Giving Life to the Archives: Community Responses to 1930s Land Management Reports

Project and Partners:

While the 1930s land reports are linked to the historical memory of the livestock reduction, many Diné have not seen the reports, surveys, or maps. The imposed reduction of Diné livestock was an attempt to conserve the land. There were multiple rounds of reductions targeting Diné sheep, goats, and horses in the late 1930s and early 1940s. The impact of the reduction was increased poverty and the increasing participation of Diné people in the wage economy. The historical memory of the livestock reduction was passed down through family stories about their experiences and impact. The livestock reduction is understood as governments imposing their will against the people. The 1930s government land reports illustrate another story that is obscured by the political narrative of draconian policies. Collaborating with Diné community members, they added more life to the narratives of conservation and political imposition with stories about family members working for conservation program, livestock practices, and  agricultural practices. These stories emerged when recognizing some names included in the documents that accounted for livestock, home area, and farming practices. 

This project aimed to make 1930s Soil Conservation Service land management reports accessible to the Diné who lived in the communities that were studied and documented in those reports. These reports described vegetation, water flows, livestock, animal populations and much more. Working with Diné Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) members, we discussed the importance of these 1930s land management reports and identified a use for them. Diné SWCD members volunteer their time to inform community members about soil erosion and policy. Each SWCD member came from a different Diné community with specific histories and geographies, which provided fruitful discussions about the land management reports. In these discussions, SWCD members expressed interest in presenting the reports and the development proposals they contained to Diné communities. They felt the information would be interesting and informative for community members who had never heard of the reports or had older family members who remembered the surveys. 

The 1930s land management reports provide a historical look into the technical and methodological ways that land, livestock, and animals were conceptualized, and how this led to marginalized Diné authority over land management and livestock reduction. The land management reports depict the livestock reduction as a necessary conservation project. The reports deploy soil condition, climate description, livestock condition, and population to depict Diné land as apolitical objects ready for conservation action and further development. SWCD members were interested in the data and learning about proposed development projects and solutions from that time. They connected present-day problems of soil erosion and climate change to policies supported by the reports and reduced Diné authority over land policy. It helped Diné people understand an often-missing portion of the livestock reduction; the scientific study and rationale the reports were embedded in. The livestock reduction is commonly understood as a politically imposed action of the newly formed Navajo government and Federal government but folks rarely discuss the ways the reduction was justified. Conservation is a common talking point now but very few Diné think of the livestock as an attempt of conservation. Diné SWCD members were eager to share the maps and survey forms to the public to educate them about the land management policies, data collecting techniques, and the reports’ role in livestock reduction. In our discussion, we all agreed that Diné sovereignty over land management was a crucial step in the right direction for issues ranging from the political to the ecological. We agreed to make presentations that would introduce the techniques and reports to the general public of each community.

Collaboration:

My research of the land management documents entailed collecting documents related to the community of each SWCD member. After collecting and organizing them into one file, I provided members access to the files and we met to discuss them. Initially, it was over the phone and then we met in person a couple times. In each meeting, we discussed portions, paragraphs, and images we found useful, intriguing, or out of place with our expectations. I took notes about what they reacted to and how they reacted. These notes provided insight about how other community members might react to the information as well as loosen my expectations. 

In later meetings, we identified useful information from the land management reports to include in community presentations. We then tailored guidelines for the presentations with a general narrative about land history. We emphasized the movement and practices of Diné, who lived where, and what factors shaped the living practices of Diné in the 1930s as crucial to land histories of the community. Maps and survey forms were chosen as key visualizations because they illustrated how land and people were represented through the reports. SWCD members commented that these visualizations would help community members connect current land policies to the historical land reports, livestock reduction, and the formation of the Navajo Nation government. Due to the devastation of the livestock reduction, Diné people rejected the Indian Reorganization Act in favor of another mode of governance. Thus, the land management policies of the 1930s were crucial to the mode of Navajo Nation governance.  

Outputs and Take-Aways:

We held the first presentation at the Tonalea Chapter house in April 2024. Community members showed up interested in their community’s land history. After presenting for 30 mins, we opened the floor to comments. Community members expressed that they did not know how the livestock reduction affected the community, how their community was studied and represented, and the proposed solutions for soil erosion. They pointed out that certain maps in the reports reflected current community land use plans that guide and shape development in the community. Others talked about their early memories and stories told to them by family members about the 1930s and 1940s. 

We included the names of some Diné who participated in the 1930s surveys to initiate discussions about the history of families in the area. This opened a dialogue about each community member’s memories and stories. They talked about their families’ living areas, traditional agricultural and livestock practices, and politics of the time. Their stories and memories illuminated how these management reports reflected the lived experiences of the Diné community. Participants connected their personal family history to the Civilian Conservation Corps (a participant called it the ‘triple C’). The CCC was a program that employed workers for conservation projects in the 1930s. The participants spoke about their parents going to work for the Civilian Conservation Corps as interpreters for soil scientists, workers, builders, and herders for the sheep dips. 

Key outputs from this project so far include fostering relationships with SWCD members who are concerned with and knowledgeable about land policy. SCWD members also introduced me to Diné employees in the Navajo Nation Land department, Navajo Nation Department of Agriculture, and local governments. SWCD members identified crucial data needs related to range conditions, maps, illustrations, and development projects to include in their reports to the larger SWCD organization and the Navajo Nation. Members focused on soil erosion, conservation development proposals, and proposed conservation solutions. Our discussions about land use and issues informed my understanding of the political, economic, and ecological dynamics of the grazing regime. 

Over the past year, I learned to take time when planning and working with SWCD members. This included decentering my approach to land management so that I could remain flexible. While I am also from the communities of the SWCD members, my assumptions regarding land policies differed from how they framed connections between soil erosion and land management. Some collaborative friction stemmed from differences between my assumptions and framing of land management reports and the way SWCD members engaged with and framed that data. Additionally, I learned a lot of practical lessons related to finding public spaces for meetings, hosting, or presenting. This included working with SWCD to seek spaces and gather recommendations for different communities. Finding buildings for multiple meetings proved to be difficult. 

Conclusion:

Overall, this research connects discussions about climate change, land management, and tribal sovereignty in the context of settler-colonialism. On one hand, the land management reports illustrate the way scientific knowledge erased Diné voice, ways of knowing, relating to the world in the context of an imposed Federal authority over Diné lands. The scientific reports failed to consider how Diné understood the problem and the solution to soil erosion and overgrazing. Additionally, they failed to consider Diné relations to livestock and land that cannot be reduced to notions of productivity, marketability, property, and economic value. Diné authority was ignored or dismissed to initiate the 1930s and 1940s livestock reduction that devastated Diné people, economy, and their livestock. On the other hand, the land management reports speak to the contemporary Diné experience and concerns about the land transformation and climate change in the Navajo Nation such as growing sand dunes, declines in vegetation, and increasing water scarcity. 

This project contributes to my study of Diné land dynamics regarding land use, land politics, and development. Working with SWCD members helped me rethink my assumptions about archival documents and how Diné would react and frame the land reports. Receiving comments from community members and SWCD members illuminated the potential and tensions between how the government understands land reports and how Diné people understand land and relations. This included the way Diné community members appreciated the data provided by the documents but were ambivalent to the lack of Diné voice and inclusion in the reports as subjects.