A bill in the New Hampshire House this session would change how people can be appointed to New Hampshire鈥檚 Commission on Native American Affairs. And it鈥檚 once again stirring controversy surrounding groups that self-identify as Abenaki but who lack evidence of any ties to Indigenous communities.
The would give nominating power to state-recognized Native American groups with historical ties to New Hampshire, all of which are based in Vermont, and would limit appointments to members of those recognized tribes. But New Hampshire has no recognized tribes and no recognition process on the books, and federally recognized Abenaki nations have said for years that the groups identifying as Abenaki in the state have no connections to Indigenous communities. All of which is raising questions about what the bill would actually mean for Indigenous Granite Staters.
How does the state Native American Affairs commission now work?
The New Hampshire Commission on Native American Affairs advocates for policy that鈥檚 in the best interest of Indigenous people in New Hampshire and works to preserve Native American history in the state. The commission currently has 10 members, with five vacancies, and includes people from educational institutions, state departments and self-identified Abenaki groups.
Potential appointees must compile letters of recommendation and then are confirmed by the governor. This bill would shift nominating power into the hands of leaders of nearby state- or federally-recognized Native American tribes, make only enrolled members eligible for membership on the commission, and have the Speaker of the House approve nominees.
How does state and federal Indigenous recognition work?
There鈥檚 a catch with that proposed change: New Hampshire doesn鈥檛 have a state recognition process for Indigenous groups.
Most recognition for Native American nations is at the federal level, arbitrated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It鈥檚 a rigorous process that requires robust evidence of historical and contemporary ties to an Indigenous community.
Some states, including Vermont, have created their own tribal recognition processes, which are often less rigorous than the federal process. Tribes that successfully go through those processes get certain benefits, like hunting and fishing rights and the ability to sell artwork branded as Native-made.
Vermont recognized four groups in 2011, some of which have members living in New Hampshire. Under HB 161, the leaders of those groups would have the authority to appoint their members to New Hampshire鈥檚 Commission on Native American Affairs, despite being based in a different state.
At a March 5 public hearing on the bill, Don Stevens, chief of the Vermont-recognized Nulhegan Band of the Coosuk Abenaki Nation, argued the status of state recognition qualified him to make decisions about New Hampshire鈥檚 Commission, noting that modern day state borders are arbitrary and the Abenaki homeland spans New Hampshire and Vermont.
鈥淲e're not asking to suppress anybody in New Hampshire,鈥� Stevens told lawmakers. 鈥淲e're not asking to suppress that. What we're asking for is to have a voice within the state government to represent our needs.鈥�
Stevens was joined at the hearing by a former New Hampshire lawmaker and member of his group, Sherry Gould. Gould said members of state recognized groups in Vermont would have a better understanding of how the law applies to Native American tribes.
鈥淲e think it's really important that the people that sit on the commission are people that are subject to the complex laws and understand them, and can better prepare the state and the state departments on what the provisions are,鈥� Gould said.
Reporting from 开云体育 has shown that the majority of the members of the Vermont groups, including Stevens and Gould, have no connection 鈥� historical or contemporary 鈥� to the Abenaki community, an allegation Abenaki leaders in Canada have been making for years.
The process of 鈥榰n-recognizing鈥� Indigenous groups
Leaders of federally recognized Abenaki First Nations in Canada 鈥� along with scholars of Indigenous affairs and a Vermont lawmaker 鈥� have been leading a movement to revoke state recognition from self-identified Abenaki groups in Vermont.
Vermont Rep. Troy Headrick, a Burlington Independent, hosted a forum in February titled 鈥淲hat if we got it wrong?鈥� in which he brought Abenaki leaders from Canada to Montpelier to meet with other lawmakers and share their perspective.
In early March, Headrick wrote a letter to the New Hampshire lawmakers sponsoring HB 161, urging them to kill it and reconsider offering state recognition to any of the groups in the state. He said Vermont is a cautionary tale.
鈥淚f you're going to create a state system, as Vermont did, that is less robust, less vetted than the federal recognition process, just be aware of the fact that you are opening yourself up to creating a system whereby your state recognition is then utilized in ways to claim authenticity that is not supported by any other process that has long been in place,鈥� Headrick said.
In a March interview, Headrick said he did not hear back from the New Hampshire lawmakers.
How do Abenaki-identifying groups in NH fit into this debate?
Members of self-identified Abenaki tribes currently serve on the New Hampshire Commission on Native American Affairs. Since they are not state recognized, they would be ineligible to serve on the commission under the bill.
Denise and Paul Pouliot, leaders of the New Hampshire-based Cowasuck Band of the Penacook Abenaki People, have both held roles on the commission and offered testimony at the hearing.
Paul Pouliot urged lawmakers not to hand nominating power over to groups like Stevens鈥�.
鈥淲hy would we give up state sovereignty to allow any other entity, no matter what it is, any commission . . . 鈥� Pouliot said. 鈥淲hy would you go to some other agency, national or regional, to get your appointments filled?鈥�
The Pouliots said that power should remain in New Hampshire to better represent the needs of Indigenous people in the state, and that limiting membership to those who are affiliated with state recognized groups would silence other voices. They said they鈥檝e been pushing for state and federal recognition themselves for years, filing a federal petition for recognition in the 1990s, although NHPR鈥檚 past reporting has shown there is no evidence to suggest the Pouliots or their group have any ties to the Abenaki community.
What is the role of federally recognized Abenaki nations in this debate?
There are two federally recognized Abenaki nations, Odanak and W8linak, both based in Canada. They鈥檝e said for years that the leaders, and many members, of the self-identified Abenaki groups in New Hampshire and Vermont do not have Abenaki ancestry. The First Nation leaders said the New Hampshire and Vermont groups should not have the power to nominate people to this commission, nor should they receive state recognition.
The language in HB 161 indicates that federally recognized tribes with historical ties to New Hampshire should be involved in the nominating process for members of the Commission on Native American Affairs. But leaders at Odanak and W8linak said they have been left out of the conversation because they live outside of international borders.
Daniel Nolett, General Director of the Abenaki Council at Odanak, said leaders from Odanak and W8linak have written to the New Hampshire lawmakers who sponsored the bill to urge them against both the bill and recognition at the state level.
鈥淭hat's one of the main reasons why we have sent this letter,鈥� Nolett said. 鈥淛ust to make sure that New Hampshire does not duplicate the mistakes that the state of Vermont did.鈥�
Nolett said the Vermont and New Hampshire groups that self-identify as Abenaki have caused harm to his community for years by laying claim to aspects of Abenaki history.
鈥淭hey're basically claiming our trauma,鈥� Nolett said. 鈥淏ecause our people, we truly went through that trauma, [the] residential school system in Canada, racism, segregation . . .we did go through this.鈥�
Nolett said they have asked to be involved in nominating people to the state commission and invited New Hampshire lawmakers to visit Odanak to further understand their perspective, but have not heard back.
He added that he wants to make sure the commission is open to Granite Staters who are Indigenous and from other U.S. tribes, not just Abenaki.
Headrick and Nolett are urging New Hampshire lawmakers to reconsider any future offer of state recognition to self-identifying Abenaki groups in the state, with defeating HB 161 as the first step.
鈥淭hat historic and political mistake is going to be incredibly difficult to undo,鈥� Headrick said. 鈥淭he evidence that has [been] gathered since the time of those state recognition decisions is overwhelmingly convincing that we made a mistake.鈥�
