Weaponizing Food: The Colonization of Indigenous Food Systems

Dec 2, 2024 by lkingston54

Sammie Herr, Webster University – Saint Louis

The fundamental right to food is outlined in international human rights frameworks and law. Central to the right to food is the concept of “food sovereignty” – “the ability of communities to determine the quantity and quality of the food that they consume by controlling how their food is produced and distributed.” However, food sovereignty is frequently denied to Indigenous peoples. This paper focuses on the systemic deprivation of food rights among Indigenous peoples in North America. First, the concepts of settler colonialism and cultural genocide are connected to the destruction of Indigenous food systems and the intentional malnourishment of Indigenous people, including Native children at residential schools. Second, case studies from the Arctic and the Great Lakes illustrate the human rights violations that occur when Indigenous food sovereignty is violated. For the Inuit, the inability to hunt beluga whales (combined with the negative effects of climate change and pollution) has contributed to the loss of traditional hunting and harvesting culture. For the Ojibwe, traditional manoomin wild rice production has become a central focus of Indigenous activism and the fight against environmental degradation by the oil industry. Finally, three approaches offer opportunities for moving forward: Indigenous food sovereignty, the NOURISHING framework, and social media activism.

The fundamental right to food is outlined in international human rights frameworks and law, starting with the foundational 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR states in Article 25 that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food” (United Nations, 1948). Central to the right to food is the concept of “food sovereignty” – “the ability of communities to determine the quantity and quality of the food that they consume by controlling how their food is produced and distributed” (Indian Affairs, n.d., para 1). However, settler colonialism over hundreds of years has contributed to the denial of food sovereignty to Indigenous peoples. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) views the right to food as a collective right – food sustains not only individuals, but also community and culture (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2008).

The issue of Indigenous food sovereignty requires serious discussion in the United States and Canada, where a variety of factors threaten food rights in Indigenous communities. International human rights frameworks and laws offer a good starting point for understanding the right to food, but they do not go far enough in addressing distinct issues such as food insecurity, cultural genocide, and the forced assimilation of Indigenous peoples. The lasting effects of assimilation cause generations of health problems, for example, which were exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Between 2000 and 2010, 25 percent of Indigenous people in the United States were food insecure – double the rate of white Americans (Maillacheruvu, 2022). During the pandemic, survey data showed that 56 percent of Indigenous respondents experienced food insecurity and 31 percent experienced “severely low” food security (Maillacheruvu, 2022). Experiencing food insecurity may lead to a wide range of long-term health issues, and structural racism is cited as a fundamental cause of persistent health disparities in the United States (Precker, 2021). For example, First Nations adults in Canada are more likely to face obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mental health issues than non-Indigenous Canadians (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2016).

This paper focuses on the systemic deprivation of food rights among Indigenous peoples in North America. First, the concepts of settler colonialism and cultural genocide are connected to the destruction of Indigenous food systems and the intentional malnourishment of Indigenous people, including Native children at residential schools. Second, case studies from the Arctic and the Great Lakes illustrate the human rights damage that occurs when Indigenous food sovereignty is violated. For the Inuit, the inability to hunt beluga whales (combined with the negative effects of climate change and pollution) has contributed to the loss of traditional hunting culture. For the Ojibwe, traditional manoomin wild rice production has become a central focus of Indigenous activism and the fight against environmental degradation by the oil industry. Finally, three approaches offer opportunities for moving forward: Indigenous food sovereignty, the NOURISHING framework, and social media activism.

Settler Colonialism and Cultural Genocide

Settler colonialism and ensuing cultural genocide have led to generations of human rights violations in Indigenous communities. Patrick Wolfe (2006) argues that settler colonialism is a “structure” rather than an event (p. 390), highlighting examples such as the displacement and assimilation of Indigenous populations worldwide. Wolfe (2006) illustrates his concept of “the elimination of the native” with the example of the U.S. Dawes Severalty Act of 1887, which allowed Indigenous land to be divided into separate lots to be sold as private property – thereby depleting U.S. Indigenous lands by two-thirds in the half-century from 1881. While “reformers” often claimed a desire to “save” Indigenous peoples and provide them with opportunities, U.S. Indian policy “repeatedly included the express intention to destroy the tribe as a whole” (Wolfe, 2006, p. 400). More broadly, the North American Indigenous population dropped by approximately 90 percent due to genocide perpetrated by settlers and their governments after the arrival of Europeans (Gallo, 2019).

Genocide is defined as the intentional physical destruction of an identity group with the intent to eliminate it (United Nations, 1951). Cultural genocide was first discussed by Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in relation to the persecution of Jews during the Holocaust. Lemkin created the term genocide, and he was one of the first people to address the cultural attacks that are often transpired for genocidal purposes. A simplified definition states that cultural genocide is an attempt to eradicate a group’s culture, religion, and identity (Mundroff, 2009). Furthermore, sociologist Andrew Woolford claimed in an interview:

If genocide should be understood as the “destruction of group life rather than lives within a group,” then in the case of Canada’s Indigenous peoples, that means understanding what makes them a group, what defines their cultural cohesion, such as a profound attachment to the land and nature. So, in Canada’s colonial past, systematically depriving First Nations of access to their land so European pioneers could settle and railways could be built, is genocidal (quoted in Welch, 2014).

Because food is a “linchpin of society” that is part of one’s culture (Coates, n.d.), food systems were targeted in broader patterns of settler colonialism and cultural genocide. State policies such as the U.S. General Allotment Act of 1887 obstructed Indigenous food sovereignty by redistributing ownership of communal Native lands to white settlers. Treaties between the U.S. government and Indigenous peoples often seemed to protect food systems, but in practice the U.S. continually overlooked and broke the treaty terms when it suited them (Maillacheruvu, 2022). For instance, the Sauk and Fox peoples of what is now Wisconsin received food rations under treaty provisions, but many of the U.S. state-provided foods were non-traditional and unhealthy. The U.S. federal government referred to the rations as “articles of subsistence,” making it clear they had no intent of giving the Indigenous nations nourishing foods but instead wanted to keep members as shells of people (Maillacheruvu, 2022). Similar situations happened to the Ottawa, Wyandot, Delaware, and Chippewa peoples (Maillacheruvu, 2022). Native communities continued to be relocated to the “Indian Territory” (Oklahoma) as settlers occupied their native lands. The Native populations were unable to practice traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering practices, sending their food systems into severe turmoil. Forcing Indigenous populations to live on reservations made them dependent on rations and assimilated them into white society (Frank, 2020; Cote, 2024).

Many Indigenous children in the U.S. and Canada were forced to attend Christian residential schools, which was another tool of cultural genocide. Native children were forcefully removed from their homes and families and brought to residential schools, where they were indoctrinated to speak English, practice Christianity, and adopt white customs. The Indigenous children were often abused and neglected, resulting in physical and sexual violence and malnutrition (Hanson et al., 2020). Hunger was so widespread that scientists used Indigenous children to study the effects of malnourishment; nearly 1,000 students at six residential schools were used as subjects in nutrition experiments between 1948 and 1952 (Mosby & Galloway, 2017). The children were given small portions of rotten, bug-infested food that severely stunted their physical and mental development (Mosby & Galloway, 2017). The lasting effects of hunger on Indigenous communities, as caused by settler colonialism and cultural genocide, include modern health impacts such as generational trauma, obesity and diabetes. Native adults are diagnosed with diabetes three times the rate of the non-Hispanic white population in the United States, and Native persons are twice more likely to perish from diabetes than non-Hispanic white persons (Office of Minority Health, n.d.).

Discussions of cultural genocide often focus on the destruction of artifacts, such as works of art or religious monuments, but they rarely consider the elimination of food systems. Yet Indigenous peoples’ traditional foods are considered an essential part of their culture, in part due to the connection between traditional foods (sometimes called “country” foods) and spirituality (Malli et al., 2023). Indigenous educator Hope Flanagan (2021), also known as Little Wind Woman, argues that the results of colonization and modernization – including habitat destruction and overpopulation – have resulted in the loss of traditional foods and customs for young people. “I was saddened to see that on some reservations you have to get a tribal permit to pick plants, because the challenges the plants are having growing out in the woods because of climate and other habitat changes,” notes Flanagan (2021, p. 6). Therefore, settler colonialism not only threatens physical survival but also erodes traditional food systems that are central to Indigenous spirituality and identity. Flanagan’s (2021) work, and the work of other Indigenous educators, centers on preserving food cultures and sustaining traditional food practices. It is crucial to recognize and address the historical and ongoing injustices that have disrupted vital connections to land, culture, and spiritual well-being.

Case Studies

Inuit of the Arctic

The Inuit, who live in Arctic areas of Canada, Alaska, Greenland, and Russia, have different languages and even different names by which they call themselves. In Canada, the Inuit speak Inuktitut and live primarily in Nunavut (Wilson & Hodgson, 2018). Because of harsh weather conditions, Inuit living in the Arctic have traditionally relied on hunting and fishing since crops cannot grow in the cold weather conditions (Nickel, 2022). With the arrival of white explorers and settlers (who were often on the hunt for gold, oil, and animal products like seals and whales), diseases such as influenza, smallpox, and measles quickly created health crises that sometimes disrupted the Inuit’s’ ability to feed themselves (Bjerregaard et al., 2004). Settler colonial practices, including residential schools, also reached communities in Canada’s Arctic. In modern times, government policies aimed at protecting endangered species have often misunderstood the importance of hunting culture to the Inuit and have threatened Indigenous food rights.

The Inuit have been harvesting beluga whales for more than 4,000 years and many of their cultural traditions center on hunting, eating, and sharing the animals. The Inuit have a strong spiritual connection to the beluga, which they call qilalugaq (Little et al., 2023). In the village of Quantaq (in Nunavik, Northern Canada), the entire whale is used as a food source for the whole community, from the intestines to the thick blubber. These parts are prepared in different ways, such as being eaten raw, boiled, frozen, drained, dried, or fermented. Each part of the whale is an excellent source of healthy, sustainable food for the Inuit; whale meat contains calories, protein, iron, and vitamin A (Little et al., 2023).

The beluga whale is an endangered species. For example, the endangered Alaska Cook Inlet beluga whale population declined by almost 80 percent between 1979 and 2018, from about 1,300 whales to an estimated 279 whales (NOAA, 2024). The decreasing population may be attributed to the ongoing climate crisis. Over the years, the number of whales traditionally hunted per season has dropped drastically; decades ago, about 15 to 20 belugas were hunted per season, but hunting bans have forced the Inuit to find less traditional (and healthy) resources to sustain them. The Canadian government and animal rights activist groups claim that Inuit whaling is causing the population decline. However, factors like water pollutants, commercial fishing, and changing habitats also play a role in harming beluga whale populations. Microplastics found inside beluga whales raise questions about how pollutants can travel so far, while mercury levels in the oceans and oil spills also have repercussions for the beluga populations (Ashworth, 2021). In short, diminished beluga populations are deeply concerning but are likely not caused by small-scale Indigenous whaling that sustains cultural traditions and sustains food systems.

Policy making aimed at protecting belugas often does not take Indigenous food systems into account, although Inuit communities continue to push back against bans. Beluga whales are considered fish according to Canada’s Federal Fisheries Act of 1867, which means they are under conservation by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) (Richard & Pike, 1993). In 1949, the DFO introduced the Beluga Protection Regulations under the Fisheries Act, which was revised in 1990. The regulations included limitations on beluga hunting without a license to regulate population control and manage Inuit food sources. In response to these laws, the Inuit began to negotiate terms and demand more self-governance. For instance, a claim occurred in the Eastern Arctic between the Tunngavik government of Nunavut and Canada’s federal government introducing the notion of co-management of Eastern Canadian Arctic small whales (Richard & Pike, 1993). However, in 1986 the International Whaling Commission put forward a complete ban on whaling belugas. Since then, some organizations have worked to lift the ban, arguing that the original prohibition on beluga whale hunting was not based on accurate data (Wenger, 2023). Greenland recently lifted part of its ban, setting a quota of 30 whales per season that the Inuit are allowed to hunt. However, this change sparked outrage because Inuit data was not considered when making this decision – an unfortunate common occurrence with much policy making that impacts Inuit hunting and fishing (Wenger, 2023).

Since Canada’s ban on hunting belugas, the Inuit’s dependence on store-bought food has increased. The Inuit have had to alter their diets to rely on overpriced and unhealthy alternatives. Low-income families must depend on foods that are imported to the Arctic, often making shopping decisions based on price rather than quality or nutritional value. A recent study showed that 57 percent of households in Nunavut were food insecure[1] in 2017-2018, the highest level in the country (Statistics Canada, 2020). Sappho Gilbert (2022) claims that “country” (traditional) foods such as the beluga whale are about more than just eating well. Inuit speak about the importance of country food to their spirit, describing it as soul food and their identity; losing country food impacts numerous well-being dimensions, not just physical ones (Gibert, 2022). Notably, dependence on store-bought food reflects a longer process of cultural assimilation, and it is evident that hunting knowledge and culture are becoming lost. Martina Tyrrell (2008) writes that Inuit beluga hunters once waited patiently for their prey, then transitioned to running and shooting with guns, then went to people shooting pictures of belugas with cameras. With the modern hunting bans, a hunting “season” can last only one day before the quota is reached where hunting is permitted at all (Tyrrell, 2008).

The Inuit in Canada’s Arctic are unable to maintain their cultural traditions and foodways due to government bans on hunting beluga, which are prompted by the negative effects of the climate crisis and pollution – not over hunting by Indigenous communities. This situation reflects broader issues related to settler colonialism in the Arctic and cultural genocide. Moreover, conditions for the beluga could be improved by respecting Inuit knowledge and upholding their food sovereignty, since the Inuit benefit from protecting beluga populations for future generations. The Inuit could lose a vital part of their identity if the beluga went extinct; the belugas and the Inuit have a shared interest in the animal’s survival.

Ojibwe and Manoomin of the Great Lakes

The Ojibwe refer to themselves as Anishinaabeg, or “True People.” Their nation now resides in the Great Lakes and they have historically told stories through oral tradition, including an ancient prophecy where they would find “the land where food grows on water” (Minnesota Historical Society, n.d.). This prophecy led the Ojibwe to journey from the Northeast, where they originally resided, to the West where they would discover a crop that changed their spirituality and diets: Manoomin (wild rice), which they believed to be granted from their spiritual sources of life (Pluralism Project, 2020). Manoomin is today known as wild rice and is the only native grain to the United States, where it grows in the Great Lakes Basin. There are many reasons that the Ojibwe people have a close attachment to manoomin other than its cultural significance. Manoomin was a dietary staple for the Ojibwe as it is high in protein, low in fat,and contains many essential minerals and vitamins (Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commision, n.d.). The rice harvest in August is a special time for them, when the community takes canoes out to harvest and Ojibwe individuals who moved away return to aid with the harvest and celebrate (Pluralism Project, 2020). Additionally, wild rice is used as an offering for funerals, is served at celebrations, and is used medicinally as a mixed herb paste to treat soreness and inflammation (Stack Whitney, 2015). During the period when the Ojibwe traded with the Europeans at trading posts, manoomin was a source of income in an evolving world. However, this soon became problematic as the demand for manoomin grew as the population grew in the area. The traditional rice harvesting methods changed as the world transformed around them, with Native and non-Native people now harvesting manoomin to trade for goods (Milgroom, 2020).

Since the 1800s, ideas of creating a domesticated strain of wild rice were spread by non-Native groups, and from then on, the crop has been researched and cultivated for financial gain with little respect for the Ojibwe’s spiritual connection and traditions, manoomin’s environmental needs, or the Ojibwe’s dietary needs. Researchers began looking for ways to domesticate the wild rice as early as the 1800s. One of the first researchers to study wild rice was anthropologist Albert Jenks, who declared that Ojibwe communities had “primitive” harvesting techniques that held back their economy, thus stressing the need to replace Indigenous practices with white settler ones (Stack Whitney, 2015). Between 1968 and 2000, the University of Minnesota created and planted nine wild rice strains inspired by Jenks’ research (Stack Whitney, 2015). With these new strains, farmers in Minnesota began to cultivate the newly domesticated crop just like any other commercial crop. A couple of decades later, the Indigenous communities that relied on selling manoomin to food companies had become economically destabilized (Stack Whitney, 2015). Both Native and white settlers were sent into a frenzy to profit from the rice, resorting to improper harvesting techniques to keep up with the demand. Harvesting the rice too early damages the rice beds, causing a portion of ancient varieties to become extinct (Thielen, 2019). Early settler colonialism in the Great Lakes Basin contributed to dwindling wild rice numbers and health issues in the Indigenous populations that relied on manoomin. Jennifer Ballinger (2018) notes that changes in culture that involve a loss of spirituality have negative effects on Indigenous individuals and generational health. Their loss of food sovereignty and their food systems added to the risk of health issues such as diabetes and obesity (Ballinger, 2018; Milgroom, 2020).

The fight to preserve manoomin is also linked to environmental and human development challenges in the Great Lakes region, with one of the main threats emanating from the oil industry. Activists continue to fight against several Enbridge crude oil pipelines, which extend through the Great Lakes. The pipelines originated in the 1950s (Mizner, 2021). An expansion was completed in 2021 in response to pipelines deterioration, which catalyzed many Indigenous groups and activists to protest due to concerns about the reliability of the new pipeline (Global Oil and Gas Exit List, 2024). Many concerns are also centered on Enbridge’s inadequate safety checks, as well as the increased pressure and volume in the pipelines (Oil and Water Don’t Mix, n.d.). Enbridge has a troubling history, having seemingly caused more than 300 pipeline spills in the U.S. since 2002. This includes the largest inshore spill in history, which took place in 1991 in the Kalamazoo River Disaster (Global Oil and Gas Exit List, 2024). The pipelines are capable of spilling and damaging sensitive, biodiverse land and water. If the pipelines leak, they could contaminate drinking water and poison the riverbeds where wild rice grows.

In 2018, the White Earth Band introduced a new law that stated manoomin holds a degree of personhood and is entitled to grow in the proper conditions it needs to thrive, inspired by the “Rights of Nature” movement (Global Oil and Gas Exit List, 2024). Following that, in 2021, the state of Minnesota violated the White Earth Band’s rights and the rights of manoomin by granting Enbridge a permit to continue their pipeline operation (Global Oil and Gas Exit List, 2024). In 2021, the White Earth Band of the Ojibwe Tribal Court attempted to sue the state of Minnesota on behalf of wild rice in Manoomin v. the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Duckett, 2022). However, after numerous legal challenges, the case was eventually dropped (Global Oil and Gas Exit List, 2024). As discussed earlier, the Ojibwe still express that they rely physically and spiritually on manoomin to maintain their survival, health, and historic traditions. Even to this day, Indigenous groups are fighting to protect and preserve sacred foods from the same systems that threatened their food sovereignty for centuries. Settler colonialism structures are still prevalent in the U.S. to this day, with non-Native people expecting Indigenous populations like the Ojibwe and the White Earth Band to assimilate further into their vision of the modern day.

Recommendations and Conclusions

The Inuit of the Arctic and the Ojibwe of the Great Lakes are examples of Indigenous people whose food rights have been deeply affected by settler colonialism and cultural genocide. Indigenous voices must be uplifted and considered when making decisions that affect their traditions and livelihoods. Three approaches offer opportunities for moving forward: activism for Indigenous food sovereignty, following the NOURISHING framework, and social media activism.

First, the movement for Indigenous food sovereignty has been growing worldwide, with the goal of ending food insecurity for Native peoples and protecting their ability to make decisions about what they eat – including accessing and protecting traditional foods, if they wish to maintain those traditions. According to the Indigenous Systems Food Network (n.d.), this movement follows four essential principles: 1) Sacred sovereignty, which describes that food is spiritually significant to all Indigenous people as it is a bestowal from the creator. Because of food’s sacredness, colonial laws and influence cannot restrain their customs. 2) Participation, because the food sovereignty movement requires action. This action derives from Indigenous nations upholding their traditions and teaching future generations daily tasks, such as harvesting certain foods. 3) Self-determination, which means Indigenous peoples make their own choices about what is healthy for them to eat. This step would reduce their dependence on grocery stores, which would likely help families stay away from overly expensive and unhealthy foods. 4) Policy, which ensures that Indigenous leaders and peoples worldwide have opportunities to participate in lawmaking that would affect their right to food, including decisions about health, agriculture, fisheries, environmental conservation, and many other topics (Indigenous Food Systems Network, n.d.). Each Indigenous nation has different views on what food means to them, but determining specific community needs is necessary to combat the long-lasting effects of settler colonialism.

With the support of different organizations and nonprofits, like the ones mentioned in this paper, there are many opportunities to practice these principles of the Indigenous food sovereignty. For example, Hope Flanagan from the “Settler Colonialism and Cultural Genocide” section teaches at an organization called Dream for Wild Health. More organizations that offer education to all ages, especially to youth, are essential to keep the Indigenous food traditions and systems alive. An important aspect of these organizations is their diversity, as different groups focus on the varying principles of Indigenous food sovereignty. Another example of this would be Native American Food Sovereignty Alliance (NAFSA), which encourages incentives for all four of the principles. This organization has partnered with a program called GATHER. GATHER’s mission is to educate, award grants and scholarships, and advance Native economic and entrepreneurship goals (First Nations Development Institute, n.d.) There are many more organizations that focus on these issues and are constantly fighting for Indigenous food sovereignty.

Second, the NOURISHING framework is a useful tool to consider for promoting and protecting food sovereignty. NOURISHING is an acronym for ten policy areas that can be used to take action:

Nutrition labeling

Offer healthy foods and standards in public settings;

Usage of economic tools to address the cost of food;

Restrict advertising and promotion of food;

Improve the nutrient basis of food quality;

Set incentives for food services to create healthier environments;

Harness food suppliers to ensure they are keeping up with food health standards;

Inform people about nutrition;

Nutrition counseling;

Give nutrition education/skills (World Cancer Research Fund International, n.d.).

The NOURISHING framework could help improve Indigenous health and facilitate food sovereignty by empowering people to make their own decisions with increased information and resources. Targeted approaches that combine these strategies could improve food costs, food environments, and nutrition education. Researchers point to initiatives such as obligatory food reformulation targets, interpretive nutrition labeling systems applied across all products, and food pricing approaches that both incentivize nutritive products and disincentivize unhealthy nourishment (Browne et al., 2020). While universal policies can improve overall health, data shows they may be markedly less effective for individuals with limited social and economic resources (Browne et al., 2020). Still, the NOURISHING framework offers aid in the fight for Indigenous food sovereignty.

Third, there are many ways that Indigenous youth and communities can communicate through social media to advocate for their goals and to share and celebrate their customs. For example, Willow Allen (n.d.), an Inuk living in the Arctic, shares videos of her family enjoying traditional foods like muktuk (dried beluga whale meat) and cloudberries. Allen uses her platform of more than 800,000 followers to share Inuit culture, advocate for Indigenous rights, and support the food sovereignty movement. Indigenous youth already use social media to access visionary arts, Indigenous storytelling, and connection with community and service providers. A positive aspect of social media is that it gives people the ability to engage in political conversations and speak out about issues in their communities. In doing this, Native individuals continue to raise awareness of integral issues in communities that may not receive sufficient attention in mainstream media (Kennedy, 2021). However, social media does come with negative aspects such as hate speech, bullying, and harassment that can be devastating to Indigenous youth (Kennedy, 2021). For instance, bullying on social media can lead to depression, anxiety, and thoughts of suicide (Carlson & Frazer, 2019) – and more specifically, Indigenous adolescent cyberbullying victims are nearly twice as likely to attempt suicide (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). Some argue that the inclusion of more Indigenous people at social media companies could facilitate more effective ways to restrict hate speech online and in apps (Kennedy, 2021). Ultimately, the ability to spread knowledge on social media makes it easier for Indigenous individuals and groups to share their own information. The oral storytelling tradition is easily able to carry on in an overall beneficial method with shortened video content such as TikToks and Instagram and Facebook reels.

While the right to food is fundamental and outlined in international human rights frameworks, this right is violated for many Indigenous nations across North America. It is clear from these examples that these Indigenous groups have experienced a great amount of physical and emotional suffering stemming from settler colonialism and acts of cultural genocide, from historical cases to present-day. Governments must prioritize Indigenous voices in policymaking and programming, with respect for Indigenous food sovereignty. Non-Native people can raise Indigenous voices on platforms where their messages can be spread to state decisionmakers, including on social media. This paper fosters awareness of how Indigenous food systems have been (and are) disrupted, thereby spurring positive change to protect access to adequate nutrition and healthcare. These actions could aid in the healing of the generational and cultural trauma passed down from these wrongdoings.

References

Allen, W. (n.d.). “Inuk from the Arctic.” TikTok profile, [@willow.allen. Retrieved from https://www.tiktok.com/@willow.allen.

Ashworth, J. (2021, November 7). “Arctic whales may be consuming thousands of microplastics each year.” Natural History Museum. Retrieved from https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2021/november/arctic-whales-may-be-consuming-thousands-of-microplastics-a-year.html.

Ballinger, J. (2018, November). “Potential health impacts due to cultural changes from Manoomin (Zizania palustris) loss for the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.” Public Health Review 1(1). Retrieved from https://pubs.lib.umn.edu/index.php/phr/article/view/1567.

Bjerregaard, P., Young, T. K., Dewailly, E., & Ebbesson, S. O. E. (2004). “Review Article: Indigenous health in the Arctic: an overview of the circumpolar Inuit population.” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 32(5): 390-395.

Browne, J., Lock, M., Walker, T., Egan, M., & Backholer, K. (2020). “Effects of food policy actions on Indigenous Peoples’ nutrition-related outcomes: A systematic review.” BMJ Global Health, 5(8).

Carlson, B., & Frazer, R. (2019, May 8). “We need to do more about cyberbullying against Indigenous Australians.” The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/we-need-to-do-more-about-cyberbullying-against-indigenous-australians-115297.

Coates, F. (n.d.). “What is Food Culture?” XYUandBEYOND. Retrieved from https://xyuandbeyond.com/food-culture/.

Cote, S. (2024, April 9). “Rations and commodities: Mass genocide through Generational Limited and processed food access.” National Endowment for Financial Education (NEFE). Retrieved from https://www.nefe.org/news/2024/04/mass_genocide_through_generational_limited_and_processed_food_access.aspx.

Duckett, A. (2022, April 19). “Wild Rice Gets its Day in Court.” Earth Law Center. Retrieved from https://www.earthlawcenter.org/blog-entries/2022/4/wild-rice-gets-its-day-in-court.

Feeding America. (2023). “Hunger and food insecurity.” Retrieved from https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/food-insecurity.

First Nations Development Institute. (n.d.). “Gather Food Sovereignty Project.” https://www.firstnations.org/projects/gather-food-sovereignty-project/.

Flanagan, H. (2021). “Elder Voices: Wisdom about Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems from the Holders of Knowledge.” Current Developments in Nutrition. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzaa146.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2008). “The Right to Food and Indigenous Peoples.” Retrieved from https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/Right_to_food.pdf.

Frank, L. E. (2020, November 30). “How Native American diets shifted after European colonization.” History. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/news/native-american-food-shifts.

Gallo, L. N. (2019, February 24). “The Lost Culture & Practices of the Native Americans: The Navajo.” Penn State. Retrieved from https://sites.psu.edu/keepyourculture/2019/02/24/the-lost-culture-practices-of-the-native-americans-the-navajo/#:~:text=Given%20that%20an%20estimated%2080,back%20to%20its%20original%20state.

Gilbert, S. (2022, November 14). “Food Security, Nutrition, and Indigenous Health in the Arctic.” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Retrieved from https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/translational/peph/podcasts/2022/nov14_food-security/index.cfm.

Global Oil and Gas Exit List. (2024, February). “Line 3 pipeline.” Urgewald. Retrieved from https://gogel.org/line-3-pipeline.

Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. (n.d.). “Manoomin – Wild Rice: The Good Berry.” Retrieved from https://glifwc.org/publications/pdf/Goodberry_Brochure.pdf.

Hanson, E., Gamez, D., & Manuel, A. (2020, September). “The Residential School System.” Indigenous Foundations. Retrieved from https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/residential-school-system-2020/.

Hayes, T. O. (2021, March 11). “Food insecurity and food insufficiency: Assessing causes and historical trends.” American Action Forum. Retrieved from https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/food-insecurity-and-food-insufficiency-assessing-causes-and-historical-trends/.

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. (2010). “Cyberbullying Research Summary: Cyberbullying and Suicide.” Cyberbullying Research Center.Retrieved from https://cyberbullying.org/cyberbullying_and_suicide_research_fact_sheet.pdf.

Indian Affairs. (n.d.). “Why Food Sovereignty Matters.” U.S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved from https://www.bia.gov/service/indigenous-tourism/why-food-sovereignty-matters.

Indigenous Food Systems Network. (n.d.). “Indigenous Food Sovereignty.” Working Group on Indigenous Food Sovereignty. Retrieved from https://www.indigenousfoodsystems.org/food-sovereignty#content.

Kennedy, T. (2021, June 11). “97% of Indigenous People Report Seeing Negative Social Media Content Weekly. Here’s How Platforms Can Help.” The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/97-of-indigenous-people-report-seeing-negative-social-media-content-weekly-heres-how-platforms-can-help-162353.

Little, M., Winters, N., Achouba, A., Magesky, A. M., Ayotte, P. A., Palliser, T., Naylor, A., Jararuse, W., & Lemire, M. (2023). “Weaving together Inuit knowledge and western science: A mixed-methods case study of qilalugaq (beluga whale) in Quaqtaq, Nunavik.” Arctic Science, 9(3). Retrieved from https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/full/10.1139/as-2022-0039.

Maillacheruvu, S. U. (2022, October 4). “The Historical Determinants of Food Insecurity in Native Communities.” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/the-historical-determinants-of-food-insecurity-in-native-communities#:~:text=The%20problem%20of%20food%20insecurity,and%20assets%20exacerbates%20these%20problems.

Malli, A., Monteith, H., Hiscock, E. C., Smith, E. V., Fairman, K., Galloway, T., & Mashford-Pringle, A. (2023). “Impacts of colonization on Indigenous food systems in Canada and the United States: a scoping review.” BMC Public Health, 23(1).

Milgroom, J. (2020, July 20). “Wild rice and the Ojibwe.” MNopedia. Retrieved from https://www.mnopedia.org/thing/wild-rice-and-ojibwe.

Minnesota Historical Society. (n.d.). “The Ojibwe People.” Historic Fort Snelling. Retrieved from https://www.mnhs.org/fortsnelling/learn/native-americans/ojibwe-people#:~:text=The%20ancestors%20of%20the%20Ojibwe,that%20lasted%20for%20many%20centuries.

Mizner, L. S. (2021, September 10). “Enbridge’s Line 3 is Putting Wild Rice at Risk – and Indigenous Water Protectors are Taking a Stand.” Civil Eats. Retrieved from https://civileats.com/2021/05/18/enbridges-line-3-is-putting-wild-rice-at-risk-and-indigenous-water-protectors-are-taking-a-stand/.

Mosby, I., & Galloway, T. (2017, August 14). “’Hunger was never absent’: How residential school diets shaped current patterns of diabetes among Indigenous peoples in Canada.” Canadian Medical Association Journal, 189(32). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5555756/#:~:text=In%201965%2C%20Indian%20Affairs%20Branch,worms%20or%20corn%20meal%20porridge%2C.

Mundroff, K. (2009). “Other people’s children: A textual and contextual interpretation of the Genocide Convention, Article 2(E).” Harvard International Law Journal, 50(1).

Nickel, R. (2022, August 8). “Cold and hungry: Food inflation bites Canada’s north.” Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/cold-hungry-food-inflation-bites-canadas-north-2022-08-08/.

NOAA. (2024, January 17). “Beluga whale.” Retrieved from https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/beluga-whale.

Office of Minority Health. (n.d.). “Diabetes and American Indians/Alaska Natives.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=33.

Oil & Water Don’t Mix. (n.d.). “The Problem with the Line 5 Oil Pipeline.” Retrieved from https://www.oilandwaterdontmix.org/problem.

Pluralism Project. (2020). “Wild Rice- A Sacred Food.” Harvard University. Retrieved from https://pluralism.org/files/pluralism/files/wild_rice-_a_sacred_food.pdf.

Precker, M. (2021, September 22). “Food insecurity’s long-term health consequences.” American Heart Association News. Retrieved from https://www.heart.org/en/news/2021/09/22/food-insecuritys-long-term-health-consequences.

Public Health Agency of Canada. (2016, December 15). “Health Status of Canadians 2016: Report of the Chief Public Health Officer.” Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/healthy-canadians/migration/publications/department-ministere/state-public-health-status-2016-etat-sante-publique-statut/alt/pdf-eng.pdf.

Richard, P. R., & Pike, D. G. (1993). “Small Whale Co-Management in the Eastern Canadian Arctic: A Case History and Analysis.” Arctic, 46(2): 138-143.

Stack Whitney, K. (2015). “Manoomin: The Taming of Wild Rice in the Great Lakes Region.” Environment & Society Portal. Retrieved from https://www.environmentandsociety.org/arcadia/manoomin-taming-wild-rice-great-lakes-region.

Statistics Canada. (2020, June 24). “Household food insecurity, 2017-2018.” Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-625-x/2020001/article/00001-eng.htm.

Thielen, A. (2019, August 10). “The True Story of Wild Rice, North America’s Most Misunderstood Grain.” Saveur. Retrieved from https://www.saveur.com/true-story-wild-rice-north-americas-most-misunderstood-grain/.

Tyrrell, M. (2008). “Nunavik Inuit perspectives on Beluga Whale Management in the Canadian Arctic.” Human Organization, 67(3): 322-334.

United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.

United Nations. (1951). Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf.

United Nations. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Retrieved from https://social.desa.un.org/issues/indigenous-peoples/united-nations-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.

Welch, M. A. (2014, July 14). “The Genocide Test.” Winnipeg Free Press. Retrieved from https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/2014/07/12/the-genocide-test.

Wenger, M. (2023, January 3). “Inuit organization scientifically investigates beluga hunting ban.” Polar Journal. Retrieved from https://polarjournal.ch/en/2023/01/03/inuit-organization-scientifically-investigates-beluga-hunting-ban/.

Wilson, K., & Hodgson, C. (2018). “Section 1: Introduction to Indigenous Peoples – Inuit.” In Pulling Together: A Guide for Indigenization of Post-Secondary Institutions, edited by Kory Wilson. Retrieved from https://books.twu.ca/indigenizationfoundations/chapter/topic-inuit/.

Wolfe, P. (2006). “Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native.” Journal of Genocide Research, 8(4): 387-409.

World Cancer Research Fund International. (n.d.). “NOURISHING Framework.” Retrieved from https://www.wcrf.org/policy/nutrition-policy/nourishing-framework/.

Righting Wrongs: A Journal of Human Rights is an academic journal that provides space for undergraduate students to explore human rights issues, challenge current actions and frameworks, and engage in problem-solving aimed at tackling some of the world’s most pressing issues. This open-access journal is available online at www.webster.edu/rightingwrongs.

[1] Food insecurity is not having consistent access to enough food for each household member to live an active, healthy life (Feeding America, 2023). Food insecurity can also include a diet lacking quality, variousness, or desirability (Hayes, 2021).

Got anything to say? Go ahead and leave a comment!