Letters | Pave Burntwater

Pave Burntwater

Editor,

Our names are David and Cindy Van Camp. We are retired and live on the edge of the Navajo Nation. We have done so much complaining about the roads – worse than a Third World country, and now we are trying to get them to pave all roads leading to water tanks.

Because we are tired of complaining, we think it’s time to do a fix instead of a Band-Aid pavement. Burntwater County Road 409, between North 191 east to Pine Springs, which is a paved road. School busses use Burntwater, and people drive about 30 miles extra just to avoid this road to get their water. They take Querino exit off I-40 to be met with sand traps. Road department received $120 million dollars. Will they pave the roads or buy new graders?

I believe in the power of the press and I’m not done complaining. God bless. Thank you.

David and Cindy Van Camp
Chambers, Ariz.

---

 

Knowledge control

Editor,

A continuing segment critique on “constitutional concern.” There is a term we need to become very familiar with, “epistemic capture.” Most people have not heard of, which is the focus of this commentary. Epistemic is related to knowledge. How knowledge is formed and who has the authority to define knowledge or its truth. It is an organizing tool used by Europeans, strengthens its meaning with education institutions on different subjects or topics – the world of learning. Eurocentrism reinforces its definition inside education what “epistemic” means within all its accumulated knowledge, shows a type of authority with an upper hand but when taking advantage; everything is not all they say it is when it comes to minority cultures. Their way is one way only.

The point here is that scholars have recognized this contradiction set up under certain conditions is called epistemic colonialism or epistemic capture, and how it is used against us. This epistemic system was born in European from monarchies as top hierarchy of authority, contract logic, and written documents – was carried across continents by explorers and settlers. Indigenous nations, grounded in relational governance, could not have foreseen that these interactions were structured, transformed human relationship into instruments of domination to position themselves into a superior position through peace treaties.

Native Indians were placed in an epistemic quandary that functions as a form of captivity in a system that trapped Indigenous nations inside a foreign way of thinking. Epistemic captivity is when people are stuck and forced to work inside a knowledge system that contradicts their own – and cannot leave it – without losing political recognition, land, or rights. This means they must use federal definitions of “sovereignty,” “religion,” “land,” “identity,” “constitution,” and “knowledge” to prove their existence using federal documents as standard evidence to govern themselves using federal categories.

Navajos must work hard to keep their cosmology (Diyin Dine’é Beehaz’áanii) inside a system that do not believe their knowledge comes from Holy People is not believed as knowledge. This is “captivity” at the level of knowing there is no reconciliation. Knowledge comes from the Holy People’s fundamental laws that contradicts laws made by those recognized as in charge of governments. This is the exact epistemic contradiction that creates captivity of smaller nations.

If knowledge is given by Diyin Dine’é, then Diné knowledge is true, federal law is false, or federal law is true, Diné knowledge is false. Whether Diné knowledge is true or false, there is no way the U.S. will ever adopt Diné fundamental laws. One side knows the epistemic game, sets the rules, exploited it, and the trap locked itself into federal Indian law. However, there is hopeful truth: Existing knowledge repair can happen only if the goal is coexistence, not forced control or adversarial logic. Coexistence is a shared interpretive zone: both systems are legitimate, recognizable, inform outcomes, and neither system is to takeover, nor collapse into the other.

Here are clear, structured, community-ready talking points chapter officials or chapter members can be brought up in chapter meetings, family gatherings, or public forums, especially to question primary winners where they stand. They reflect a wake-up call to share their perspective, get a chance to hear and share the new constitution documented concerns raised by Navajo legal analysts.

You can start with the fourth branch (aka government review service, aka government anti-corruption committee, aka stability house found in Article XV and XVI), where it can go wrong?

It is not a neutral branch as it appears based on every grounded source available. It is structurally designed to override, supersede, and discipline the three elected branches rather than balance them. It concentrates power in unelected actors lacking accountability mechanisms and is embedded in a broader centralization of the old way and privatization agenda for investor’s rights. It violates both Diné traditional governance principles and modern separation-of-powers doctrine.

Why this matters, the Navajo Times’ analysis plainly stated the fourth branch would have “powers to overrule our elected officials” and that these powers are given to unknown people who are not elected. It replaces the Navajo Bill of Rights and Diné Fundamental Law and privatizes tribal enterprises and encourages private land ownership for outside businesses.

If we sit idle without enough information, we could lose the protection of our Navajo sovereignty (land). It is serious enough; we could lose so much of our Navajo Nation Code if the new constitution passes the referendum this coming Nov. 3, 2026, General Election ballot. Matters to me. Put the surviving candidates to commit to where to they stand because they will start using these new laws if they pass the referendum.

For better or worse. Until next time.

Teddy Begay
Kayenta, Ariz.

Get instant access to this story by purchasing one of our many e-edition subscriptions HERE at our Navajo Times Store.

---