased tribal lands and resources without distributing the profits to Native people. Those resources included timber, a theft routinely protested--in writing--by Passamaquoddy leaders including Deacon Sockbason, and later Lewey Mitchell, the tribal representative to the state legislature in the 1880s. Donald Soctomah's archives include this petition from Deacon Sockbason, demanding that the State stop depleting fish and timber and return Passamaquoddy lands:
Your friends further state that they are in great want of a piece of woodland for the purpose of getting wood in the winter for the use of the elderly Indians, their women, and children, as they live on a point of land called Pleasant Point where they cannot procure wood, as all the woodland for the distance of thirty miles is owned by private individuals.
These are hardly the words of a tool of the colonial powers, as Kellogg understood Sockbason. The fact that this Passamaquoddy man lived in a wood-frame house, then, was not what his white neighbors thought. Settler colonists including William Kilby and Henry Thoreau were unnerved by literate Indians in wood houses: they found such people pitiful, tragic, assimilated. But Sockbason was clearly trying to ensure that his own people had access to their own resources. Kellogg tells a story of how the local priest tried to bar workmen from bringing a frame for a workshop ashore at Pleasant Point; Sockbason intervened, and the workshop was built.
]]>In 1820, the Missouri Compromise declared Maine an independent state; the Penobscot Indians faced loss of land in direct violation to the 1790 Trade and Non-intercourse Act. The Trade and Non-intercourse Act was meant to protect Indian lands on a federal level, and other treaties also made by the Penobscot with the former Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1796 and 1818 were meant to help establish reservation lands.
On August 17, 1820—a mere nine years before the Penobscot Land Claims Petition—the Maine signed a new treaty with the Penobscot people, effectively releasing the Commonwealth from their former agreements with the Native Americans of Maine. Only three of the four tribes in Maine, the Penobscot, the Maliseet, and the Micmac, signed this treaty. The Passamaquoddy people, the last of the four tribes comprising the Wabanaki people of Maine, were the only tribe to not sign the treaty.
Maine was and remains a border state with the territory that is now modern-day Canada. Maine was formed before the American Civil War and during a time when there was still significant tension between American, French, and English settlers. There was a drive to lay claim to the largely unknown interior and fringe areas of Maine. As property as a form of power grew, the demand for ownership of the new, rich areas in Maine became a goal for the white settlers. The Penobscot people had already given up vast areas of tribal land to the government of Maine when the 1829 petition was written, and the document sought to voice their concerns about losing the diminished portion that they had left.
As seen in the 1829 petition, the additional transfer of Penobscot lands when so much had been “sold” (or forcibly handed over already), was quietly responded to as an outrageous notion. The Penobscot people’s first argument was that the State of Maine had a large quantity of wild lands that the Penobscot and other Native Americans of Maine ceded to them. Those lands had thus far been relatively unused and the Penobscot compromised by offering that once all the land was used up then they would gladly share with their white neighbors. The Penobscot wrote that “Till this is the case, leave us this little pittance, the miserable remains [still in their possession]. The wording in this section of the petition was likely crafted to dissuade the government from taking more of their land and show the “pittance” or “miserable remains” were inadequate, not worth the effort to obtain from the Penobscot.
One of the substantial concerns the Penobscot people had was that if they were to continue selling their land in Maine, there would be no land remaining for future generations. The Penobscot relied on the land’s resources for sustenance and to keep their traditional practices of hunting and fishing alive. In the petition, it is highlighted that through settlement of Penobscot territory—that was supposedly theirs to govern and call home—a fish trap was destroyed, and white settlers stole previously harvested and stored provisions from their land. By bringing attention to these struggles, the Penobscot people attempted to obviate any further dispossession.
Throughout the petition, the Penobscot continually maintain that they are willing to work with the terms of the white people in order to come to a common understanding. In reference to building a tavern on a military road so white men had a place to stop along their travels, the Penobscot were very willing to make “such men to be accommodated.” The Penobscot also point to the fact they anticipated the white settlers would ask for more taverns along the road when they complain that one is not enough. The Penobscot refer to the white people as their “brothers” and “brethren,” recognizing certain equality between them, and are taken aback by the whites not treating them the same respect and understanding. In the closing lines of the petition the Penobscot write: “We have been faithful to our white brethren and all we ask in return, is, that their contract towards us should be just and reasonable.”
In 1833, four years following the 1829 Penobscot Indian Land Claims Petition, a controversial sale of some of the remaining Penobscot lands took place. It is said that a number of the Penobscot tribal members who signed the treaty did not understand exactly what they were giving up when they did so. Further loss of Penobscot land took place and 100,000 acres of land was sold, leaving only 5,000 acres in the ownership of the tribe. It was not until over a century later, in accordance with the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980, that the Penobscot and other Wabanaki tribes in Maine were compensated for the unlawful disposition of their tribal lands.
What is perhaps most troubling—and perhaps most worth noting—is this thought of the intent to gain possession of tribal lands at all costs. That the Penobscot people signed away land unintentionally is further testament to the settlers’ avarice and disrespect toward not only the Penobscot, but many other tribes at this time. Such documents as this petition are central to our discussions of reclamation and land rights and are worth excavating for the richness of culture and context they provide.
]]>
A two sentence summary of the Oyster River Massacre is etched into a plaque on the banks of Mill Pond in Durham, New Hampshire:
“On July 18, 1694, a force of about 250 Indians under command of the French soldier, de Villieu, attacked settlements in this area on both sides of the Oyster River, killing or capturing approximately 100 settlers, destroying five garrison houses and numerous dwellings. It was the most devastating French and Indian raid in New Hampshire during King William's War.”
While the dates and numbers are true, this memorial promotes the one-sided history that has been passed down for generations, retelling the event as an unprovoked attack on a sleepy New England colony. What is often excluded in these accounts is the expansionist culture of the British settlers, who had begun invading Abenaki territory many years earlier. While the Abenaki people witnessed the land they once knew drastically altered by colonization, they took action to save their tribe from devastation by adapting to European war customs and forming an alliance with the French.
As historian Craig Brown explains, “the Abenaki regarded themselves as a military power on equal footing with the Europeans. The Indians were fighting primarily to recover kinsmen taken by the English and to push back English encroachment on their land” (3). For years, Abenakis struggled to continue their way of life as the British pushed them off their land in Eastern New Hampshire and Southern Maine, blocking their fishing sites and damaging their corn crops with loose cattle. The Abenaki view of land rights can be seen through Bomoseen’s own words as reported to the Council of Massachusetts by John Hill: “all those lands belonged to his uncle Moxis the Chief Sachamor of that place, and [John Hill] saith that those Eastern Indians carry themselves very surly and insolently and do say, that the English shall not repossess and enjoy ye lands in ye province of Maine than by agreement with them” (4). The Abenaki realized that their best approach to dealing with these people was to follow European customs, including using treaties and agreements to come to compromises. Although Bomoseen’s request to respect Abenaki land should have come as a forewarning for future conflict to come, his words were often ignored by the British, who constantly “encroach[ed] on [Abenaki] territory creating much tension between the two peoples, which fed a continuing cycle of diplomatic negotiations and violent clashes” (4) including the Oyster River Massacre.
During King William's War, fought from 1689 to 1697, French-Abenaki raids on British settlements were a common battle tactic. After the Treaty of Pemaquid was signed in 1693, outlining peace and trade conditions between the British and Abenaki, the French realized they had to keep their Abenaki allies on good terms if they wanted to win the war. Although thirteen Abenaki chiefs signed the document, "the English assumed that the signers of the treaty represented all the Indians, which reflected a dangerous lack of understanding of Indian politics and social structure" (3) Each smaller tribe had a chief, and any chief who did not sign the treaty did not feel like they had to listen to it. While some Abenaki clans agreed to these new acts of neutrality with the British, others remained loyal to the French.
When the governor of New France, Louis de Bade Frontenac heard news of the Treaty of Pemaquid, he enlisted the French military and Abenaki allies to invade Oyster River Plantation, a small town some ten miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean. The French were led by Claude-Sebastian de Villieu and the Abenakis by Bomoseen. The 250 Frenchmen and Indians attacked Oyster River Plantation on July 18, 1694, killing 45 settlers, taking 49 captive, and burning 5 homes to the ground. Hezekiah Mills, an Indian who allied with the British testified his account of the raid, claiming he “saw Bomaseen in his canoe which was well-laden. There was four English captives, some scalps and a large pack of plunder brought in that canoe” (5). This is one of very few first-person testimonies of the Oyster River Massacre, corroborating Bomoseen’s commanding presence at the raid. Due in part to his leadership during the raid, it was determined a French and Abenaki success as the attack resulted in death, famine and destitution for British survivors.
Almost twenty years later, the French admitted defeat against the British in the War of Spanish Succession, which carried over into the New World territories. On January 19, 1712, the French signed the Treaty of Utrecht, establishing peace between the two powers and shifting control in many European nations. With command of New England, the British called Abenaki leaders to Portsmouth in July of 1713 to sign the Peace Treaty of Portsmouth, outlining the new rules tribes must follow under British command.
These included but were not limited to:
-Acknowledge themselves submissive, obedient subjects of Queen Anne
-Cease acts of hostility towards subjects of Great Britain and their estates
-Allow English settlers to return to their former settlements without molestation or claims by the Indians
-Address grievances in English court, rather than in "private revenge"
-Cast themselves upon Her Majesty for mercy and pardon for past rebellions, hostilities and violations of their promises
The signatures of Bomoseen and other Abenaki tribal leaders on this document shows their acceptance to follow British customs in an attempt to conduct themselves as a respectable military power. Although their French allies had lost, the Abenaki were not willing to abandon their dignity and followed the treaty until the British broke their promises, encroaching on land they promised not to touch. Bomoseen remained loyal to his people while attempting to do what was best for them, whether during the Oyster River Massacre, the Peace Treaty of Portsmouth, or other events during the French and Indian War in later years.
Works Cited:
(1) Kidder, Frederic. The Abenaki Indians: Their Treaties of 1713 & 1717, and a Vocabulary. Portland: Brown Thurston, 1859. Page 25.
(2) Calvert, Mary R. Black Robe on the Kennebec. Monmouth, 1991.
(3) Brown, Craig J. "The Great Massacre of 1694': Understanding the Destruction of Oyster River Plantation." Historical New Hampshire 53 (1998): 69-91.
(4) Belmessous, Saliha. Native Claims: Indigenous Laws Against Empire:1500-1920. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Page 108.
(5) Farnsworth, Janice. "Testimony of Hezekiah Miles, Friendly Indian, on Preparations of Attack on Groton & Oyster River." Northeast Captivity Stories. 3 April 2012.