A newly released educational curriculum in the US state of Vermont has reignited a long-simmering and deeply contentious debate over Indigenous identity, historical authority, and cultural narrative in the northeastern United States. The dispute pits four state-recognised Abenaki groups in Vermont against two First Nations based in Quebec, Canada, over who has the right to define and teach Abenaki history.
Curriculum at the Heart of the Conflict
The "American Abenaki Curriculum," designed for students from grades three to twelve, was developed under the oversight of the Vermont Commission on Native American Affairs. This state body represents the four groups recognised by Vermont: the Elnu Abenaki, the Nulhegan Abenaki, the Koasek Band of the Koas Abenaki Nation, and the Abenaki Nation at Missisquoi. The material focuses on the history, culture, and contemporary experiences of these specific communities.
Dan Coutu, chair of the commission, stated at a December press conference that the curriculum intentionally reflects Vermont-specific history. He emphasised that while the Canadian nations have their voice, it is now the turn of the Vermont groups to present their perspective. The curriculum draws partly on documentation these groups submitted during Vermont's official tribal recognition process.
Canadian First Nations Decry "Rewriting of History"
The leaders of the Odanak and Wolinak First Nations in Quebec argue they were deliberately excluded from the curriculum's development. They assert that their ancestral homeland, Ndakina, spans across the modern US-Canada border, including Vermont. In a strong joint statement, they labelled the curriculum a "rewriting of history."
"There is no such thing as 'American Abenaki,'" the statement declared, arguing that Abenaki identity and Ndakina predate colonial borders and cannot be redefined by modern state categories. They contend that presenting a curriculum under this reconfigured identity trivialises history and normalises cultural appropriation in education.
This public clash follows a series of actions by Odanak and Wolinak to challenge Vermont's recognition decisions. In October, they published a genealogical report by University of Ottawa associate professor Darryl Leroux. The report examined ancestry over approximately fifteen generations for prominent members of the Vermont tribes and concluded they were almost entirely of European descent. Leaders of the Vermont groups have fiercely contested these findings, calling the report "junk science" compiled with bias.
From Academic Debate to Legislative Action
The tension moved from reports and press conferences into the political arena. At the December curriculum launch, an exchange with Odanak citizen Denise Watso grew so heated she was escorted out. Now, the Vermont legislature is getting involved.
Independent Representative Troy Headrick from Burlington plans to introduce a bill requiring consultation with and endorsement from Odanak and Wolinak before any Indigenous history curriculum is used in Vermont schools. Headrick criticised the state-recognised groups for exploiting the "foothold" given to them through the recognition process. He had previously proposed a task force to reexamine Vermont's tribal recognition decisions, though it did not advance.
Meanwhile, Odanak's tribal government has circulated the genealogical report to legislators in Vermont and New Hampshire and launched a year-long television campaign arguing the state-recognised tribes are not legitimate Indigenous communities.
A Battle Over Identity and Sovereignty
At its core, this conflict transcends a single educational resource. It is a fundamental struggle over who holds the authority to define Indigenous identity, whose historical narrative is validated in public institutions, and how state recognition intersects with—or challenges—Indigenous sovereignty.
For the Vermont-recognised groups, the curriculum represents a hard-won affirmation after decades of marginalisation. For the Odanak and Wolinak First Nations, it represents the alarming institutionalisation of a narrative they believe erases their people while appropriating their name and heritage.
The final outcome may not be determined by historians or academics alone. It will likely be shaped by legislators, potentially the courts, and local school boards as they decide which version of history is authorised for public education. For students in Vermont, the most profound lesson from this controversy may not be about ancient survival, but a real-time case study in how power, recognition, and identity are fiercely negotiated in the present day.
