This commentary is by Rep. Troy Headrick, I-Burlington, sponsor of H.362, a bill relating to State recognition of Native American tribes and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
In response to the piece “Respect the process, honor the people” —
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is not an optional or peripheral document. It is the global consensus on how governments must engage with Indigenous peoples when decisions involve their lands, histories, or cultures. Several articles are especially relevant here.
Article 19 requires states to “consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”
Article 14 states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages,” and it requires states to work with Indigenous peoples to ensure access to education in their own culture and language.
Article 31 affirms the right of Indigenous peoples to “maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions.”
Taken together, these articles form a clear message. When a government addresses topics related to Indigenous culture, heritage, identity or history, that government must involve the actual Indigenous peoples whose heritage is being discussed. Anything short of that fails to meet the standard set by UNDRIP.
In the recent commentary titled “Respect the process, honor the people,” the author claims that Vermont’s state recognition process was inclusive and rooted in meaningful engagement. When this claim is measured against the standards in UNDRIP, it does not hold. The state of Vermont got it wrong when we developed the state recognition process.
Consultation without consent is not free, prior and informed consent. If the process did not include the Abenaki First Nations at Odanak and Wôlinak as full decision-makers, it did not meet the required standard. A legislative process that occurs within an overwhelmingly white decision-making body cannot substitute for the authority of the Indigenous nations whose history and identity are being legislated.
There is also no distinction between “Canadian Abenaki” and “Vermont Abenaki.” There is only Abenaki. The border that separates Vermont from Quebec was drawn long after the original caretakers of this land lived, traveled, governed and survived here. Their displacement into the northernmost portions of their territory happened before either Canada or the United States existed.
To use a colonial border to exclude the rightful nations from consultation today is another continuation of the same colonial pattern. Article 36 of UNDRIP confronts this practice directly by affirming the rights of Indigenous nations to work across borders that were imposed on them.
The commentary also describes the state recognition process as respectful and inclusive. That claim is impossible to reconcile with what actually happened. Decisions were made by a legislature that was almost entirely white.
The self-identified communities in Vermont that claim Abenaki identity were given institutional advantages, while the recognized Abenaki nations of Odanak and Wôlinak were not given the authority or even the meaningful inclusion required under UNDRIP. Those advantages now persist with significant conflicts of interest that determine continued indigenous status through the Vermont Commission on Native American Affairs.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, as it is currently constructed, reinforces these processes without confronting the actual truth of the matter. We will not have honest reconciliation without reckoning with this truth. The result is a continuation of a process that appeared inclusive in form yet excluded the very nations whose voices should have carried the greatest weight. That is not inclusion.
Recognition laws and educational curricula are not neutral acts. They shape how future generations understand the history of this place and the people who have lived here for thousands of years. UNDRIP makes it clear that Indigenous nations have the right to control their own cultural heritage and historical narratives. Vermont has an obligation to meet that standard when creating legislation, developing curriculum, designing public programming, or taking any action that relies on Indigenous knowledge.
If we want to respect the process, we must begin with a process that honors Indigenous rights. The historical and archeological record is clear and undisputed on the history of the original caretakers of the land we now call Vermont.
Respecting the process requires centering the Abenaki First Nations at Odanak and Wôlinak, respecting their authority, and aligning Vermont’s practices with the obligations set out in international law.
Respecting the process requires acknowledging when we got it wrong. Anything less fails to honor the people whose land we are discussing.
