Ideology in My Controversy

401(K) 2012 "Money"
11/9/2011 via Flickr.
Public Domain License.

Dolde, Doug "Superstition Mountains"
10/8/2006 via Wikimedia Commons.
 Public domain License

In this post I will answer a series of questions about the Oak Flat controversy:

Who is involved? The main groups are the San Carlos Apache, the Resolution Copper mining company (a subsidiary of Rio Tinto), John McCain and Senator Jeff Flake, the AccessFund, which is an organization dedicated to protecting rock climbing areas, and various political representatives and lawmakers. 

 
Who are some of the major speakers/writers within these groups? Terry Rambler is the San Carlos Apache Chairman, and is one of the leading spokespeople for the tribe. McCain and Flake mostly speak for themselves, but I haven't been able to find a whole lot of comments from them other than this statement. Most of the people speaking out on social media are average citizens of Arizona and tribe members who care about Oak Flat and the protection of Native American sacred sites and wilderness. 

 
What kind of social/economic/cultural/political power does each group hold? McCain, Flake, and Resolution Copper clearly hold the economic and political power in this battle. Flake and Mccain sneakily added an extra clause to a military spending bill that had to be passed, thereby handing over Oak Flat to Resolution Copper in 2012. That being said, the San Carlos Apache, and Access Fund seem to hold more social power. There is still a chance that the Apache will be able to win it back through activism and public support. 

What resources are available to different positions? Resolution Copper has lots of money and political support, and the Apache people and opponents to the mine have petitions and protests. It's not looking very good for the Apaches. 

What does each group value? Resolution Copper's only value is money. The Apaches value their cultural heritage and the natural beauty of Oak Flat. The Access Fund values protection of Oak Flat for rock climbing. 

What counts as evidence for the different positions? The Apache people and the Access Fund have evidence that Oak Flat is a culturally, environmentally, recreationally valuable area and should be protected for those reasons. During an interview with Indian Country Today Media Network, Terry Rambler stated: "Oak Flat is a sacred site according to the people who know it best: the descendants of those families who lived and visited Oak Flat before the Reservation existed. Those descendants have been visiting Oak Flat, gathering traditional foods and medicines, and conducting ceremonies there for the past 150 years, and continue to this day. The Oak Flat area contains holy sites of the highest and most powerful spiritual and ceremonial order. Much of this information has been documented by tribal staff, Tonto National Forest Service staff, and professional anthropologists working for the National Forest." Resolution Copper, McCain, and Flake have evidence that there could be a substantial economic benefit to mining the area. On his website, McCain claims: “Resolution Copper represents a game-changer for an area of Arizona facing grave economic challenges. It is estimated to create some 3,700 mining-related jobs in and around the Town of Superior and generate more than $61 billion in economic value to our state over the life of the mine."

I will answer the last four questions in one paragraph because they are closely related: 

There isn't a whole lot of common ground between the two sides. One side wants protection of Oak Flat for its value as a sacred Native American site, recreational area, and beautiful wilderness area. The other doesn't care about this and simply wants to exploit it for natural resources, financial gain, and economic development. It doesn't seem to me that there is whole lot of dialogue between the two groups. They seem to both represent their own interests and not want to collaborate on any sort of solution. See this video of McCain dismissing an oak flat supporter.