Safety

by Sydney Hoose

Safety is not guaranteed, and I think we all fall into the promise of safety at one point or another. We also begin to believe that the opposite of safety is danger, not action and that being safe is part of human nature and is something we deserve. Then it becomes a tool for change and after safety is reached, it finally remains stagnant. It is within the border of uncertain moments and threats that safety thrives in its opportunity to flourish and protect those who are deemed worthy. But who determines worthiness, and does the fact that there needs to be a challenge for safety mean that it is unnatural for human nature, that the action of being safe is not naturally granted to all humans? To this, I say that safety is driven by violence and watered by a need for comfort, it pressures growth by calling to attention the human craving for solace. People desire safety, but this gift is finite. In this paper, I will dive into the meaning(s) of safety as a keyword in Native American Studies, then transition to what being safe in America means, and finally conclude with a discussion on safety for Indigenous peoples.

Before continuing with this paper, I believe it’s important to address that the word ‘Safe’ is an English word, a colonizer word, that we are applying to Indigenous people. Words carry the weight of beliefs and life, but who benefits from their life and ideologies is dependent on history. With this said, I want to begin by looking into what this word means and how this impacts perspectives on this topic. The first text I read about this word was in the chapter “Safe” from the book Keywords for American Cultural Studies by Dr. Christina B. Hanhardt, an Associate Professor of Native American Studies. The chapter begins with the line “The word safe is both a noun and an adjective” (Hanhardt). Upon reading this sentence my initial reaction was underwhelmed and I followed up with this sentence with a heavy sigh and a “So what”. The fact that it’s a noun or adjective doesn’t do anything to help people actively. Why was something so small and insignificant at the beginning of this paper? However, upon reflection, I realized that by defining this word and looking into the mechanisms that make it what it is, we can understand and manipulate it to fulfill our ideologies. ‘Safe’ as a noun could mean a “chest for keeping valuables' ', but also a safe place for people seeking shelter and relief. On the other hand, ‘Safe’ as an adjective has roots that refer to “saved spirituality” and “not dammed” (Safe (Adj.).). The word ‘Safe’ can mean many things, however, the action of safety is more constrained. And when the two meanings come together in a way that cuts those around them, it is hideously encapsulating. The continual action of the push and pull to become safe finds itself constrained to its meanings. So with this information, being safe or experiencing safety boils down to identifying a threat and the human desire to survive, whether survival means personal survival, survival of religion, survival of beliefs, or survival of a community.

With the etymology of ‘safe’ in mind, the next question I will pose is who or what benefits from safety and who or what is the threat to that safety. In the previous definition, ‘safe’ is “not dammed” (Safe (Adj.).). But how does this translate into mundane life? I read a reflection piece by Micheal Martin, a host for National Public Radio (NPR), and throughout it, she mentioned instances in which she overheard or read about someone discussing safety, defending safety, or being abused under the disguise of safety. One story that stuck with me was that of a black man. He opened the door to a bank for a white woman with a stroller before staying outside of the building to talk with his friends. Soon after, he was brutally arrested because the same woman whom he helped had called the police on him (Martin). The way a simple act of kindness can be warped into something hideous because the woman was scared of the unknown is truly exasperating. Was it done out of malicious intent or done out of fear, and are these two things really that different? She felt her safety, her survival, was in danger because a stranger, who happened to be a black man, opened the door for her. She called the police to ‘remove’ the threat from her vicinity, but she became the threatening party by doing this to “protect her safety”. Her actions imply that it is those with more power who can be safe. The threats to safety come from people who are afraid that their safety will be taken. Is this experience of safety and threat unique to America or is it felt in other countries as well?

What makes a country safe? According to USA TODAY, low poverty rates, low gender discrimination rates, high internal safety rates, and an intense military are the keys to a safe country. In 2022, USA TODAY created a list of countries from safest to least safe. On this list, America is ranked in a staggering 129th place, placing us right below Brazil and above Azerbaijan (Mulroy). Meanwhile, the safest place in the world was Iceland. With its small population and low crime rates, it boasts a safe community that notably does not have a military. On the other hand, America has much higher crime rates while also boasting a large military. While this correlation does not necessarily equal causation, it does call to attention values that are held in America. One value is that what makes a country the safest also looks into how well this country can be a threat to others. How well can they defend themselves against threats that challenge their ideals and beliefs? In this sense, the goal for countries is not to protect people outside of their territory but to protect those within it. This view can be translated back to America regarding the heavy tension surrounding immigrants and the movement to “Make America Great Again''. But one must ask the question: does “great” equate to “safe”? And who poses the most threat?

Being Safe in America is only naturally granted through the system to some. To others, safety is something that must be taken. In America, the ‘threat’ is usually seen as marginalized groups which the public ‘needs to protect themselves from’. Recently, much of the tension faced in America has centered around gun law discourse. Many people advocate for loose or no restrictions on gun ownership because they feel like they can protect themselves and their community as the “good guys'' (Patterson-Hurst). They believe that having guns gives them power and authority over their space(s), effectively creating an exclusive safe space. However, it is this same handling of guns that poses a threat to other members of the community, creating varying values of human life. Here, once again, we see the pull and push dynamic of safety take the form of territory. To provide safety to one group, another is left unguarded. Depending on your stance, who the threat is and who the “good guy” is becomes difficult to distinguish. Within America, there are fractions of safety and territory that constantly change creating openings for different groups of people to experience safety and threats.

Diving more into the concept of the openings that are created for people to experience safety, “safe places'' offer an environment of inclusivity that allows different views to be shared in a judgment-free and responsible way (Flensner). Additionally, safe places can also be used by minority groups as a way to come together and foster a community that attends to their needs in a way that their environment outside of this community can not. An example of this at Dartmouth would be the Indigenous community, Native Americans at Dartmouth (NAD). We have events that unite our community (like midnight breakfast during finals season) as well as events that interact with campus and the greater Hanover community (like the Dartmouth Powwow). However, even with these safe spaces, there are attacks on the safety and confidence of this group. Hate crimes and other forms of violence do not disappear because of our safe space. This can be brought to a wider lens by looking at how Native Americans are treated across the nation, as well as globally.

Nationally, American Indian and Alaskan Native people suffer from high rates of violence. “More than four in five American Indian and Alaska Native adults have experienced some form of violence in their lifetime” (Five). “97 % of [American Indian and Alaska Native] women experience violence by non-Indian perpetrators” (Five). While American Indian and Alaskan Native women “are more likely to need [medical and legal] services,” they “are less likely to have access to those services” (Five). This lack of access is the result of biases regarding who society is willing to give aid to, and who is important enough to how their ideal society operates to receive it. After hundreds of years of suffering from violence, racism, and forced assimilation, I believe it’s safe to say that indigeneity does not fit cleanly into that ideal. So much so that Indigenous people face violence and are unable to benefit from medical and legal services put into place to help recover from it.  There are days like Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women’s Day that bring attention and support to this matter, but how many more days of remembrance will be founded and passed by until this problem is addressed and corrected? Is that even feasible under our current system and the basic understanding of safety? Until then, Indigenous people will continue to be still seen as other, less than, savages, and a threat while simultaneously living in hardship and surrounded by animosity.

So what happens when the threat does not only come from outside the community but within? “Globally, Indigenous peoples are more likely than their non-Indigenous counterparts to experience all forms of family violence” (Allice). So what is cultural safety, and how can it be used in the context of Indigenous violence to affect safety on a global scale? Cultural safety “directs service providers to engage in a process of critical reflection” and “relies on services establishing meaningful, accountable, and equitable long-term relationships with communities”. If cultural safety can be widely implemented, with additional support from outside resources, then perhaps there can be a stronger net of safety and support. Sovereign nations may be able to protect themselves better because they have a united and safe core. This may lead them to better advocate for the safety of their people from violence in America.

There are ways that cultural safety is beginning to take action. Acts like the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) which would “restore tribal criminal authority to address violence against Native women by non-Indians in Indian Country” have the potential to arm sovereign Tribal Nations with tools necessary to protect their citizens (Reforming). Recently this act was passed. This means that tribal authority holds non-native attackers accountable for violence against native women. However, there is a loophole. If the native victim knew their non-native attacker ahead of time then the victim is unable to be under the protection of this law. Even with this act in place, tribes are not the ultimate authority for their people. They must rely on another government to protect and provide justice for their communities, however, the justice provided still operates to aid the perpetrator. The question was once ‘If this act is not in place, who is safe?’ but now it is ‘because this act is in place, who is unable to find safety?’. The threat is then transferred in some scenarios from the non-Indian perpetrators to the Native victims and becomes a matter of America protecting its citizens from punishment. Action takes place but this action does not institute safety. 

To conclude, “safe” is a concept that was created to protect but is only viable if there is another that poses a threat. However, those same uncertain moments create an environment for change. Safety is not given to everyone and it is within its nature for it to be exclusive and yearned for. Some may pose the question “If all threats were removed from the world, wouldn’t everyone be safe?”. To this, I say that the very essence of safety depends on another community being deprived of it. Additionally, it’s not feasible to have a world without threat or action in some way, views differ largely from country to country but also within communities.

Safety is finite and the movement for it is where action lives. For example, VAWA was implemented to keep people safe (even if it is not completely successful there are still benefits to having this). But the power that allowed sovereign tribal nations to have this security was America. To be deemed safe you must have enough power to protect yourself effectively from others, the holes created by this system contradict the safety of sovereign tribal nations.

There is no neutral safety, by having it, you take it from others, meaning there’s a finite amount of it in the world. Safety can easily be taken away from the native victims if they already know their attacker. Who then is benefiting? It cannot be both. Does this mean that safety is unnatural to human nature even though it’s essential for a high quality of life? Even countries have internal and external struggles for safety. Constantly safety is seen as the goal that must be obtained under any means possible. It is relief that must be taken, not earned. By earning it you still do not have ultimate control and authority over yourself and your community, because of this, borders of actionable threat and safety are unrelenting in its fluidity.

Works Cited

Allice, Ilana, et al. “Indigenous Cultural Safety in Recognizing and Responding to Family Violence: A Systematic Scoping Review.” International journal of environmental research and public health vol. 19,24 16967. 17 Dec. 2022, doi:10.3390/ijerph192416967

Archives, Queensland State. “Safety Poster, c.1960.” Flickr, Yahoo!, 11 Mar. 2024, www.flickr.com/photos/queenslandstatearchives/37217276211. 

“Five Things about Violence against American Indian And ...” Office of Justice Programs, www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249815.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb. 2024.

Flensner, Karin K., and Marie Von der Lippe. “Being Safe from What and Safe for Whom? A Critical Discussion of the Conceptual Metaphor of ‘Safe Space.’” Intercultural Education (London, England), vol. 30, no. 3, 2019, pp. 275–88, doi:10.1080/14675986.2019.1540102.

Hanhardt, Christina B., and Christina B. Hanhardt. “Safe.” Keywords, 5 Dec. 2020, keywords.nyupress.org/american-cultural-studies/essay/safe/.

Martin, Michel. “Where Exactly Is ‘Safe’ and Who Gets to Be ‘Safe’ in the World?” NPR, 18 June 2017, www.npr.org/2017/06/18/533438871/where-exactly-is-safe-and-who-gets-to-be-safe-in-the-world. Accessed 20 Feb. 2024.

Mulroy, Clare. “The Safest Place in the World to Live Is across the Ocean: This Country Ranks Most Peaceful.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 1 Sept. 2023, www.usatoday.com/story/life/2023/01/01/what-safest-place-world-live/10427688002/. Accessed 20 Feb. 2024.

Patterson-Hurst, Porshea. “What Does Safety Really Mean in America?” The Opportunity Agenda, 18 Sept. 2023, opportunityagenda.org/insights/safety-in-america/. Accessed 20 Feb. 2024.

“Reforming Federal Law to Restore Safety to Native Women.” Reforming Federal Law to Restore Safety to Native Women | Indian Law Resource Center, indianlaw.org/safewomen/reforming-federal-law-restore-safety-native-women. Accessed 20 Feb. 2024.

“Safe (Adj.).” Etymology, www.etymonline.com/word/safe. Accessed 20 Feb. 2024.