Year of Award

2024

Document Type

Thesis

Degree Type

Master of Arts (MA)

Degree Name

Communication Studies

Department or School/College

Communication Studies

Committee Chair

Dr. Greg Larson

Commitee Members

Dr. Megan Cullinan, Dr. Wade Davies

Keywords

Navajo, Water, Water Colonialism, Framing, Rhetoric

Publisher

University of Montana

Subject Categories

Speech and Rhetorical Studies

Abstract

The water crisis effecting the Navajo Nation is among the worst in recent memory—a situation that has only been exacerbated by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 5-4 decision in favor of Arizona in the case of Arizona v. Navajo Nation 599 U. S. ____ (2023). This case, which was the culmination of a 20-year legal battle, sought assistance and potential aid from the federal government regarding water usage and assessment. However, considering the Arizona v. Navajo Nation decision, the Navajo will have to manage this crisis alone. This paper will use frame analysis to identify the various frames the Navajo legal team and government use. The legal team framed the water crisis to garner support from the United States government. Additionally, the eventual decision in favor of Arizona leads to the two main frames of the Navajo government: a sense of opportunity and a sense of loss. Inspiration for the frames comes from literature on nuclear colonialism (Endres, 2009) as well as the Red Power movement of the 1960s and 70s. My evidence comes from specific artifacts, such as the opening remarks of Navajo Counsel Shay Dvoretskey, as well as direct information from the Navajo Times and specific releases and speeches from the Navajo Government. This paper utilized a frame analysis built from the definition described by Goffman (1974) as a rhetorical technique to understand how the water rights case and its immediate aftermath were framed and to show how the leaders crafted their responses. Several frames were created based on the analysis. From Dvoretskey’s arguments, three key frames were noted: framing the case as an issue of broken treaties, fairness, and an issue of moral duty. In the immediate aftermath of Arizona v. Navajo Nation, the tribal government found itself split into two factions, some focused on the opportunities the case presents and others focusing on the loss and its negative attributes. The frames employed by both groups tell a story of heartbreak and defeat, as well as the opportunity for something greater.

Download

Share

COinS
 

© Copyright 2024 Mykel Patrick Greene