Getting back to that point of balance: Indigenous environmental justice and the California Indian Basketweavers’ Association

Abstract

Emerging theories of Indigenous environmental justice reframe environmental problems and solutions using Indigenous onto-epistemologies, emphasizing the agency of non-human relations and influence of colonialism. The California Indian Basketweavers’ Association (CIBA) embodies this paradigm in its work to expand access to gathering areas, revitalize cultural burning, and stop pesticide use. Through our different positionalities as CIBA members, California Indian basketweavers, and researchers, we construct a case study of Indigenous environmental justice that articulates environmental stewardship as intrinsically linked with cultural and spiritual practice. Through education, information sharing, relationship building, lobbying, and collective action among its membership and land management agencies, CIBA has expanded basketweavers’ access to safe and successful gathering. By sustaining millennia of tradition, CIBA builds Indigenous sovereignty and shifts California’s land management paradigm toward environmental justice and global survival.

Full text

Copyright © 2023 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.
Oberholzer Dent, J. R., C. Smith, M. C. Gonzales, and A. B. Lincoln-Cook. 2023. Getting back to that point of balance: Indigenous
environmental justice and the California Indian Basketweavers’ Association. Ecology and Society 28(1):14. https://doi.org/10.5751/
ES-13674-280114
Insight, part of a Special Feature on Collaborative Management, Environmental Caretaking, and Sustainable Livelihoods
Getting back to that point of balance: Indigenous environmental justice and
the California Indian Basketweavers’ Association
John R. Oberholzer Dent 1, Carolyn Smith 2, M. Cristina Gonzales 3 and Alice B. Lincoln-Cook 3
ABSTRACT. Emerging theories of Indigenous environmental justice reframe environmental problems and solutions using Indigenous
onto-epistemologies, emphasizing the agency of non-human relations and influence of colonialism. The California Indian
Basketweavers’ Association (CIBA) embodies this paradigm in its work to expand access to gathering areas, revitalize cultural burning,
and stop pesticide use. Through our different positionalities as CIBA members, California Indian basketweavers, and researchers, we
construct a case study of Indigenous environmental justice that articulates environmental stewardship as intrinsically linked with
cultural and spiritual practice. Through education, information sharing, relationship building, lobbying, and collective action among
its membership and land management agencies, CIBA has expanded basketweavers’ access to safe and successful gathering. By sustaining
millennia of tradition, CIBA builds Indigenous sovereignty and shifts California’s land management paradigm toward environmental
justice and global survival.
Key Words: basketweaving; California Indians; Indigenous environmental justice; Indigenous people; natural resource management;
pesticides; prescribed fire; reciprocal relations; settler colonialism; traditional ecological knowledge
INTRODUCTION
Indigenous environmental justice (IEJ) addresses environmental
harm and restores just relationships with the environment
through action rooted in Indigenous philosophies and onto-
epistemologies (Parsons n.d., Barad 2003). Beginning with an
understanding of colonization and environmental catastrophe as
intertwined, it seeks both Indigenous sovereignty and global
survival by reconception of “justice” on Indigenous terms. It is a
response to environmental racism and a continuation of
Indigenous resistance and resurgence.
Despite ongoing violence, California Indian basketweavers
continue to fill a crucial role in their communities by maintaining
traditional arts and community connections to land through
stewardship and gathering of basket plants. What is often left
unrecognized is the broader implications of their work through
an environmental justice (EJ) lens, as with weavers’ work to
reestablish Indigenous access to land, restore cultural burning
practices, and resist pesticide use. Over nearly three decades, the
California Indian Basketweavers’ Association (CIBA) has been
working “to preserve, promote and perpetuate California Indian
basketweaving traditions while providing a healthy physical,
social, spiritual and economic environment for basketweavers”
(CIBA n.d.a). By facilitating gatherings, empowering weavers and
their communities, and fighting for their right to gather materials,
CIBA has promoted healthy and just relationships with land and
basket plants, the revitalization of critical cultural practices, and
the leadership of cultural practitioners. Far beyond the
preservation of material culture, CIBA is working to maintain
traditional stewardship practices, promote IEJ, and fortify
spiritual relationships between weavers, baskets, and land.
Today’s weavers face barriers in gathering materials connected to
settler colonial legacies and environmental mismanagement.
Land use change, environmental degradation, and the funneling
of Native lands to both public and private owners have disrupted
or destroyed gathering sites used for generations and produce
onerous barriers to contemporary weavers. Beverly Ortiz (1993:
205) writes: “Stream channelization, overgrazing, agricultural
and mining practices, and pollution have also taken their toll ...
In addition to environmental destruction, private and public
property restrictions, permit procedures, herbicide and pesticide
spraying, competition with commercial collectors, non-existent
or ineffective burn policies, improper waste disposal, and safety
considerations all have an impact on contemporary weavers.”
Addressing these barriers is a key mission of CIBA, which places
it on the frontlines of IEJ. Often, weavers are criminalized for
pursuing their work as cultural practitioners and must negotiate
gathering policies and other cultural use agreements. The
California Indian Basketweavers’ Association has been a broker
of these relationships with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau
of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS),
California State Parks, and other land agencies as well as a source
of empowerment for weavers to take these steps on their own.
This paper will describe IEJ advocacy led by CIBA in three areas:
land access, cultural burns, and pesticide use. Its historic and
ongoing activities will provide examples of emerging theories in
IEJ and their longstanding precedent in Indigenous communities.
Our purpose is to spotlight the contemporary work of CIBA and
the continuation of tradition by weavers, demonstrate what IEJ
can look like in practice, and contribute to the recent theorization
of these activities.
LITERATURE REVIEW
For thousands of years, California Indians have shaped the
environments around them to increase productivity, build
resilience, and fulfill spiritual responsibilities to the land. Far from
the popular ideas that Europeans encountered a pristine
wilderness and that California Indians were hunter-gatherers at
the mercy of natural conditions, the landscape we know is in
reality a product of complex natural resource management and
spiritual dedication (Denevan 1992, Blackburn and Anderson
1993, Anderson 2005, Risling Baldy 2013). Weavers, baskets, and
basket plants lie at the heart of this tradition. Carolyn Smith’s
(2016: 1-2) powerful dissertation testifies to truths about weaving
that have gone unrecognized by outsiders: “basketweaving is a
way of life and a way of knowing about the world. Baskets are
not just containers, nor are they static objects. Baskets carry the
weight of history, vitality, loss, and spiritual connection to the
1Stanford University, 2University of California, Berkeley, 3California Indian Basketweavers' Association

Ecology and Society 28(1): 14
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol28/iss1/art14/
land... Baskets hold knowledge about the world, how to live right
within the world, and how to steward the world of which they
and their weavers are a part. Baskets are made with intention, and
through the intention of the weaver, baskets emerge transformed
from the aliveness of the materials with which they are made to
the animacy of living beings who need to participate in the world.”
Unsurprisingly, colonization gravely harmed California Indian
basketry by means of violence exerted on peoples, their ways of
knowing, and the land. Gendered violence (both physical and
ideological) and subsequent resistance were central features of
colonization and frequently precipitated further atrocities
(Norton 1979, Castañeda 1997, 2011, Miranda 2010, Madley
2016). In addition to the staggering number of people killed
during the Mission period and the California Genocide, child
slavery and boarding schools arrested the intergenerational flow
of weaving techniques, traditions, and stewardship practices. As
California Indian identity became stigmatized and persecuted,
basketry was hidden or discontinued along with language and
other cultural practices (Cardozo 2005, Peters and Ortiz 2010,
Smith 2016, Chavez 2019). In parallel, the landscape itself was
deleteriously altered through theft of aboriginal territory, fire
suppression, invasive pastoralism, and mining pollution
(Anderson 2005, Norgaard and Reed 2017, Bacon 2018).
Nevertheless, the traditions continue today among master
weavers and their growing numbers of students (Mathewson
1998, Ortiz 2008, Smith 2016). With the greatest intimacy and
expertise, weavers have consistently tended basket plants to ensure
straight, pest-free, abundant, renewed growth suitable for
basketry (Ortiz 1993, Mathewson 1998, Anderson 1999, 2005,
Smith 2016). In this reciprocal relationship, weaving is a spiritually
connected process and an embodiment of Indigenous sovereignty
(Risling Baldy 2013). With gathering as an integral part of the
practice, weaving forms a circle of responsibility with land and
community that involves careful environmental stewardship,
spiritual devotion, and cultural continuity.
Understanding California Indian basketweaving is key to
understanding contemporary Indigenous cultures and their
histories. Beyond Western categories of utility or art, baskets in
many California Indian societies are living members of their
communities with identities, histories, and knowledge archives
(Mathewson 1998, Cardozo 2005, Smith 2016). Furthermore,
weaving forms the foundation of all parts of life: cooking,
gathering, childcare, ceremony, art, recreation, attire, and more
(Smith 2016, Hunter 2018, Malone 2020). The centrality of
baskets emphasizes the importance of just relations with the
environment, especially for those peoples who understand them
as continuations of the living beings from which they are derived.
Indigenous frameworks: reciprocal relations
Increasingly, calls for environmental action are recognizing the
essentiality of Indigenous peoples, Traditional ecological
knowledge (TEK), and “reciprocal relations” of mutual human–
environment care to this effort (Berkes 2017, Diver et al. 2019,
McGregor 2021). Recognition that the well-being of Indigenous
cultures is tied to the well-being of land has led to work that is
revitalizing language, building economic independence,
improving health, reducing carbon emissions, and rehabilitating
degraded areas. Conversely, understanding the just use of and
care for natural resources is contingent on understanding the
cultures that co-evolved with them. This framework, known as
“ecocultural,” “biocultural,” or “reciprocal restoration,”
comprises a path forward that recognizes decolonial and
environmentally restorative ideals as intrinsically united
(Kimmerer 2011, 2013, Long et al. 2017, 2018, 2020, Zedler and
Stevens 2018, Stevens 2020). Of course, academic work in this
area is only catching up to millennia of lived tradition.
In this respect, settler colonialism should be understood as
destructive not only to Indigenous people and land physically, but
onto-epistemologically as it disrupts systems of relationships
between humans and non-humans, preventing Indigenous
peoples from exercising their cultural responsibilities (Watts 2013,
Whyte 2016, 2018, Davis and Todd 2017, Norgaard and Reed
2017, Burow et al. 2018). Thus, settler colonialism and Indigenous
sovereignty constitute critical inquiries with respect to land
stewardship, gathering, and spiritual accountability. These
concerns have found a recent home in the EJ movement, but major
interventions are still required to properly address and improve
the conditions of Indigenous peoples using this framework
(Ishiyama 2003, Schlosberg and Carruthers 2010, McGregor
2018a, 2018b, Barnhill-Dilling et al. 2020, Parsons et al. 2021).
Indigenous environmental justice
The EJ movement has seen continuous evolution when it comes
to the unique position of Indigenous peoples. Early frameworks
that emphasized distributive justice, or the classic maldistribution
of environmental problems and benefits, have been modified to
address procedural justice, or greater emphasis on decision-
making processes, and later recognition justice, which calls for
consideration of diverse cultures and values in environmental
governance (Sze and London 2008, Holifield et al. 2009, Whyte
2011, Barnhill-Dilling et al. 2020). However, even this most recent
intervention has been criticized for its potential to replicate
paternalistic power dynamics that only grant Indigenous entities
legitimacy through the purview of the state (Coulthard 2014,
Parsons et al. 2021).
The unique position of Indigenous people requires address of
dimensions including tribal sovereignty and intergenerational
relations (Ishiyama 2003, Holifield et al. 2009, Schlosberg and
Carruthers 2010, Holifield 2012, Barnhill-Dillings et al. 2020). In
particular, the affiliation of Indigenous peoples with non-human
or more-than-human relations is a marked contrast from Euro-
American tradition and must influence the formulation of any
Indigenous EJ (Deloria 1999, Martinez et al. 2008, Watts 2013,
McGregor et al. 2020). Although Enlightenment values imposed
a separation of human and nature, Indigenous peoples
throughout the world operate on “kincentric ecologies” in which
animals, plants, natural features, the supernatural, and other
environmental components are relatives of humankind and linked
through mutual responsibility (Salmón 2000, Wynter 2003,
Johnson and Murton 2007, McGregor 2009, 2018a, 2018b,
Kimmerer 2011, 2013, Aldern and Goode 2014, Gratani et al.
2016, Ulloa 2017, Long et al. 2020, Parsons et al. 2021, Clark et
al. 2022).
The present moment calls for an IEJ movement that is truly
grounded in Indigenous onto-epistemologies and for
contributions that come directly from tribal communities (Whyte
2011, Todd 2016, McGregor 2018a, 2018b, McGregor et al. 2020).
In recent scholarship, McGregor, Whitaker, and Sritharan (2020:
36, quoting Whyte 2017a: 156) have formally postulated an IEJ

Ecology and Society 28(1): 14
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol28/iss1/art14/
that “recognizes the agency of non-human beings as well as the
Earth itself... [and] understand[s] the current ecological crisis as
an ‘intensification of colonialism.’” Indeed, CIBA’s work to
support traditional gathering and weaving supports both these
principles. This project seeks to develop this framework by
example, center the contributions of Indigenous practitioners,
and underscore the continuity of these practices long before the
EJ conversation began (McGregor 2021).
METHODS
This case study uses radical self representation and Indigenous
methodologies to disrupt extractive power dynamics between the
academy and Indigenous peoples (Shuman 2005, Wilson 2008,
Kovach 2009, Smith 2021a). Following a conversational method
(Kovach 2009), sharing of knowledge and generation of meaning
were fostered in semi-structured dialogs throughout the project
timeline. At its core, our methodology revolved around
strengthening the agency of weavers and bringing their knowledge
to new spaces in a good way.
The stages of the project were cyclical, allowing for ongoing
validation of the partnership and results as well as development
of new research directions. The project was conceived within
Indigenous-initiated practitioner–university networks (Karuk–
University of California Berkeley Collaborative (KBC) n.d.,
Sarna-Wojcicki 2014) and realized through the Environmental
Justice Working Group at Stanford University (EJWG) (EJWG
n.d., Polk and Diver 2020), speaking to ongoing efforts to shift
teaching and research agendas. The first result was a preliminary
academic report and corresponding blog material, intended to
foster relationships online during the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic
(Smith 2021b). The second, this publication, seeks to further
connect basketweavers to environmental justice, academic, and
Indigenous activist spaces and contribute to Indigenous
movement building. The essence of the project as tangibly
beneficial to basketweavers was intrinsic from conception and
reaffirmed at each stage of the process.
The project was initiated and guided by weavers, with the
researcher focusing on rhetorical strategy. This parallels works of
community-based participatory research, yet we strive to reshape
the process more fundamentally. Like Kim TallBear (2014), our
research is not an exchange but a coalition. In working with this
knowledge, we necessarily built solidarities and relationships that
broke down the researcher–community dichotomy. Of course,
positionality is not a dichotomy to begin with; weavers, including
the authors, also work in research and academic spaces. Although
three among many, these co-authoring weavers bring their
extensive experience as CIBA Board Members as well as their
personal weaving and ecological knowledge. Their work with
weavers and agencies across the state is complemented by diverse
perspectives that reflect the different practices and needs of
weavers in different communities (Lincoln-Cook 2018, Chavez
2019). Fundamentally, this project reverses the flow of knowledge
typical of academic research; rather than information being
sought for an extrinsic purpose, here practitioners carry
knowledge to new spaces on their terms.
As these comments suggest, methodology cannot be separated
from surrounding epistemological currents. The study of TEK in
the academy has long been criticized for the ways Indigenous
knowledges have been extracted, broken apart, divorced from
their relational context, depoliticized and sanitized of colonial
violence, and used mainly to “supplement” dominant science
(McGregor 2004, Simpson 2004, Whyte 2017b). We advocate for
and offer our work as an example of the critical importance of
land-based cultural practitioners being honored as bearers of
TEK, treated as experts, and returned to authority over TEK’s
representation (Simpson 2017). In honoring cultural
practitioners, we also seek to destabilize dominant knowledge
hierarchies and (re)privilege Indigenous onto-epistemologies and
alternative knowledge archives (Bam 2021).
To this end, it was natural to make all individuals involved co-
authors. Recognizing constraints in academia such as the
inadequacy and danger of institutional review boards to
Indigenous research (Tauri 2014, Sabati 2019) and the troubling
dynamics of objectification and dehumanization embedded in the
origins of interview-based research (Truman et al. 2000,
Kuokkanen 2007, Kovach 2009), we use co-authorship as a
strategy for epistemic justice by emphasizing the true authority
of practitioners in this project and contributing to a shift in what
is considered academic knowledge and who may create it (Sarna-
Wojcicki et al. 2017).
Carolyn Smith (Karuk) is a traditional basketweaver, artist, and
anthropologist whose work uses Indigenous methodologies to
understand how Karuk basketry is profoundly interwoven with
ways of knowing and being in the world. She is a current member
of CIBA.
Cristina Gonzales (Chumash) is a cultural practitioner, lecturer,
and museum professional specializing in the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). She
practices basketweaving and cordage making and works primarily
with dogbane. She is a member of CIBA’s Board of Directors.
Alice Lincoln-Cook (Karuk) is a traditional basketweaver and
jewelry maker with over 20 years of experience. She works with
local schools and institutions throughout the Pacific Northwest
and was instrumental in reviving “Following the Smoke” as well
as serving as Chairperson of CIBA’s Board of Directors.
John R. Oberholzer Dent is a biologist whose work seeks to merge
environmental science and ethnic studies. He also practices his
own ancestral arts, traditional Croat and Slovene textile arts and
lacemaking.
CASE STUDY
Gathering and weaving are cyclical processes that connect
weavers, land, and communities through reciprocal gifts and
responsibilities. Founded in 1992 to create a statewide community
of weavers and strengthen anti-pesticide campaigns, CIBA’s work
to sustain weaving culture is a contemporary manifestation of
these cycles. Characterized here as IEJ, CIBA’s contributions to
restoring access to land, revitalizing cultural burning, and fighting
for safe materials are derived from ways of knowing and being
that are fundamentally tied to California Indian autonomy, self-
determination, and sovereignty (Simpson 2017).
Land access
We have a connection with the landscape, we have a
connection with the land. A lot of us aren’t on
reservations, and even if we were, a lot of reservations
aren’t in our traditional territory. And so a lot of things
are displaced. We’re displaced. We’re always trying to
seek out these places for the baskets and to continue our
tradition. - Cristina Gonzales

Ecology and Society 28(1): 14
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol28/iss1/art14/
Weavers’ relationships with their plants go far beyond the simple
act of harvesting. Cristina states, “A long time ago, before there
were all these properties and people ‘owned’ land, women would
have their places where they would gather, and these places were
taken care of. Even our places now where we trespass are very
well taken care of, we go there throughout the year, not only when
we gather, but to make sure that invasive plants aren’t taking over.
The gathering places are harvested, but they’re also taken care
of.” This ethic revolves not around the product that is ultimately
harvested for some transactional purpose, as with commercial
collectors, but the life of the plants themselves and their role in
California Indian societies (Fig. 1). Weavers are even willing to
face physical violence and legal prosecution for the sake of these
relationships, committed to tending stolen land (Cardozo 2005,
Mathewson 2007, Risling Baldy 2013, Gonzales 2020).
Fig. 1. After gathering dogbane along the river. Photo: Cristina
Gonzales.
California’s unique history includes the nullification of treaties
and systematic disenfranchisement of California Indians from
their ancestral land. This history, including immense violence and
genocide, alienated weavers from their traditional materials and
restricted their gathering rights. Reservations are small (most less
than 1² mile) and are seldom located in traditional territory
(Norton 1979, LeBeau 1998, Cardozo 2005, Smith 2016, Madley
2016). Furthermore, successful gathering requires long-term care.
For Cristina, “It’s hard to find these places, because once you find
the place then you can’t just start picking. It takes time and
preparation! You have to prune it down and then it starts growing,
but it doesn’t grow fast. A lot of these things are done once a year.
And then it takes a while to process the material, too. A lot of
times it’s not only cutting, you have to trim it and strip it and split
it. There’s a lot of things that go along with it.” These difficulties,
on- and off-reservation, led to CIBA’s work reconnecting weavers
with their materials, especially on public lands (Gonzales 2020,
Rogers and Smith 2021).
The NPS, BLM, State Parks, and especially the USFS hold the
majority of lands where weavers gather. Each agency and each
individual park has different levels of restriction around
gathering, creating a patchwork of policy difficult for weavers to
navigate. Personnel turnover requires constant reeducation and
renegotiation. CIBA has served as a broker for gathering
arrangements and a source of empowerment for weavers working
on their own. With CIBA’s influence, new exceptions to paid-
permit systems, increased consultation, and establishment of
gathering areas accessible to elders have spread across the state.
Weavers educate field personnel and consult with top-level
leadership to make areas accessible for gathering. Some also
gather from roadsides or private property, which cannot be
similarly negotiated.
Cultural burning
We need our water, we need our air, we need all those
things that Mother Nature has given us. And that includes
fire; there’s no question we need fire. We just don’t need
devastating fire that wipes everything out. All of those
are part of our healthy Earth: the water, fire, soil,
everything. Those are what make the world healthy for
us. And we have to get back to that point of balance. -
Alice Lincoln-Cook
In stark contrast to the longstanding USFS policy of fire
suppression, Indigenous peoples use fire as a tool for
environmental stewardship (Kimmerer and Lake 2001, Anderson
2005, 2018, Hannibal 2014, Lake and Long 2014, Hankins 2021).
For weavers, burning allows plants to grow stronger, longer, and
healthier (Fig. 2). Without it, plants like beargrass, hazel, and
willow will not grow straight or insect free and cannot be used for
basketry. Today, it is a struggle to continue these techniques. Alice
explains: “There are so many restrictions that make it difficult.
You can’t burn beyond this barrier. You can’t burn this time of
year. You can’t burn by this tree, you can’t burn there because of
the owls, you can’t burn there or there... There’s so much that goes
into burn. There’s so much red tape.” Even in recent decades when
agencies like the USFS have recognized the utility of burns, they
are not included in annual budgets and are thus only carried out
with the special attention of some helpful manager. Even then,
they may not be carried out if the conditions or personnel needs
do not align. Once again, employee turnover can set back years
of progress.
Fire suppression policy has been disastrous for the people and
environment of California (Stephens and Sugihara 2018). More
than a century of fire suppression has accumulated fuel stocks
poised to bring calamity year after year, exacerbated by aridity
and extreme weather due to climate change (Collins et al. 2011,
Steel et al. 2015, Abatzoglou and Williams 2016, Taylor et al.
2016, Goss et al. 2020). A combination of risk- and liability-averse
professional culture, budgetary incentives for suppression
policies, and perpetual disaster response creates a “rigidity trap”
that manifests in neglect for prescribed burn projects (Quinn-

Ecology and Society 28(1): 14
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol28/iss1/art14/
Fig. 2. New shoots from California hazel after being burned in
a wildfire. Photo: Carolyn Smith.
Davidson and Varner 2011, Spencer et al. 2015, Crowder 2019,
Miller et al. 2020, Clark et al. 2021, Marks-Block and Tripp 2021).
Moreover, obstinance toward cultural burns in particular is
augmented by lack of prioritization of cultural resources (such
as basket plants), invalidation of TEK and Indigenous fire
expertise, and denial of sovereignty (Quinn-Davidson and Varner
2011, Eriksen and Hankins 2014, 2015, Lake et al. 2017, Adlam
et al. 2021, Clark et al. 2021, Lake 2021, Marks-Block and Tripp
2021).
Through programs like “Following the Smoke II,” CIBA has
strengthened traditional burning practices used to care for basket
plants (Lincoln-Cook 2018). The first incarnation of Following
the Smoke, which began in the 1990s, took its name from weavers’
practice of mapping out slash and lightning fires in USFS lands
so they could gather there the next year. Karuk basketweaver
Laverne Glaze and others partnered with the Six Rivers National
Forest and Heritage Manager Ken Wilson through the USFS
“Passport in Time ” program to bring together basketweavers,
agency managers, field personnel, and teachers to learn about
weaving and land stewardship. Picking up the mantle of this
successful, decades-long program, CIBA worked with Glaze’s
family to bring the tenets of Following the Smoke to other regions
throughout the state. Following the Smoke II helps basketweavers
develop collaborative relationships with land management
agencies and other stakeholders, educate them about gathering
and culturally valued plants, and bring healthy fire back to the
landscape (Peters and Ortiz 2010, Ortiz 2008, Smith 2016).
Through this work, CIBA advocates a shift toward a holistic,
relationship-centered ideology. Weavers also provide on-site
expertise, identify areas for future burns, and build relationships
with land managers and cultural practitioners across the state that
facilitate exchange of knowledge and future collaboration.
Pesticide use
It’s not even just for women, it’s the forest’s health, it’s
the forest’s rights, it’s the trees’ rights, it’s the animals’
rights. It’s for everybody. - Cristina Gonzales
CIBA’s work on pesticides arose from campaigns in Karuk and
Yurok country in northwestern California where pesticide
spraying did not consider weavers and cultural use of forests.
Conversely, weavers lacked information about spraying regimes
and safe areas to gather (CIBA 1992, Cardozo 2005, Peters and
Ortiz 2010, Gruenig 2020). Cristina says, “It’s terrible because a
lot of this material, we inherently work it with our hands and it
goes in our mouths. It’s on our clothes. It’s in our houses.” CIBA’s
first policy, adopted in 1994, promoted the web of life, biological
diversity, the health of children, future generations’ water and
fisheries, and animal and human health (CIBA n.d.b, Cardozo
2005).
Despite their harmful effects, pesticides are a preferred method
for forest management by the USFS and corridor control by
CalTrans due to their low cost and efficacy in suppressing
undergrowth that competes with conifers (CIBA 1995b, Clary
1999, Cardozo 2005). This reflects a value system that prioritizes
economic gain over human, environmental, and cultural health,
especially considering the heightened exposure of Indigenous
communities. For example, weavers gather in close contact with
underbrush and process plant material by using their mouths as
a “third hand” (Gruenig 2020, Caudell 2021). Currently, weavers
are also facing increased risk due to cannabis cultivation and
wildfires, both of which prompt higher pesticide use (Carratt et
al. 2017, Long et al. 2018, Reed 2020, Caudell 2021).
CIBA works with government, tribal, and economic
organizations; lobbies at the local, state, and national levels;
spreads awareness among weavers; distributes information about
spray plans for local areas; and documents and maps pesticide
spraying. It participates in and promotes public comment
opportunities and informs its membership using the CIBA
newsletter. CIBA’s work has resulted in a pesticide ban across
CalTrans District 1 (North Coast) and agreements with the USFS
not to spray “culturally important areas,” concessions in the
amount and number of chemicals used, and buffer zones around
surface water. Officials report it has made a key difference to have
CIBA lobbying against pesticides and protecting weavers (Clary
1999, Cardozo 2005).

Ecology and Society 28(1): 14
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol28/iss1/art14/
DISCUSSION
Starting from Indigenous worldviews: land access
The barriers that weavers face to land access must be understood
as a fundamental disruption of the natural and spiritual order
(Risling Baldy 2013, Watts 2013, Whyte 2018). Gathering is
indeed crucial for daily necessities like food and ceremony, but
less recognized is its relationship to California Indian onto-
epistemologies. Basketweavers seeking access to public lands
operate from this understanding and seek to restore proper
relationships with the land, beyond simply harvesting enough
plants to weave a given basket (Risling Baldy 2013). Failing to
recognize the interconnectedness of spirituality, environmental
stewardship, and everyday activity results in restrictive policies
that have excluded the majority of California Indian
basketweavers’ needs. Fortunately, the USFS in particular has
proven willing to assist weavers in full and go beyond their
mandate by partnering with non-federally recognized tribal
groups as well as CIBA itself. Weavers report that the key has been
building collaborative relationships with federal land managers
and educating agencies about their traditions and needs (Cardozo
2005).
In order to fulfill a “justice” defined through an Indigenous
worldview, weavers are reaffirming their traditional practices and
relationships with land. In educating public land agencies and
negotiating the return of gathering rights, weavers reassert their
sovereignty in occupied public spaces (Diver 2016, Long and Lake
2018). Their work has much to do with the distribution of
environmental goods and bads, especially given the quotidian
significance of basketry in California Indian life, but even more
to do with the renewal of their cultural and spiritual worlds (Fig.
3; Kimmerer 2011, Smith 2016, Simpson 2017, Long et al. 2020).
This resurgence holds promise for a broken world in need of just
relations between humans and environment.
Fig. 3. Traditional Chumash regalia and carrying net made
with dogbane. Photo: Cristina Gonzales.
A historical perspective affirms the claim that the fates of
Indigenous people and land are linked. The settler colonial greed
for land and resources that motivated the nullification of treaties
and expropriation of California Indian territory resulted in
widespread environmental degradation that decimated carefully
tended ecosystems and their basket plants (Anderson 2005,
Madley 2016, Bacon 2018). By expanding access to basket plants,
weavers resist the legacies of colonization in both legal and
environmental spheres. These activities speak to the possibilities
of renewal of Indigenous environmental stewardship, revival of
cultural and artistic traditions, and restoration of relationships
between human and non-human beings (Martinez et al. 2008,
Vizenor 2008, Simpson 2011, Diver et al. 2019). With expanded
scale, these practices may also provide foundations for recovery
of environmental responsibility in the form of co-management
agreements between tribal entities and public land entities and
outright repatriation of land (Middleton 2011, Diver 2016, Long
and Lake 2018, Gould and Garzo Montalvo 2020, Schneider
2022). Restoring balance through the renewal of Indigenous
worldviews is imperative, and sovereignty and self-determination
are inherent requirements of this movement. Although climate
change and global environmental collapse are at best heightened
challenges (and at worst existential threats) to Indigenous peoples,
they can also be “strategic opportunities” for applying traditional
stewardship (Cajete 2000, Nelson 2008, Norgaard 2014: 15,
Whyte 2014, 2021, Davis and Todd 2017, McGregor 2021).
Beyond environmental goods and bads: cultural burning
Weavers’ approach to burning is rooted in relationality and can
offer leadership toward further sovereign burning, continuing the
role of women as keepers of fire knowledge under settler colonial
oppression (Eriksen and Hankins 2015, Lincoln-Cook 2018).
Their efforts disrupt the USFS paradigm that focuses on fuels
reduction and revenue by emphasizing continuous relationships
and responsibilities at a local scale. Tending basket plants with
fire involves disinvestment from settler colonial organization of
space, such as logging roads and private property lines, and joins
other efforts such as the Indigenous Peoples Burning Network in
“democratizing scale” in fire governance (Cardozo 2005, Sarna-
Wojcicki et al. 2019: 257, Lincoln-Cook 2018, Marks-Block and
Tripp 2021). These efforts meet natural resource management
needs without marginalizing Indigenous ways of knowing and
anticipate a future where California Indians have control of land
tenure and fire governance such that the full ecological, cultural,
and spiritual purposes of burning are met (Adlam et al. 2021).
Although the advantages of burning for basket plants are well
documented, it is not for their benefit alone (Anderson 1996, 1999,
Lake 2007, Lake and Long 2014, Marks-Block et al. 2021). The
entire forest ecosystem is tended, from the reduction of fuel stock
that prevents catastrophic wildfires to the opening of serotinous
cones. Biodiversity, critical habitat, species abundance, landscape
resilience, landscape heterogeneity, ecologically productive
smoke, water flow, and control of pests and parasites are among
the benefits that are known in TEK and increasingly in Western
science (Anderson 1999, 2005, 2018, Kimmerer and Lake 2001,
Aldern and Goode 2014, Lake and Long 2014, Lake et al. 2017,
Marks-Block and Tripp 2021, Marks-Block et al. 2021). In caring
for basket plants, the entire landscape is uplifted. In this way,
basketweaving falls in line with Indigenous traditions of
environmental stewardship that considers ecosystem health
holistically, rather than prioritizing production of goods.

Ecology and Society 28(1): 14
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol28/iss1/art14/
Although Western science is recently beginning to understand fire
as a tool for environmental stewardship, this is only one dimension
of the California Indian worldview. Clark et al. (2021: 2) write
that “in the context of Traditional law, fire is the law of the land,
and cultural practitioners are the conduit for upholding the law,”
speaking to the role of fire in just relations between human and
non-human entities. The significance of fire reverberates deeply
throughout the material, psychological, and spiritual worlds of
California Indian peoples, from diet to social cohesion (Eriksen
and Hankins 2014, Reed and Norgaard 2014, Adlam et al. 2021,
Rogers and Smith 2021). In these ways, fire is woven into
California Indian identities and onto-epistemologies (Eriksen
and Hankins 2015, Lake 2021, Hankins 2021). Fire is also
frequently described as medicine, reinforcing the role of burns not
as management or control, but as care (Lake 2021). This is the
context for basketweavers’ cultural burns, which must be treated
with corresponding gravity.
This understanding should also accentuate the deep harm to
California Indian peoples from fire suppression policy, which
coincided temporally and ideologically with removal from land,
genocide, and environmental degradation (Diver et al. 2010, Reed
and Norgaard 2014, Norgaard 2019, Hankins 2021, Marks-Block
and Tripp 2021). Whereas the intensification of wildfires due to
fuels build-up provides a literal example of Kyle Whyte’s (2017a:
156) evaluation of environmental catastrophe as an
“intensification of colonialism,” this statement must be
understood on a philosophical as well as physical level. From an
IEJ perspective, environmental catastrophe is seen as the
corruption of proper relations between human and environment,
and settler colonialism is understood as onto-epistemological
violence that disrupts the practice of these relations. The work of
weavers to revitalize cultural burning operates from this
perspective and stands to influence prescribed burning—a field
vital to climate catastrophe mitigation—for the better. Alice
reflects on this potential: “People are scared of fire, they’re really
scared of fire. But now, people are becoming concerned about the
stopping of our traditional practices and trying to figure out a
resolution. And Following the Smoke could be a huge part of
that, showing what we’re doing at different places, showing how
it works and how to continue it... Because if we continue to do it
separately, it ends exactly where we are now. Scared of fire.”
Restoring relationality: pesticide use
The use of harmful pesticides is rationalized through the doctrine
of “acceptable risk,” which quantifies allowable damage in
exchange for desired benefits. This practice represents a
fundamental disconnect between Western and California Indian
thought; for peoples that understand all life as connected and
value holistic environmental health, there is no acceptable human
or natural price for pesticide use. They understand pesticides are
not just chemicals, but a means of disrupting one order of
relations for the maintenance of another (Liboiron et al. 2018,
Hendlin 2021).
Furthermore, the pesticides used by the USFS were approved
without testing for effects on human consumption; they had
simply never considered that California Indians still use forests
for gathering and subsistence purposes (Cardozo 2005, Gruenig
2020). The conflict over this doctrine came to a head in 1995 when
the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) met
with CIBA to arrange a study to quantify the impacts of pesticides
on weavers’ health. Recognizing that the study would only lead
to a calculation of exactly how much violence the CDPR would
be willing to inflict on weavers for the sake of timber stands and
wary of the similar situation of farmworkers, CIBA agreed to
cooperate only partially on methodology for detecting pesticides
in the environment (Moses 1993, CIBA 1995a, Reeves and Schafer
2003, Cardozo 2005). Knowing that Indigenous knowledge has
been frequently stolen and misappropriated, here CIBA exercised
its right to restrict access and maintain sovereignty of knowledge
and confronted the illusion of risk assessment science as exact,
unbiased, and comprehensive (Arcuri and Hendlin 2019, Hendlin
2021, Smith 2021a).
Basketweavers’ opposition to pesticides is derived from another
crucial distinction from Western science. For those who gather,
pesticide use is not a calculation made in an office building on the
basis of scientific data; it is a tangible source of harm that is
experienced personally. Kari Marie Norgaard (2007: 465) poses
the paradigm of “abstract vs. embodied risk” to describe this
divide, thus supporting weavers’ strong opposition. As people
with intimate experience with the hazards of pesticide use, weavers
hold a unique authority in judging the legitimacy of their
continued use that is disregarded by hegemonic risk assessment
science (Checker 2007, Shattuck 2020). Moreover, harm dealt to
the environment is experienced personally in the California Indian
worldview, where ethics of relationality motivate care for non-
human relatives. The disproportionate impacts of pesticides on
California Indian communities through basketry embody the
consequences of spiritual prohibitions that have been violated by
their use. Weavers have noticed impacts among non-human
relations in the forest including damage to pollinators, deer, and
of course, their own basket plants (LeBeau 1998, Pfeiffer and
Ortiz 2007). Fulfilling the responsibility to treat basket plants well
through tending, and not poisoning, allows basket plants to
provide their gift of safe, healthy basketry material (Ortiz 2008).
Pesticide use is a gendered issue not only because of its outsized
impact on weavers. Norgaard (2007, 2019) and others have
chronicled how birth defects, miscarriages, and alteration of
menstrual cycles became chillingly common in Karuk country
after pesticides were introduced in the 1970s. Women were also
impacted as caregivers of the elderly, who suffered from
heightened cancer incidence, and children, who teethed on woven
baby rattles and ate from handmade bowls (Fig. 4). Moreover,
midwives and female medical practitioners played a key role in
disseminating information about the dangers of pesticides. These
drastic health outcomes have raised calls of alarm about renewed
genocide toward the Karuk community, who point out that the
infringement of their sovereignty in land management is also
perpetuating centuries-old “extermination” policies (Norton
1979, Diver et al. 2010, Norgaard 2019). The symbiosis of violence
against the environment and women, a noted feature of settler
colonialism, is repeated once again (Gunn Allen 1992, Anderson
2016, Risling Baldy 2018).
Diania Caudell (2021), CIBA Board Member and Tribal Pesticide
Program Council Representative, asserts that “weavers need more
than booklets, newsletters, and brochures.” The goal in fighting
pesticide use is to ensure the health of all non-human relations
and future generations to come; information about spraying plans
is not the end of the road. In order to change the dominant tools
of settler colonial land management through policy and

Ecology and Society 28(1): 14
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol28/iss1/art14/
Fig. 4. Baby rattle made with spruce roots and peeled willow
sticks and roots. Photo: Carolyn Smith.
institutional changes, forests must no longer be seen as “tree
farms” but as living relations that, as part of their intrinsic value,
are sources of diverse ecosystem services, livelihoods, and
spiritual resources for California Indians and other California
residents (Nicola 1998: 2). In a ubiquitously toxic world, weavers’
work fighting pesticides demonstrates the need for Indigenous
worldviews and traditional practices in engaging with global
systems that deny connections between humans and environment,
compartmentalize risk but not harm, and challenge the limits of
perception and agency (Liboiron et al. 2018). Their knowledge
informs precisely the sites of manipulation used to uphold toxic
orders, like motives of profit or industry science that generates as
much uncertainty as fact (Shattuck 2020). Their leadership
exemplifies the intimate, diffused action needed to maintain
relations and resist chemical threats as dominant politics turns a
blind eye (Neville and Martin 2022). These principles were
manifest in CIBA’s work many years before they entered academic
discourse, and weavers continue to lead the way (Packer 2021).
CONCLUSION
When you think of everything that California has been
through, language and land and all of this stuff, and yet
we’re still here making baskets and we’re still doing these
cultural practices. Sovereignty: that’s your inherent right
to do those practices and maintain your culture. - Cristina
Gonzales
Weavers consistently stand at the front lines of EJ issues that affect
the health and survival of their communities. Their work
illuminates the ways that settler colonialism manifests itself in the
modern environmental order and speaks to a future where
Indigenous ways of knowing prevail in shaping interactions with
the environment. Despite this, weavers face a continuing
invisibility problem in EJ, and each of the three areas discussed
highlights this lack of attention. CIBA and its members have
played a key role in expanding land access, promoting cultural
burning, and reducing pesticide use through both institutional
and cultural shifts, yet they are left out of EJ conversations in
organizing, academia, and sometimes even their own
communities. Moreover, beyond conversations, justice on the
ground also requires resources, mobilization, and collaboration.
CIBA’s work demonstrates how approaching environmental
stewardship from Indigenous onto-epistemologies results not
only in the continued cultural and physical survival of Indigenous
communities but also in manifold environmental benefits sought
by Western environmentalism. Principles of reciprocal
restoration hold potential not only for Indigenous peoples but
also for the major shifts needed to survive global climate
catastrophe. CIBA’s work prompts non-Indigenous people to ask
why land management decisions (and indeed EJ scholarship) are
made without those who have been tending the land for thousands
of years and provides inspiration for those seeking solutions.
Acknowledgments:
The authors wish to thank the CIBA Board of Directors for their
support and contributions. We are also immensely grateful to Sibyl
Diver for editorial assistance and guidance throughout the entire
process. Finally, thank you to California Indian basketweavers from
past to present and into the future for their hard work and dedication
to perpetuating weaving and gathering practices.
Data Availability:
Data/code sharing is not applicable to this article because no data/
code were analyzed in this study.
LITERATURE CITED
Abatzoglou, J. W., and A. P. Williams. 2016. Impact of
anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US
forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113
(42):11770-11775. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607171113
Adlam, C., D. Almendariz, R. W. Goode, D. J. Martinez, and B.
R. Middleton. 2021. Keepers of the flame: supporting the
revitalization of Indigenous cultural burning. Society and
Natural Resources 35(5):575-590. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941
920.2021.2006385
Aldern, J. D., and R. W. Goode. 2014. The stories hold water:
learning and burning in North Fork Mono homelands.
Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education, and Society 3(3):26-51.
Anderson, K. 2016. A recognition of being: reconstructing Native
womanhood. Second edition. Women’s Press, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada.
Anderson, M. K. 1996. The ethnobotany of deergrass,
Muhlenbergia rigens (Poaceae): its uses and fire management by
California Indian tribes. Economic Botany 50(4):409-422. https://
doi.org/10.1007/bf02866523
Anderson, M. K. 1999. The fire, pruning, and coppice
management of temperate ecosystems for basketry material by
California Indian Tribes. Human Ecology 27(1):79-113. https://
doi.org/10.1023/A:1018757317568
Anderson, M. K. 2005. Tending the wild: Native American
knowledge and the management of California’s natural resources.
University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA. https://
doi.org/10.1525/9780520933101

Ecology and Society 28(1): 14
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol28/iss1/art14/
Anderson, M. K. 2018. The use of fire by Native Americans in
California. Pages 381-398 in J. W. van Wagtendonk, N. G.
Sugihara, S. L. Stephens, A. E. Thode, K. E. Shaffer, J. A. Fites-
Kaufman, and J. K. Agee, editors. Fire in California’s ecosystems.
Second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley,
California, USA. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520961913-022
Arcuri, A., and Y. H. Hendlin. 2019. The chemical anthropocene:
glyphosate as a case study of pesticide exposures. King’s Law
Journal 30(2):234-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2019.1645436
Bacon, J. M. 2018. Settler colonialism as eco-social structure and
the production of colonial ecological violence. Environmental
Sociology 5(1):59-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2018.1474725
Bam, J. 2021. Ausi told me: why Cape herstoriographies matter.
Jacana Media, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Barad, K. 2003. Posthumanist performativity: toward an
understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of
Women in Culture and Society 28(3):59-69. https://doi.
org/10.1086/345321
Barnhill-Dilling, S. K., L. Rivers, and J. A. Delbourne. 2020.
Rooted in recognition: Indigenous environmental justice and the
genetically engineered American chestnut tree. Society and
Natural Resources 33(1):83-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/089419
20.2019.1685145
Berkes, F. 2017. Sacred ecology. Fourth edition. Routledge, New
York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315114644
Blackburn, T. C., and K. Anderson. 1993. Before the wilderness:
environmental management by Native Californians. Ballena
Press, Menlo Park, California, USA.
Burow, P. B., S. Brock, and M. R. Dove. 2018. Unsettling the land:
Indigeneity, ontology, and hybridity in settler colonialism.
Environment and Society 9(1):57-74. https://doi.org/10.3167/
ares.2018.090105
Cajete, G. 2000. Native science: natural laws of interdependence.
Clear Light Publishers, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.
California Indian Basketweavers’ Association (CIBA). n.d.a. Our
vision. CIBA, Woodland, California, USA. https://ciba.org/our-
vision/
California Indian Basketweavers’ Association (CIBA). n.d.b.
Pesticides and basketweavers. CIBA, Woodland, California,
USA. https://ciba.org/ciba-policy-statement-on-pesticides/
California Indian Basketweavers’ Association (CIBA). 1992.
Protest of herbicide spraying. CIBA Newsletter 1:2. CIBA,
Woodland, California, USA. https://ciba.org/newsletters/
California Indian Basketweavers’ Association (CIBA). 1995a.
CIBA examines DPR pesticide study, questions goal of risk
assessment. CIBA Newsletter 12:8. CIBA, Woodland, California,
USA. https://ciba.org/newsletters/
California Indian Basketweavers’ Association (CIBA). 1995b.
Massive aerial spraying approved in Stanislaus NF, Tuolumne
MeWuk Tribe expected to oppose. CIBA Newsletter 12:9. CIBA,
Woodland, California, USA. https://ciba.org/newsletters/
Cardozo, C. L. 2005. The California Indian Basketweavers
Association: a Native agency for change and cultural continuity.
Dissertation. University of California, Davis, Davis, California,
USA.
Carratt, S. A., C. H. Flayer, M. E. Kossack, and J. A. Last. 2017.
Pesticides, wildfire suppression chemicals, and California
wildfires: a human health perspective. Current Topics in
Toxicology 13(1):1-12.
Castañeda, A. I. 1997. Engendering the history of Alta California,
1769–1848: gender, sexuality, and the family. California History
76(2/3):230-259. https://doi.org/10.2307/25161668
Castañeda, A. I. 2011. Sexual violence in the politics and policies
of conquest: Amerindian women and the Spanish conquest of
Alta California. Pages 39-55 in E. D. Heineman, editor. Sexual
violence in conflict zones. University of Pennsylvania Press,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. https://doi.org/10.9783/9780
812204346.39
Caudell, D. 2021. Pesticides with Indigenous cultural practitioner
Diania Caudell. CIBA Facebook Live Series. https://www.
facebook.com/squiggie.salcedo/videos/10221303075078417
Chavez, Y. 2019. Basket weaving in coastal southern California:
a social history of survivance. Arts 8(3):94. https://doi.
org/10.3390/arts8030094
Checker, M. 2007. “But I know it’s true”: environmental risk
assessment, justice, and anthropology. Human Organization 66
(2):112-124. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.66.2.1582262175731728
Clark, R., N. J. Reo, J. E. Hudson-Niigaanwewiidan, L. E.
Waawaashkeshikwe Collins-Downwind, and C. R. Medicine.
2022. Gathering Giizhik in a changing landscape. Ecology and
Society 27(4):29. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13605-270429
Clark, S. A., A. Miller, and D. L. Hankins. 2021. Good fire:
current barriers to the expansion of cultural burning and
prescribed fire in California and recommended solutions. Karuk
Tribe, Happy Camp, California, USA. https://karuktribeclimat
echangeprojects.com
Clary, P. 1999. The poisoning of public thoroughfares: how
herbicides blight California’s roads. Californians for Alternatives
to Toxics, Arcata, California, USA. https://web.archive.org/
web/20030617092535/http://www.alternatives2toxics.org/roadside_report.
pdf
Collins, B. M., R. G. Everett, and S. L. Stephens. 2011. Impacts
of fire exclusion and recent managed fire on forest structure in
old growth Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests. Ecosphere 2
(4):51. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES11-00026.1
Coulthard, G. S. 2014. Red skin, white masks: rejecting the
colonial politics of recognition. University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. https://doi.org/10.5749/
minnesota/9780816679645.001.0001
Crowder, L. 2019. Prescribed fire gains momentum. California
Agriculture 73(1):5-8. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.2018a0044
Davis, H., and Z. Todd. 2017. On the importance of a date, or,
decolonizing the Anthropocene. ACME: An International
Journal for Critical Geographies 16(4):761-780.

Ecology and Society 28(1): 14
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol28/iss1/art14/
Deloria, V. Jr. 1999. Spirit and reason: the Vine Deloria, Jr.,
reader. Fulcrum Publishing, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, USA.
Denevan, W. M. 1992. The pristine myth: the landscape of the
Americas in 1492. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 82(3):369-385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1992.
tb01965.x
Diver, S. 2016. Co-management as a catalyst: pathways to post-
colonial forestry in the Klamath Basin, California. Human
Ecology 44(1):533-546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-016-9851-8
Diver, S., L. Liu, N. Canchela, S. Tannenbaum, R. Silerblatt, and
R. Reed. 2010. Karuk lands management historical timeline.
Karuk People’s Center, Happy Camp, California, USA. https://
karuktimeline.wordpress.com/
Diver, S., M. Vaughan, M. Baker-Médard, and H. Lukacs. 2019.
Recognizing “reciprocal relations” to restore community access
to land and water. International Journal of the Commons 13
(1):400-429. http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.881
Environmental Justice Working Group at Stanford (EJWG). n.d.
Environmental justice at Stanford. Stanford University, Stanford,
California, USA. https://www.ejstanford.com/
Eriksen, C., and D. L. Hankins. 2014. The retention, revival, and
subjugation of Indigenous fire knowledge through agency fire
fighting in eastern Australia and California. Society and Natural
Resources 27(12):1288-1303. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.918226
Eriksen, C., and D. L. Hankins. 2015. Colonisation and fire:
gendered dimensions of Indigenous fire knowledge retention and
revival. Pages 129-137 in A. Coles, L. Gray, and J. Momsen,
editors. The Routledge handbook of gender and development.
Routledge, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203383117
Gonzales, C. 2020. Dogbane cordage with Cristina Gonzales. 22
October 2020. CIBA Facebook Live Series. https://www.
facebook.com/californiaindianbasketweavers/videos/346255353347333
Goss, M., D. L. Swain, J. T. Abatzoglou, A. Sarhadi, C. A. Kolden,
A. P. Williams, and N. S. Diffenbaugh. 2020. Climate change is
increasing the likelihood of extreme autumn wildfire conditions
across California. Environmental Research Letters 15(9): 094016.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab83a7
Gould, C., and M. Garzo Montalvo. 2020. A conversation with
the Sogorea Te’ Land Trust. History and Theory of New Media
Lecture Series, 10 September 2020. University of California
Berkeley Center for New Media. http://bcnm.berkeley.edu/
events/22/history-theory/3998/a-conversation-with-the-sogorea-te-
land-trust
Gratani, M., S. G. Sutton, J. R. A. Butler, E. L. Bohensky, and S.
Foale. 2016. Indigenous environmental values as human values.
Cogent Social Sciences 2(1): 1185811. https://doi.
org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1185811
Gruenig, R. 2020. Status of pesticides in Indian Country report.
Tribal Pesticide Program Council, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA.
https://tppcwebsite.org/
Gunn Allen, P. 1992. The sacred hoop: recovering the feminine
in American Indian traditions. Second edition. Beacon Press,
Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Hankins, D. 2021. Reading the landscape for fire. Bay Nature.
https://baynature.org/article/reading-the-landscape-for-fire/
Hannibal, M. E. 2014. Lighting cultural fires: let it burn. Boom:
A Journal of California 4(3):51-59. https://doi.org/10.1525/
boom.2014.4.3.51
Hendlin, Y. H. 2021. Surveying the chemical anthropocene:
chemical imaginaries and the politics of defining toxicity.
Environment and Society 12(1):181-202. https://doi.org/10.3167/
ares.2021.120111
Holifield, R. 2012. Environmental justice as recognition and
participation in risk assessment: negotiating and translating
health risk at a superfund site in Indian Country. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 102(3):591-613. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2011.641892
Holifield, R., M. Porter, and G. Walker. 2009. Spaces of
environmental justice: frameworks for critical engagement.
Antipode 41(4):591-612. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00690.
x
Hunter, C. K. 2018. Indian basketry in Yosemite Valley, 19th–
20th century: Gertrude “Cosie” Hutchings Mills, tourists, and the
National Park Service. In Textile Society of America. The social
fabric: deep local to pan global: proceedings of the Textile Society
of America 16th Biennial Symposium, 19–23 September 2018,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. https://doi.org/10.32873/
unl.dc.tsasp.0018
Ishiyama, N. 2003. Environmental justice and American Indian
tribal sovereignty: case study of a land-use conflict in Skull Valley,
Utah. Antipode 35(1):119-139. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00305
Johnson, J. T., and B. Murton. 2007. Re/placing Native science:
Indigenous voices in contemporary constructions of nature.
Geographical Research 45(2):121-129. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1745-5871.2007.00442.x
Karuk-University of California Berkeley Collaborative (KBC).
n.d. Karuk-UC Berkeley Collaborative. University of California
at Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA. https://nature.berkeley.
edu/karuk-collaborative/
Kimmerer, R. 2011. Restoration and reciprocity: the
contributions of traditional ecological knowledge. Pages 257-276
in D. Egan, E. E. Hjerpe, and J. Abrams, editors. Human
dimensions of ecological restoration: integrating science, nature,
and culture. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. https://doi.
org/10.5822/978-1-61091-039-2_18
Kimmerer, R. W. 2013. Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom,
scientific knowledge, and the teachings of plants. Milkweed
Editions, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Kimmerer, R. W., and F. K. Lake. 2001. The role of Indigenous
burning in land management. Journal of Forestry 99(11):36-41.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/99.11.36

Ecology and Society 28(1): 14
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol28/iss1/art14/
Kovach, M. 2009. Indigenous methodologies: characteristics,
conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto Press,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Kuokkanen, R. 2007. Reshaping the university: responsibility,
Indigenous epistemes, and the logic of the gift. University of
British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Lake, F. K. 2007. Traditional ecological knowledge to develop
and maintain fire regimes in northwestern California, Klamath-
Siskiyou bioregion: management and restoration of culturally
significant habitats. Dissertation. Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
Lake, F. K. 2021. Indigenous fire stewardship: federal/tribal
partnerships for wildland fire research and management. Fire
Management Today 79(1):30-39.
Lake, F. K., and J. W. Long. 2014. Fire and tribal cultural
resources. Pages 173-186 in J. W. Long, L. Quinn-Davidson, and
C. N. Skinner, editors. Science synthesis to support
socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and southern
Cascade Range. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report
PSW-GTR-247, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany,
California, USA. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/46960
Lake, F. K., V. Wright, P. Morgan, M. McFadzen, D. McWethy,
and C. Stevens-Rumann. 2017. Returning fire to the land:
celebrating traditional knowledge and fire. Journal of Forestry
115(5):343-353. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.2016-043R2
LeBeau, M. L. 1998. Federal land management agencies and
California Indians: a proposal to protect native plant species.
Environs: Environmental Law and Policy Journal 21(2):27-48.
Liboiron, M., M. Tironi, and N. Calvillo. 2018. Toxic politics:
acting in a permanently polluted world. Social Studies of Science
48(3):331-349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312718783087
Lincoln-Cook, A. 2018. California Indian Basketweavers
Association - 2018 TREX. (Video.) Klamath River Prescribed
Fire Training Exchange (TREX), Orleans, California, USA.
https://sipnuuk.karuk.us/digital-heritage/california-indian-basketweavers-
association-2018-trex-video
Long, J. W., R. W. Goode, R. J. Gutteriez, J. J. Lackey, and M. K.
Anderson. 2017. Managing California black oak for tribal
ecocultural restoration. Journal of Forestry 115(5):426-434.
https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.16-033
Long, J. W., and F. K. Lake. 2018. Escaping social-ecological traps
through tribal stewardship on national forest lands in the Pacific
Northwest, United States of America. Ecology and Society 23
(2):10. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-10041-230210
Long, J. W., F. K. Lake, R. W. Goode, and B. M. Burnette. 2020.
How traditional Tribal perspectives influence ecosystem
restoration. Ecopsychology 12(2):71-82. https://doi.org/10.1089/
eco.2019.0055
Long, J. W., F. K. Lake, K. Lynn, and C. Viles. 2018. Tribal
ecocultural resources and engagement. Pages 851-917 in T. A.
Spies, P. A. Stine, R. Gravenmier, J. W. Long, and M. J. Reilly,
technical coordinators. Synthesis of science to inform land
management within the Northwest Forest Plan area. U.S. Forest
Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-966. Pacific
Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon, USA. https://
www.fs.fed.us/psw/pubs/56333
Madley, B. 2016. An American genocide: the United States and
the California Indian catastrophe, 1846–1873. Yale University
Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. https://doi.
org/10.12987/9780300182170
Malone, J. 2020. Wukchumni baskets with Jennifer Malone. 15
September 2020. CIBA Facebook Live Series. https://www.
facebook.com/californiaindianbasketweavers/videos/2669193373408938
Marks-Block, T., F. K. Lake, R. Bliege Bird, and L. M. Curran.
2021. Revitalized Karuk and Yurok cultural burning to enhance
California hazelnut for basketweaving in northwestern
California, USA. Fire Ecology 17(1): 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s42408-021-00092-6
Marks-Block, T., and W. Tripp. 2021. Facilitating prescribed fire
in northern California through Indigenous governance and
interagency partnerships. Fire 4(3): 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/
fire4030037
Martinez, D., E. Salmón, and M. K. Nelson. 2008. Restoring
Indigenous history and culture to nature. Pages 88-115 in M. K.
Nelson, editor. Original instructions: Indigenous teachings for a
sustainable future. Bear and Company, Rochester, Vermont,
USA.
Mathewson, M. S. 1998. The living web: contemporary
expressions of Californian Indian basketry. Dissertation.
University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA.
Mathewson, M. S. 2007. California Indian basketweavers and the
landscape. Pages 40-59 in J. Li, editor. To harvest, to hunt: stories
of resource use in the American West. Oregon State University
Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
McGregor, D. 2004. Coming full circle: Indigenous knowledge,
environment, and our future. American Indian Quarterly 28
(3/4):385-410. https://doi.org/10.1353/aiq.2004.0101
McGregor, D. 2009. Honouring our relations: an Anishnaabe
perspective. Pages 27-41 in J. Agyeman, P. Cole, R. Haluza-DeLay,
and P. O’Riley, editors. Speaking for ourselves: environmental
justice in Canada. University of British Columbia Press,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
McGregor, D. 2018a. Indigenous environmental justice,
knowledge, and law. Kalfou 5(2): 279.https://doi.org/10.15367/kf.
v5i2.213
McGregor, D. 2018b. Mino-Mnaamodzawin: achieving
Indigenous environmental justice in Canada. Environment and
Society 9(1):7-24. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2018.090102
McGregor, D. 2021. Indigenous environmental justice: toward an
ethical and sustainable future. Pages 405-419 in B. Hokowhitu,
A. Moreton-Robinson, L. Tuhiwai-Smith, C. Andersen, and S.
Larkin, editors. The Routledge handbook of critical Indigenous
studies. Routledge, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780429440229-35
McGregor, D., S. Whitaker, and M. Sritharan. 2020. Indigenous
environmental justice and sustainability. Current Opinion in

Ecology and Society 28(1): 14
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol28/iss1/art14/
Environmental Sustainability 43(1):35-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cosust.2020.01.007
Middleton, B. R. 2011. Trust in the land: new directions in tribal
conservation. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona,
USA.
Miller, R. K., C. B. Field, and K. J. Mach. 2020. Barriers and
enablers for prescribed burns for wildfire management in
California. Nature Sustainability 3(1):101-109. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41893-019-0451-7
Miranda, D. 2010. Extermination of the Joyas: gendercide in
Spanish California. GLQ 16(1-2):253-284. https://doi.
org/10.1215/10642684-2009-022
Moses, M. 1993. Farmworkers and pesticides. Pages 161-178 in
R. D. Bullard, editor. Confronting environmental racism: voices
from the grassroots. South End Press, Boston, Massachusetts,
USA.
Nelson, M. K., editor. 2008. Original instructions: Indigenous
teachings for a sustainable future. Bear and Company, Rochester,
Vermont, USA.
Neville, K. J., and S. J. Martin. 2022. Slow justice: a framework
for tracing diffusion and legacies of resistance. Social Movement
Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2022.2031955
Nicola, S. 1998. From the Resource Protection Coordinator.
CIBA Newsletter 22: 2. CIBA, Woodland, California, USA.
https://ciba.org/newsletters/
Norgaard, K. M. 2007. The politics of invasive weed
management: gender, race, and risk perception in rural California.
Rural Sociology 72(3):450-477. https://doi.org/10.1526/0036011
07781799263
Norgaard, K. M. 2014. Retaining knowledge sovereignty:
expanding the application of Tribal traditional knowledge on
forest lands in the face of climate change. Karuk Tribe
Department of Natural Resources, Orleans, California, USA.
https://karuktribeclimatechangeprojects.com
Norgaard, K. M. 2019. Salmon and acorns feed our people:
colonialism, nature, and social action. Rutgers University Press,
New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA. https://doi.org/10.36019/97
80813584225
Norgaard, K. M., and R. Reed. 2017. Emotional impacts of
environmental decline: what can Native cosmologies teach
sociology about emotions and environmental justice? Theory and
Society 46(6):463-495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-017-9302-6
Norton, J. 1979. Genocide in northwestern California: when our
worlds cried. Indian Historian Press, San Francisco, California,
USA.
Ortiz, B. 1993. Contemporary California Indian basketweavers
and the environment. Pages 195-211 in T. C. Blackburn and K.
Anderson, editors. Before the wilderness: environmental
management by Native Californians. Ballena Press, Menlo Park,
California, USA.
Ortiz, B. R. 2008. Contemporary California Indian basketry:
practice, meaning, issues. Dissertation. University of California,
Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA.
Packer, M. 2021. Chemical agents: the biopolitical science of
toxicity. Environment and Society 12(1):25-43. https://doi.
org/10.3167/ares.2021.120103
Parsons, A. n.d. Glossary. In A. Parsons, collator. Open readings:
readings in cultural studies, political theory, critical theory,
feminist studies and more... [https://openreadings.wordpress.
com/glossary/
Parsons, M., K. Fisher, and R. P. Crease. 2021. Decolonising blue
spaces in the Anthropocene: freshwater management in Aotearoa
New Zealand. Springer Nature, Basingstoke, UK. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-61071-5_2
Peters, J. G., and B. Ortiz. 2010. After the first full moon in April:
a sourcebook of herbal medicine from a California Indian elder.
Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California, USA. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9781315435299
Pfeiffer, J. M., and E. H. Ortiz. 2007. Invasive plants impact
California native plants used in traditional basketry. Fremontia
35(1):7-13.
Polk, E., and S. Diver. 2020. Situating the scientist: creating
inclusive science communication through equity framing and
environmental justice. Frontiers in Communication 5: 6. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00006
Quinn-Davidson, L. N., and J. M. Varner. 2011. Impediments to
prescribed fire across agency, landscape, and manager: an example
from northern California. International Journal of Wildland Fire
21(3):210-218. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF11017
Reed, K. 2020. Cannabis and environmental justice in Humboldt
County. Humboldt State University College of Arts, Humanities
and Social Sciences Summer 2020 Speaker Series. Humboldt State
University, Arcata, California, USA. https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=CzJc9sGk3fQ
Reed, R., and K. M. Norgaard. 2014. The politics of fire and the
social impacts of fire exclusion on the Klamath. Sustainable
Futures Speaker Series. Humboldt State University, Arcata,
California, USA. https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/concern/
publications/3197xp46g
Reeves, M., and K. S. Schafer. 2003. Greater risks, fewer rights:
U.S. farmworkers and pesticides. International Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Health 9(1):30-39. https://doi.
org/10.1179/107735203800328858
Risling Baldy, C. 2013. Why we gather: traditional gathering in
native northwest California and the future of bio-cultural
sovereignty. Ecological Processes 2(1): 17. https://doi.
org/10.1186/2192-1709-2-17
Risling Baldy, C. 2018. We are dancing for you: Native feminisms
and the revitalization of women’s coming-of-age ceremonies.
University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Rogers, E. B., and C. Smith. 2021. Weaving through time,
pandemic, and wildfire. Folklife Magazine, Smithsonian Center
for Folklife and Cultural Heritage. https://folklife.si.edu/
magazine/crisis-carolyn-smith-weaving-pandemic-wildfire
Sabati, S. 2019. Upholding “colonial unknowing” through the
IRB: reframing institutional research ethics. Qualitative Inquiry
25(9-10):1056-1064. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800418787214

Ecology and Society 28(1): 14
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol28/iss1/art14/
Salmón, E. 2000. Kincentric ecology: Indigenous perceptions of
the human–nature relationship. Ecological Applications 10
(5):1327-1332. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1327:
KEIPOT]2.0.CO;2
Sarna-Wojcicki, D. 2014. Ethics and epistemology: giving back
in the Klamath. Journal of Research Practice 10(2): N21.
Sarna-Wojcicki, D., M. Perret, M. V. Eitzel, and L. Fortmann.
2017. Where are the missing coauthors? Authorship practices in
participatory research. Rural Sociology 82(4):713-746. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12156
Sarna-Wojcicki, D., J. Sowerwine, L. Hillman, and B. Tripp. 2019.
Decentering watersheds and decolonising watershed governance:
towards an ecocultural politics of scale in the Klamath Basin.
Water Alternatives 12(1):241-266.
Schlosberg, D., and D. Carruthers. 2010. Indigenous struggles,
environmental justice, and community capabilities. Global
Environmental Politics 10(4):12-35. https://doi.org/10.1162/
GLEP_a_00029
Schneider, L. 2022. “Land Back” beyond repatriation: restoring
Indigenous land relationships. In S. Bernadin, editor. The
Routledge companion to gender and the American West.
Routledge, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9781351174282-39
Shattuck, A. 2020. Toxic uncertainties and epistemic emergence:
understanding pesticides and health in Lao PDR. Annals of the
American Association of Geographers 111(1):216-230. https://
doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1761285
Shuman, A. 2005. Other people’s stories: entitlement claims and
the critique of empathy. University of Illinois Press, Urbana,
Illinois, USA.
Simpson, L. 2011. Dancing on our turtle’s back: stories of
Nishnaabeg re-creation, resurgence and a new emergence.
Arbeiter Ring Publishing, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Simpson, L. B. 2017. As we have always done: Indigenous freedom
through radical resistance. University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA|. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.
ctt1pwt77c
Simpson, L. R. 2004. Anticolonial strategies for the recovery and
maintenance of Indigenous knowledge. American Indian
Quarterly 28(3/4):383-384. https://doi.org/10.1353/aiq.2004.0107
Smith, C. 2016. Weaving pikyav (to-fix-it): Karuk basket weaving
in-relation-with the everyday world. Dissertation. University of
California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA.
Smith, L. T. 2021a. Decolonizing methodologies: research and
Indigenous peoples. Third edition. Zed Books, London, UK.
https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350225282
Smith, L. T. 2021b. A story about the time we had a global
pandemic and how it affected my life and work as a critical
Indigenous scholar. Pages 365-377 in B. Hokowhitu, A. Moreton-
Robinson, L. Tuhiwai-Smith, C. Andersen, and S. Larkin, editors.
The Routledge handbook of critical Indigenous studies.
Routledge, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780429440229-32
Spencer, A. G., C. A. Schultz, and C. M. Hoffman. 2015.
Enhancing adaptive capacity for restoring fire-dependent
ecosystems: the Fire Learning Network’s prescribed fire training
exchanges. Ecology and Society 20(3): 38. https://doi.org/10.5751/
es-07847-200338
Steel, Z. L., H. D. Safford, and J. H. Viers. 2015. The fire
frequency–severity relationship and the legacy of fire suppression
in California forests. Ecosphere 6(1): 8. https://doi.org/10.1890/
ES14-00224.1
Stephens, S. L., and N. G. Sugihara. 2018. Fire management and
policy since European settlement. Pages 399-410 in J. W. van
Wagtendonk, N. G. Sugihara, S. L. Stephens, A. E. Thode, K. E.
Shaffer, J. A. Fites-Kaufman, and J. K. Agee, editors. Fire in
California’s ecosystems. Second edition. University of California
Press, Berkeley, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.1525/97805
20961913-023
Stevens, M. L. 2020. Eco-cultural restoration of riparian wetlands
in California: case study of white root (Carex barbarae Dewey;
Cyperaceae). Wetlands 40(1):2461-2475. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13157-020-01323-3
Sze, J., and J. K. London. 2008. Environmental justice at the
crossroads. Sociology Compass 2(4):1331-1354. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00131.x
TallBear, K. 2014. Standing with and speaking as faith: a feminist-
Indigenous approach to inquiry. Journal of Research Practice 10
(2): N17.
Tauri, J. M. 2014. Resisting condescending research ethics in
Aotearoa New Zealand. AlterNative: An International Journal
of Indigenous Peoples 10(2):134-150. https://doi.
org/10.1177/117718011401000204
Taylor, A. H., V. Trouet, C. N. Skinner, and S. Stephens. 2016.
Socioecological transitions trigger fire regime shifts and modulate
fire-climate interactions in the Sierra Nevada, USA, 1600–2015
CE. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113
(48):13684-13689. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1609775113
Todd, Z. 2016. An Indigenous feminist’s take on the ontological
turn: “ontology” is just another word for colonialism. Journal of
Historical Sociology 29(1):4-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/johs.12124
Truman, C. D., D. M. Mertens, and B. Humphries, editors. 2000.
Research and inequality. UCL Press, London, UK.
Ulloa, A. 2017. Perspectives of environmental justice from
Indigenous peoples of Latin America: a relational Indigenous
environmental justice. Environmental Justice 10(6):175-180.
https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2017.0017
Vizenor, G. R., editor. 2008. Survivance: narratives of Native
presence. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska,
USA.
Watts, V. 2013. Indigenous place-thought and agency amongst
humans and non humans (First Woman and Sky Woman go on
a European world tour!). Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education,
and Society 2(1):20-34.
Whyte, K. P. 2011. The recognition dimensions of environmental
justice in Indian Country. Environmental Justice 4(4):199-205.
https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2011.0036

Ecology and Society 28(1): 14
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol28/iss1/art14/
Whyte, K. P. 2014. Indigenous women, climate change impacts,
and collective action. Hypatia 29(3):599-616. https://doi.
org/10.1111/hypa.12089
Whyte, K. P. 2016. Indigenous experience, environmental justice,
and settler colonialism. Pages 157-174 in B. E. Bannon, editor.
Nature and experience: phenomenology and the environment.
Rowman and Littlefield International, London, UK. http://dx.
doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2770058
Whyte, K. P. 2017a. Indigenous climate change studies:
Indigenizing futures, decolonizing the Anthropocene. English
Language Notes 55(1):153-162. https://doi.org/10.1215/0013828
2-55.1-2.153
Whyte, K. 2017b. What do Indigenous knowledges do for
Indigenous peoples? Pages 57-82 in M. Nelson and D. Shilling,
editors. Traditional ecological knowledge: learning from
Indigenous practices for environmental sustainability. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781
108552998.005
Whyte, K. P. 2018. Settler colonialism, ecology, and
environmental injustice. Environment and Society 9(1):125-144.
https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2018.090109
Whyte, K. 2021. Against crisis epistemology. Pages 52-64 in B.
Hokowhitu, A. Moreton-Robinson, L. Tuhiwai-Smith, C.
Andersen, and S. Larkin, editors. Routledge handbook of critical
Indigenous studies. Routledge, New York, New York, USA.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429440229-6
Wilson, S. 2008. Research is ceremony: Indigenous research
methods. Fernwood Publishing, Black Point, NS, Canada.
Wynter, S. 2003. Unsettling the coloniality of being/power/truth/
freedom: towards the human, after man, its overrepresentation—
an argument. CR: The New Centennial Review 3(3):257-337.
https://doi.org/10.1353/ncr.2004.0015
Zedler, J. B., and M. L. Stevens. 2018. Western and traditional
ecological knowledge in ecocultural restoration. San Francisco
Estuary and Watershed Science 16(3): 2. https://doi.org/10.15447/
sfews.2018v16iss3art2