This project analyzes a legal conflict (Bear Lodge Multiple Use Assn v Babbitt 2 F. Supp. 2d 1448) at Mato Tipila, a significant place for the Lakota (Sioux) community and with which they have a historical and longstanding relationship. Commercial and recreational rock-climbing enthusiasts who make use of it and the tourists who arrive in droves each year to visit, call this place Devils Tower. The case centered on whether the government violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by instituting a climbing ban during the month of June to accommodate Lakota ceremonial obligations. In recent historical developments, the conflict has been exclusively, and thus ineffectively, adjudicated through the eurochristian – albeit secularized – discourse of \"rights.\" The cognitional categories used to define rights with respect to both natives and non-natives at this place are rooted in eurochristian culture and are for that reason inadequate to encompass the diversity of commitments at stake. The current state of human rights theory is deeply rooted in categories of possessive individualism and other related concepts that are alien to Lakota understandings of relationship and obligations at Mato Tipila. Using cognitive theory, I investigate the radical alterity that underscores ongoing tensions at this site.
A plan implemented by the National Park Service to promote \"shared use\" by different communities is inadequate. Framing the court case exclusively in terms of religious rights forces all participants to assimilate and articulate their positions in a constrained way that privileges a dominant way-of-being that is not only antithetical to the concerns of Native communities but has been imposed on Indigenous peoples since the 15th century.
At the heart of the conflict is an incommensurability, demonstrated by clashing perceptions about what this site means and how humans understand their relationship with it. Those with power to decide the outcomes on contested lands misconstrue that reality. Most importantly, I argue that the framework around accommodation and shared use profoundly disrupts Lakota memory and tradition even as it mobilizes the discourse of inclusion.
","abstract_html":"<p>This project analyzes a legal conflict (Bear Lodge Multiple Use Assn v Babbitt 2 F. Supp. 2d 1448) at Mato Tipila, a significant place for the Lakota (Sioux) community and with which they have a historical and longstanding relationship. Commercial and recreational rock-climbing enthusiasts who make use of it and the tourists who arrive in droves each year to visit, call this place Devils Tower. The case centered on whether the government violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by instituting a climbing ban during the month of June to accommodate Lakota ceremonial obligations. In recent historical developments, the conflict has been exclusively, and thus ineffectively, adjudicated through the eurochristian – albeit secularized – discourse of "rights." The cognitional categories used to define rights with respect to both natives and non-natives at this place are rooted in eurochristian culture and are for that reason inadequate to encompass the diversity of commitments at stake. The current state of human rights theory is deeply rooted in categories of possessive individualism and other related concepts that are alien to Lakota understandings of relationship and obligations at Mato Tipila. Using cognitive theory, I investigate the radical alterity that underscores ongoing tensions at this site.</p> <p>A plan implemented by the National Park Service to promote "shared use" by different communities is inadequate. Framing the court case exclusively in terms of religious rights forces all participants to assimilate and articulate their positions in a constrained way that privileges a dominant way-of-being that is not only antithetical to the concerns of Native communities but has been imposed on Indigenous peoples since the 15th century.</p> <p>At the heart of the conflict is an incommensurability, demonstrated by clashing perceptions about what this site means and how humans understand their relationship with it. Those with power to decide the outcomes on contested lands misconstrue that reality. Most importantly, I argue that the framework around accommodation and shared use profoundly disrupts Lakota memory and tradition even as it mobilizes the discourse of inclusion.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Felese, Wendy Anne"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Richard Clemmer-Smith, Ph.D.","Ved Nanda","Antony Alumkal"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2018,"date_issued":"2018-01-01T08:00:00Z","date_published":"2018-01-01T08:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:02:19Z","subjects":["Lakota community","Devils Tower","Sioux","Bear Lodge Multiple Use Assn v Babbitt 2 F. Supp. 2d 1448","Comparative Methodologies and Theories","Indigenous Studies","Land Use Law","Race, Ethnicity and Post-Colonial Studies"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Copyright is held by the author. User is responsible for all copyright compliance.
"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/1519","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Richard Clemmer-Smith, Ph.D.","Ved Nanda","Antony Alumkal"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Felese, Wendy Anne"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2019-01-08T08:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Lakota community","Devils Tower","Sioux","Bear Lodge Multiple Use Assn v Babbitt 2 F. Supp. 2d 1448","Comparative Methodologies and Theories","Indigenous Studies","Land Use Law","Race, Ethnicity and Post-Colonial Studies"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright is held by the author. User is responsible for all copyright compliance.
"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/1519"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This project analyzes a legal conflict (Bear Lodge Multiple Use Assn v Babbitt 2 F. Supp. 2d 1448) at Mato Tipila, a significant place for the Lakota (Sioux) community and with which they have a historical and longstanding relationship. Commercial and recreational rock-climbing enthusiasts who make use of it and the tourists who arrive in droves each year to visit, call this place Devils Tower. The case centered on whether the government violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by instituting a climbing ban during the month of June to accommodate Lakota ceremonial obligations. In recent historical developments, the conflict has been exclusively, and thus ineffectively, adjudicated through the eurochristian – albeit secularized – discourse of \"rights.\" The cognitional categories used to define rights with respect to both natives and non-natives at this place are rooted in eurochristian culture and are for that reason inadequate to encompass the diversity of commitments at stake. The current state of human rights theory is deeply rooted in categories of possessive individualism and other related concepts that are alien to Lakota understandings of relationship and obligations at Mato Tipila. Using cognitive theory, I investigate the radical alterity that underscores ongoing tensions at this site.
A plan implemented by the National Park Service to promote \"shared use\" by different communities is inadequate. Framing the court case exclusively in terms of religious rights forces all participants to assimilate and articulate their positions in a constrained way that privileges a dominant way-of-being that is not only antithetical to the concerns of Native communities but has been imposed on Indigenous peoples since the 15th century.
At the heart of the conflict is an incommensurability, demonstrated by clashing perceptions about what this site means and how humans understand their relationship with it. Those with power to decide the outcomes on contested lands misconstrue that reality. Most importantly, I argue that the framework around accommodation and shared use profoundly disrupts Lakota memory and tradition even as it mobilizes the discourse of inclusion.
"]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["No Common Ground: Competing Worldviews at Mato Tipila"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Richard Clemmer-Smith, Ph.D.","Ved Nanda","Antony Alumkal"],"dc:creator":["Felese, Wendy Anne"],"dc:date.available":["2019-01-08T08:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["This project analyzes a legal conflict (Bear Lodge Multiple Use Assn v Babbitt 2 F. Supp. 2d 1448) at Mato Tipila, a significant place for the Lakota (Sioux) community and with which they have a historical and longstanding relationship. Commercial and recreational rock-climbing enthusiasts who make use of it and the tourists who arrive in droves each year to visit, call this place Devils Tower. The case centered on whether the government violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by instituting a climbing ban during the month of June to accommodate Lakota ceremonial obligations. In recent historical developments, the conflict has been exclusively, and thus ineffectively, adjudicated through the eurochristian – albeit secularized – discourse of \"rights.\" The cognitional categories used to define rights with respect to both natives and non-natives at this place are rooted in eurochristian culture and are for that reason inadequate to encompass the diversity of commitments at stake. The current state of human rights theory is deeply rooted in categories of possessive individualism and other related concepts that are alien to Lakota understandings of relationship and obligations at Mato Tipila. Using cognitive theory, I investigate the radical alterity that underscores ongoing tensions at this site.
A plan implemented by the National Park Service to promote \"shared use\" by different communities is inadequate. Framing the court case exclusively in terms of religious rights forces all participants to assimilate and articulate their positions in a constrained way that privileges a dominant way-of-being that is not only antithetical to the concerns of Native communities but has been imposed on Indigenous peoples since the 15th century.
At the heart of the conflict is an incommensurability, demonstrated by clashing perceptions about what this site means and how humans understand their relationship with it. Those with power to decide the outcomes on contested lands misconstrue that reality. Most importantly, I argue that the framework around accommodation and shared use profoundly disrupts Lakota memory and tradition even as it mobilizes the discourse of inclusion.
"],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/1519"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:rights":["Copyright is held by the author. User is responsible for all copyright compliance.
"],"dc:subject":["Lakota community","Devils Tower","Sioux","Bear Lodge Multiple Use Assn v Babbitt 2 F. Supp. 2d 1448","Comparative Methodologies and Theories","Indigenous Studies","Land Use Law","Race, Ethnicity and Post-Colonial Studies"],"dc:title":["No Common Ground: Competing Worldviews at Mato Tipila"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:02:19Z"}