On April 10, 2020, Covid-19 case rates on tribal lands were more than four times the rate in the United States.1Desi Rodriguez-Lonebear, Nicolás E. Barceló, Randal Akee, and Stephanie Russo Carroll, “American Indian Reservations and Covid-19: Correlates of Early Infection Rates in the Pandemic,” Journal of Public Health Management and Policy 26, no. 4 (2020): 371–7. Indigenous Peoples across the country continue to be disproportionately impacted by the coronavirus. As of May 18, 2020, the Navajo Nation has the highest Covid-19 case rates surpassing New York, the pandemic’s epicenter in the United States. As the virus spreads, Indigenous Peoples and nations in the United States face stark disparities in accessing resources to protect their communities—not the least of which relate to data. Examples of data dependency and data terrorism continue to reveal themselves during the pandemic. At the same time, Indigenous nations, scholars, and activists are amplifying Indigenous rights and interests in Covid-19-related data. By asserting Indigenous data sovereignty—the right of Indigenous Peoples and nations to govern data about their peoples, lands, and resources2→Tahu Kukutai and John Taylor, “Data Sovereignty for Indigenous Peoples: Current Practice and Future Needs,” in Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda, eds. Tahu Kukutai and John Taylor (Canberra, Australia: Australian National University Press, 2016), 1–22.
→Stephanie Carroll Rainie, Desi Rodriguez-Lonebear, and Andrew Martinez, Policy Brief: Data Governance for Native Nation Rebuilding (Version 2), (Tucson: Native Nations Institute, 2017).
→C Matthew Snipp, “What Does Data Sovereignty Imply: What Does it Look Like?” in Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda, eds. Tahu Kukutai and John Taylor (Canberra, Australia: Australian National University Press, 2016), 39–55.
—Indigenous Peoples are focused on tribal control of tribal data and demand visibility in the disaggregation of national, state, and county data to combat the pervasive erasure of Indigenous Peoples due to inadequate data efforts.

Data erasure

“Covid-19 data on Indigenous Peoples are caught in a patchwork system, which includes tribes, cities, counties, states, nongovernmental organizations, and the Indian Health Service.”

In many analyses of Covid-19 cases and fatalities, Indigenous Peoples are an asterisk, lumped into the “other” category to be forgotten, effectively erasing them from the dominant narrative. Covid-19 data on Indigenous Peoples are caught in a patchwork system, which includes tribes, cities, counties, states, nongovernmental organizations, and the Indian Health Service. Hallmarks of this system include long-standing shortfalls in enacting Indigenous rights to data; not collecting or misclassifying American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) individuals and tribal affiliation in data sets; lack of data sharing/use agreements; limited disaggregated data; analyses exclusion based on small sample sizes; and data analyses performed and interpreted by non-Indigenous entities. This system results in a paucity of data that are disaggregated and analyzed at meaningful levels for tribal and other decision makers to set policy and care for Indigenous individuals and communities. From an Indigenous data sovereignty perspective, we are concerned about Covid-19 data erasure for three primary reasons: (1) tribes need data disaggregated to levels useful for their own decision and policy making; (2) without disaggregated data, the invisibility of Indigenous Peoples will remain a threat to the sovereignty of tribal nations and a potential weapon against them; and (3) disaggregated data, especially those at the tribal level, must adhere to tribal rights to control that information.

While data for infections and fatalities on tribal lands have been compiled by Indian Country Today, data for most Indigenous Peoples who live off tribal lands remain elusive. Given the fluid nature of tribal residency (i.e., AIAN people frequently move between tribal communities, border towns, and urban areas), tribes have interests and rights to data about their citizens no matter where they live.3→Rodriguez-Lonebear et al., “American Indian Reservations and Covid-19.”
→Kukutai and Taylor, “Data Sovereignty for Indigenous Peoples: Current Practice and Future Needs.”.
→Carroll Rainie, Rodriguez-Lonebear, and Martinez, Policy Brief: Data Governance for Native Nation Rebuilding.
Despite tribal nations being major contributors to border town and urban economies, they do not always have access to the data about tribal citizens living off tribal lands, including lands adjacent to reservations and nearby cities. Gaining access to those data requires data sharing agreements with other governments and depends on the collection of AIAN and tribal identifiers.

“Even among states that have provided race and ethnic disaggregation, misclassification remains a concern.”

States have started to release demographic data for Covid-19 cases and deaths, as of June 1 only 47 states had reported race data for confirmed cases and only 42 states had reported deaths by race. Even among states that have provided race and ethnic disaggregation, misclassification remains a concern. For example, in states like New Mexico, AIAN individuals cannot be concurrently assigned to the Latinx/Hispanic and AIAN categories. This data standard inhibits detailed reporting of mixed-heritage AIAN people and reduces the incidence and deaths reported for the AIAN population. Given high infection and fatality rates on and off tribal lands, as well as the disproportionate rates for other disadvantaged populations, it is urgent that all states report AIAN rates. Only then will we know the extent of the pandemic in the AIAN population.

Data terrorism

We posit that the ways in which data have been wielded against Indigenous Peoples and tribal nations in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic constitute data terrorism. Data terrorism is defined as the “use of data to terrorize a population into submission for political, ideological, or social gain.”4Annita Lucchesi, “Mapping Violence against Indigenous Women: Colonizing Practices and Decolonial Methods,” ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies (forthcoming). It comprises two categories—data for terrorism and data as terrorism. Indigenous communities and tribal nations have experienced both during the pandemic.

The use of tribal nations’ data as a bargaining chip for lifesaving resources is an example of data for terrorism—federal agencies utilized and manipulated tribal nations’ urgent need for resources to address the health, social, cultural, and economic impacts of Covid-19 to force them to provide data key to tribal self-determination and governance. In addition to being appropriated less than half of the requested federal funding, tribes are the only governments that have had to mount legal cases in order to access funds through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. It has taken over a month since its passage for tribes to start receiving funding from the act, and Alaska Native villages will not receive any funding until the litigation has concluded. This emergency funding is urgently needed for healthcare, protective gear, and other essentials.

“To the shock of tribal leaders, these data were then subsequently downloaded by unknown government officials and emailed to nongovernment employees in a massive data breach by the Treasury.”

Buried within this story is an egregious example of why Indigenous data sovereignty is vital in political, academic, and economic spheres. In order to receive funding from the CARES Act, tribal governments had to submit data on their tribal expenses, tribal citizens, and bank account numbers, among other areas, to the US Department of the Treasury. To the shock of tribal leaders, these data were then subsequently downloaded by unknown government officials and emailed to nongovernment employees in a massive data breach by the Treasury. Importantly, the data contain proprietary information that may provide insight into the size and extent of tribal gaming operations. This information is often kept private as it provides useful data for potential competitors looking to enter the industry. Much of tribal government revenue is derived from existing business ventures, since Tribal nations do not have standard tax bases as municipalities or states would. Therefore, anything that affects the viability of the gaming industry will have dire consequences on tribal populations, services, and wellbeing. The current Covid-19 pandemic has already affected the viability of the gaming and other reservation-based industries; recent research has estimated that Covid-19’s impact on American Indian economies may be as large as $127 billion and 1.1 million jobs.5Randall Akee, Eric Henson, Joseph Kalt, and Miriam Jorgensen, “The Need for a Significant Allocation of
 Covid-19 Response Funds to American Indian Nations” (Policy Brief No. 1, Ash Center for Democratic Governance, Harvard University, May 18, 2020). These effects will be long-lasting, especially if the underlying industries are further weakened by this recent data breach and if others use these widely circulated data.

Additionally, the rampant news articles foretelling Covid-19 as a harbinger of death for Indigenous Peoples, proclaiming that entire tribes will be wiped out, is an example of data as terrorism. For example, in a recorded call with the nation’s governors, New Mexico Governor Lujan Grisham informed President Trump that Covid-19 “could wipe out those tribal nations.” President Trump’s response was, “Boy that’s too bad for the Navajo Nation, I’ve been hearing that.” Despite making national news, these statements did not trigger any aid from the federal government to the Navajo Nation, nor any other tribal nation in New Mexico. The idea that entire nations of Indigenous people could be wiped out by the virus is sensational enough to be widespread media fodder; yet it is not disturbing enough to warrant any human rights response to provide meaningful aid to prevent those deaths. The media profits off the sensationalized comments while the government acknowledges the issue and does nothing. This has left Indigenous communities and tribal nations in fear of mass death and put them in the position to further plead for lifesaving resources that are promised to tribes under federal treaty obligations.

Indigenous data sovereignty

In firm acts of sovereignty, tribes were some of the first governments in the United States to issue stay-at-home orders. They have taken similar sovereign actions to assert their rights and interests in Covid-19 data for their peoples and communities. Indigenous data sovereignty is realized through both Indigenous data governance and decolonizing data.6Stephanie Russo Carroll, Desi Rodriguez-Lonebear, and Andrew Martinez, “Indigenous Data Governance: Strategies from United States Native Nations,” Data Science Journal 18, no. 1 (2019): 3.

Indigenous data governance centers Indigenous values and systems in the management and control of Indigenous data. Active Indigenous governance can prevent data terrorism through the coproduction of external policy related to Indigenous data. For example, by restricting the collection of propriety information in the first place for CARES Act funding or by creating more robust policies and practices to protect those data once they are stewarded by federal agencies. Currently, many tribes are doing their own testing, using their own priority criteria, and ultimately defining and controlling the case numbers for their own nation (e.g., Penobscot Nation). In the case of the Navajo Nation, this has resulted in a much higher testing rate than neighboring states, a basic component of a sound public health strategy to control an infectious disease outbreak. Some tribes issue Covid-19 case and death numbers, producing disaggregated data by local jurisdictions (e.g., chapter, districts), counties, and on/off tribal lands status that meet their own needs (e.g., Navajo Nation, Lummi Nation).

“Tribes have the right to authorize—or not—the sharing and future use of such data for reservation lands and tribal affiliation.”

The release of disaggregated AIAN data requires data governance considerations. While the release of state-level data is desirable, data disaggregated to tribal lands, zip codes, or census block groups raises Indigenous data sovereignty concerns. Tribes have the right to authorize—or not—the sharing and future use of such data for reservation lands and tribal affiliation. While the suppression of tribal data in public releases—such as the State of Arizona omitting zip codes where tribal residents make up over 50 percent of the population—may seem counterintuitive, it enhances Indigenous control and prevents misuse of data. Open data for tribal lands without Indigenous data governance in place, such as the State of New Mexico’s map, which includes tribal land zip codes, perpetuates data colonialism and risks allowing others to tell Indigenous narratives without context and care. Such disaggregated datasets must be clear about how tribal data were permissioned for current use and any future uses.

For Indigenous purposes, decolonizing data prioritizes Indigenous ways of knowing throughout all stages of the data lifecycle, from collection to analysis to use. It can serve to ameliorate data as terrorism by, for example, leading with Indigenous narratives in the sharing of data that convey community concerns, urgency, and strengths. Indigenous journalists have played a crucial role in advancing Indigenous data rights, sharing Indigenous data stories in responsible ways that do not paint pictures of Natives as vectors nor perpetuate dominant narratives of disparity and difference. Rather, these writers describe urgent data needs (disaggregated data) and successes (high testing rates) of tribes in their response to the coronavirus. They further illustrate how Indigenous communities are coming together to fight the pandemic with limited federal resources. Both decolonizing data and Indigenous data governance require redistribution of resources from systems that privileges mainstream ways of knowing to Indigenous-led priorities.

Conclusion

Indigenous Peoples have suffered from decades of underinvestment in our communities, long-standing health inequities, and pervasive invisibility for generations. Covid-19 is only exacerbating what Indigenous Peoples have always known: We are our only defense. Like our ancestors, we will survive this pandemic and rise above the structural and racial inequities that it has revealed. Not only do we need more data that advance Indigenous rights and interests, we also need action to hold the federal government accountable to its treaty obligations and advance systemic change that dismantles racism.

We dedicate this essay to the Indigenous and allied #DataWarriors—tribal leaders, community organizers, health care workers, scholars, and writers—who have stepped forward to use their unique skills to care, love, and fight for Indigenous lives.

Banner photo credit: Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez/Facebook

References:

1
Desi Rodriguez-Lonebear, Nicolás E. Barceló, Randal Akee, and Stephanie Russo Carroll, “American Indian Reservations and Covid-19: Correlates of Early Infection Rates in the Pandemic,” Journal of Public Health Management and Policy 26, no. 4 (2020): 371–7.
2
→Tahu Kukutai and John Taylor, “Data Sovereignty for Indigenous Peoples: Current Practice and Future Needs,” in Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda, eds. Tahu Kukutai and John Taylor (Canberra, Australia: Australian National University Press, 2016), 1–22.
→Stephanie Carroll Rainie, Desi Rodriguez-Lonebear, and Andrew Martinez, Policy Brief: Data Governance for Native Nation Rebuilding (Version 2), (Tucson: Native Nations Institute, 2017).
→C Matthew Snipp, “What Does Data Sovereignty Imply: What Does it Look Like?” in Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda, eds. Tahu Kukutai and John Taylor (Canberra, Australia: Australian National University Press, 2016), 39–55.
3
→Rodriguez-Lonebear et al., “American Indian Reservations and Covid-19.”
→Kukutai and Taylor, “Data Sovereignty for Indigenous Peoples: Current Practice and Future Needs.”.
→Carroll Rainie, Rodriguez-Lonebear, and Martinez, Policy Brief: Data Governance for Native Nation Rebuilding.
4
Annita Lucchesi, “Mapping Violence against Indigenous Women: Colonizing Practices and Decolonial Methods,” ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies (forthcoming).
5
Randall Akee, Eric Henson, Joseph Kalt, and Miriam Jorgensen, “The Need for a Significant Allocation of
 Covid-19 Response Funds to American Indian Nations” (Policy Brief No. 1, Ash Center for Democratic Governance, Harvard University, May 18, 2020).
6
Stephanie Russo Carroll, Desi Rodriguez-Lonebear, and Andrew Martinez, “Indigenous Data Governance: Strategies from United States Native Nations,” Data Science Journal 18, no. 1 (2019): 3.