Citation
The other American governments

Material Information

Title:
The other American governments tribal governments in transition from dependency to sovereignty
Creator:
Meranto, Zia J.
Place of Publication:
Denver, Colo.
Publisher:
Metropolitan State University of Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
133, [32] leaves : maps, facsims. ; 28 cm.

Notes

Abstract:
Politic: power, authority and legitimacy -- Indigenous political thought -- Historical analysis -- Levels of tribal sovereignty - Indigenous movement behavior -- Indigenous women -- Survival of tribal governments.

Record Information

Source Institution:
Metropolitan State University of Denver Collections
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of copyright holder or Creator or Publisher as appropriate]. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
798955042 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
. -i H7
THE OTHER AMERICAN
GOVERNMENTS
TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS IN TRANSITION
FROM DEPENDENCY TO SOVEREIGNTY
Dr. Zia J. Meranto
Professor of Political Science/Director of Native American Studies
Metropolitan State College of Denver




TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction................................1
Chapter One
Politic: Power, Authority and Legitimacy... 8
Chapter Two
Indigenous Political Thought...........25
Chapter Three
Historical Analysis....................41
Chapter Four
Levels of Tribal Sovereignty...........68
Chapter Five
Indigenous Movement Behavior...........81
Chapter Six
Indigenous Women.......................110
Chapter Seven
Survival of Tribal Governments.........126
BIBILOGRAPHY
132


1
INTRODUCTION
It may be that Americans will have to come face to face with the
loathsome idea that their invasion of the New World was never a
movement of moral courage at all; rather, it was a pseudoreligious
and corrupt socioeconomic movement for the possession of
resources.
(Elizabeth Cook-Lynn 1996:33)
Americas love of the American Indian undoubtedly ebbs and flows.
Indians are regarded with affection whenever they fit the white mans
image of the passive stoic Red Man. But when Indians attempt to
reverse repressive and vacillating federal policies, Americans quickly
distance themselves from the original inhabitants, for a rebellious Indian
remind Americans of a past they have yet to fully embrace. Still,
Americans continue to have an undying interest, albeit confused, in
American Indians and tribal governments. How Americans view Indians
has largely to do with what they know about them. For example, do
Americans see Indians as American citizens or members of tribal
governments? Are they ethnic groups with minority interests or
minorities acting as nations? Furthermore, who has the right to control
tribal affairs, states, congress, federal government, the BIA or tribal
governments?
The increased complexities and actors in tribal affairs, coupled with
increased politicization of tribal governments, has made it all the more
urgent to understand how American Indian politics work. American


2
Indians are citizens of the United States and members of Indian tribal
governments. This unique dual citizenship requires that Indians interact
with federal and state governments unlike other minority populations.
Moreover, increased political participation of Indians and tribal
governments in both American and tribal politics has stimulated an
interest in knowing exactly how these governments function and how
they fit into American politics and larger society. Consequently, the
interests of American Indians have become increasingly involved,
overlapped, and intertwined with the interests of Americans in a variety
of ways. These and other features make American Indian politics
exciting as well as ambiguous.
Therefore, our analysis must examine multiple levels of power. We
as students of politics must not only examine the interrelated power
struggles between Native and non-Native U.S. citizens but also the
power struggle between numerous governments and bureaucracies. In
order to do this we must start by creating a clear interpretation of history.
The first people to narrate the history of Indians within Euro-
American society were obviously whites. Therefore, the world did not
hear the indigenous voice until well into the mid-20th century. This
suggests that the history of Indians created by whites lacked not only
Indian participation but Indian credibility as well. Keeping Indians in the
past, where the history of Indians could be created and where Indian
culture could be defined and in reality remade, was important in
developing the new American national character. There is little doubt
that the purpose of this history was not merely to entertain, but first to
teach certain cultural values and then to put a political order in play that


3
would perpetuate those cultural values. But what are the values of this
history, whose culture was being sustained, what political orders do they
represent, and with what ferocity and intensity have they been created
and maintained? In answering these questions we would need to
examine both American and American tribal governments. To only
examine the former would show a bias that matches much of what
history books already portray about Indians. Similarly, to examine the
latter without comprehending and applying their unique federal status
within American politics would tend to serve a disparate purpose and
mission. It is virtually impossible to get a clear and complete grasp of
American tribal government without discussing American politics. How
complete would a study be of U.S. domestic labor that excludes the
historical role of African slaves and Chinese laborers, or a theory on
American democracy that excludes the role of European political
theorists? American history has not been written excluding the
influences of Europeans, nor should American history exclude the voice
of the first inhabitants. Clearly, since these two peoples have met, their
ideologies, interests, and cultures have intersected if not collided in
countless ways.
MEDIA MESSAGES
Conservationists Question Maka Treaty
Toxic Waste Decree Burns Idaho Tribes
Tribal Sovereignty at Supreme Court
Donald Trump Wants Indians Out of Gaming Business
The above national newspaper headlines show how the interests of tribal


4
governments interact and coincide with those of Indians and other key
players within American Politics. In two events American citizens
protested the right of Indians to fish whales and gamble. While in another
event, Idaho tribes refused to accept the toxic waste of larger society. A
third headline demonstrates that most of the conflicts relate to issues of
sovereignty and the trust relationship that assumes a U.S. protectorate
role for tribal peoples, their lands and their resources and thus
necessitates the role of Supreme Court. Unfortunately, most Americans
react to these news stories with confusion and stereotypes, ignoring the
unique category that American Indian Nations occupy within the United
States. Opinions regarding fishing, water and mineral rights are created
with virtually no knowledge about Indian treaty rights or the special
federal status of Indians. Conclusions are then made without fully
understanding how and for whom federal Indian legislation is created.
Consequently, crucial decisions and opinions are often biased and thus
have the potential of escalating conflict and unfortunately perpetuating
historical stereotypes or creating new ones.
Another confusion and hotly debated issue is terminology. Are the
first people of this continent to be addressed as Indian, American Indian,
Native American, Indigenous, or Aboriginals? Good arguments have
been made for the use of any one of these terms, as each suggests
somewhat different emphases in regards to the American experience,
social and political goals, cultural nationalism, or global identity. In
addition, diverse tribal members are divided over their own preference,
not to mention the preference of urban Indians. American Indians who
have a close relationship with their tribe, either through enrollment or


5
heritage, prefer to be identified through their tribal name. Other terms
are often used when paying special significance to power relationships.
For example, the term Indigenous often refers to the original inhabitants
of the world, a term that is used at the United Nations or in international
politics and therefore posits the relationships between the colonizer and
the colonized. The term Red Power used during the militant years of
the late 60s and 70s and in the early 1800s during the Red Sticks
Revolt, reflects the position of Indians in American politics during
particular rebellious periods. And Native American and American Indian
can be interpreted to mean Indians of the Americas rather than strictly
those original inhabitants of the United States. In this manuscript the
terms are used interchangeably. However, when speaking of individual
indigenous persons I often use Indian or American Indian. When I speak
of tribes I try to refer to them as nations largely to encourage students to
think of them as nations rather than ethnic groups or minorities.
In The Other American Governments I examine the politics of tribal
governments and how these governments attempt to meet the needs of
their population. On the one hand, Indian politics is not that different
from American politics. Tribal governments are elected making them
procedurally similar to the U.S. Government. On the other hand,
American Indian politics is quite different. There are significant
differences in the distribution of power among the various interests
largely, Indian and non-Indian and a major difference in the level of
jurisdiction claimed by federal, state, and tribal governments.
All of these issues are examined in the following pages. Chapter
one discusses general information about politics, power, and governing--


6
illustrating how power/politics work in governments. Chapter two covers
the evolution of Indigenous political philosophy and to what extent
contemporary Native Americans incorporate traditional political
philosophy. Moreover, chapter two visits the Iroquois Confederation and
examines its influence on American values and ideas. Chapter three
demonstrates how Indian nations and American Indians have become
what they are today. This chapter relies heavily on the historical
relationship between Indians and federal government, information that is
crucial to any analysis on contemporary Indian issues. Chapter four is
an observation of the characteristics and functions of modern tribal
governments. We examine the extent distinctive peoples with various
histories and traditions incorporate certain elements of a developed
government and society. Like other governments, tribal governments
desire self-determination and autonomy. Unlike other governments, tribal
governments must cooperate, comply, or challenge the numerous
agencies that control them, while being cognizant of the dominant actors
involved in Indian affairs. These interests and agencies include, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), federal governments primary Indian
agent; Congress, who maintains partial supremacy over tribes; states,
who continue to declare themselves the primary power in deciding what
happens within state territories; and a more recent actor, corporations,
that wield an incredible amount of economic and political clout over the
self-determination of Indian affairs.
Chapter five addresses the consequences of colonization on Indian
women. As a result of this treatment the relationship between American
Indian men and Indian women changed dramatically, contributing to a


7
higher level of conflict and gender inequality within and outside of tribal
governments. This chapter analyzes those factors that gave rise to the
inequality and provides some suggestions as to how Indian women are
capable of achieving a level of equality within their communities while not
sidestepping the larger issue of tribal sovereignty.
Chapter six addresses the creation of interest groups and social
movements, noting various types of activities used by Indians to increase
political power. Provided in this chapter are strategies Indians use to
shape Indian legislation and increase self-determination of tribal
governments. Similar to American politics, contemporary issues of
Indians cannot be addressed nor solved without having a fundamental
understanding of structures and institutions. More recent information
suggests that Indians have increased knowledge of tribal and U.S.
federal structures and are therefore better equipped to play the political
game. One example of modified political tactics is a shift away from
protest in the streets to protest in the courts.
Finally chapter seven speculates on the survival of tribal
governments and how they are able to maintain a place at the bargaining
table with federal and state governments. This chapter also reflects on
the use of the international arena as a tactic to increase Indian rights.
While this book incorporates portions of Indian history, culture, and
traditions, it primarily focuses on the power relationship between the
federal government and the various tribal nations. It clearly is not meant
to be a comprehensive or exhaustive examination of Indians. Instead its
purpose is to provide students sufficient knowledge to interpret more
clearly information regarding tribal government and American politics.


9
CHAPTER ONE
POLITICS: POWER, AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY
An Indian is a member of any federally recognized Indian Tribe. To
be federally recognized an Indian Tribe must be comprised of
Indians. To gain federal recognition, an Indian Tribe must have a
land base. To secure a land base, an Indian Tribe must be federally
recognized
(Jaimes et al 1992:133)
Politics is about power. Simply defined, power is the ability to influence
anothers behavior, getting someone to do something they wouldnt
otherwise do. Power is often measured by the resources available to
influence the power brokers. In politics these resources are often
referred to as political resources. Resources whether they are measured
in terms of wealth, numbers, ideology, education, or status, provide
governments with the capacity for increased power. Within governments
the distribution of power usually involves a relationship between
government and the people it represents. However, for tribal
governments the definition, application, and use of power are highly
dependent upon additional factors. The power of tribal governments is
often negotiated with federal government, corporations, American society,
and numerous key actors, all of which try to exert power over tribal
governments in an effort to get their respective and sometimes collective
interests met. More often than not, the powers of tribal government
become highly deluded.
Therefore, unlike American politics, where most of the politicking is


10
between people and government, American Indian politics is often
between tribal governments and the federal government. Tribal
governments are defined as sovereign nations, albeit domestic
dependent nations. Under the special federal status of tribes, tribal
nations are forced to confer with the federal government when making
decisions about education, infrastructure, jobs, religion, housing, and
many other issues within trial boundaries. Given this unique relationship,
it has been difficult to examine not only the power of tribal governments
and their capacity to govern, but also their capacity within what is defined
as federal and state jurisdictions.
Consequently, the authority, or legitimate power, of tribal
governments has always been variable if not questionable. Without
authority, political resources do not easily convert into useable power.
Without legitimate power, the potential for the use of coercion increases,
particularly if authority figures perceive nothing wrong with coercing
rather than convincing its population of its rightfulness.
Most tribal governments were reorganized in 1930 under the Indian
Reorganization Act. Since this was more or less mandated by the
federal government, tribal members may not view these contemporary
tribal governments as legitimate. Opposition was made known in the
1960s when many of the demands of militant Indians centered on the
removal of abusive and sometimes corrupt tribal governments. For
example, the Indian Occupation of Wounded Knee in South Dakota in
1973 was a culmination of numerous grievances against an imposed
tribal government gone corrupt. Tribal Chief Dick Wilson was not viewed
as legitimate by many tribal members. Thus, he was forced to rely on


11
coercion of the population rather than persuasion. Still not all tribal
governments lack legitimacy and consequently authority. Many of them
such as the Lummi, Hopi, and Mohawk, have been able to use authority
efficiently and effectively. Their members view these governments as
having a sense of rightfulness and legitimacy and therefore members
conform, comply and participate with these governments.
Power, authority, and legitimacy must be viewed as central to
politics, whether about politics on the job, at school, home, or in the case
of American Indians on tribal land. Politics then is the study of whom,
what and how, who does the influencing, and what or who is influenced.
This is often referred to as the process of governing.
GOVERNING
Government is largely viewed as the how of politics, the implementation
of the political process. Many governments, more specifically
authoritarian governments, or those lacking a level of participatory
democracy, control the process and its influence (or coercion) on the
people. Most often when we examine power of nations we examine
military power. The nation with advanced military power is better
equipped to control its own destiny as well as the destiny of other weaker
nations. Within Native nations, the level of military power is not a factor,
largely because they do not have a military. They do have, however, the
right to have a police force. In addition, they have the right to establish a
tribal justice system, regulate criminal matters that deal with civil matters
such as divorce, personal injury, adoption and so forth. In 1978 the
Supreme Court stated the rights of tribes more clearly in the following:


12
It is undisputed that Indian tribes have the power to enforce their
criminal laws against tribe members. Although physically within the
territory of the United States and subject to ultimate federal control,
they nonetheless remain a separate people, with the power of
regulating their internal and social relations. Their right of internal
self-government includes the right to prescribe laws applicable to
tribe members and to enforce those laws by criminal sanctions.
(Rights of Indians and Tribes 1992: 95)
Most governments do two things: 1) they make the rules of the game,
setting rules that determine who will get the valued things of a society,
and 2) regulate the use of legitimate force to get society to participate,
conform and comply with those rules. In trying to determine how tribal
governments accomplish the first part of what governments do, making
the rules and parceling out the valued things of a society, the rights of
tribal government must be examined. Tribal governments have the right
to form a government. In the 1930s under the Indian Reorganization Act
(IRA), more than a hundred tribes chose to restructure their
governments. The IRA was implemented to help tribes modernize their
governments. Each tribe was encouraged to draft a constitution giving
the tribe specific power, although subject to approval of the Secretary of
the Interior. Naturally, this meant that the various constitutions had
within them a provision that gave the Secretary review and approval.
Only those tribes that reorganized with the approval of the Secretary of
Interior were eligible to receive certain federal loans. This in and of itself
limits tribal power.
Tribes with constitutions and other various types of political


13
organizations have rights to determine tribal membership, create tribal
courts, and regulate tribal property, domestic affairs, commerce and
trade. In addition, tribes have the right to fulfill the second part of what
governments do, that is, regulate the use of legitimate force to get
society to participate and comply with tribal rules.
No doubt one of the factors that heavily affect tribal governments
ability to govern is the ominous hand of Congress. Congress has the
ability and power to limit tribal powers in a number of ways. In general,
Congress allows tribes to have the same power as state government to
regulate their internal affairs, with some exceptions. This minor
difference has the potential of diminishing the power of tribal
governments significantly.
Another method of determining what governments do is to examine
the level of participation of both government and its population. Levels of
participation can be largely dependent on the type of political and
economic system governments create. For example, socialist
governments play a direct role in who gets what because their economic
system is based upon a planned economy with a focus on equal
distribution of resources. Governments with a capitalist system, based
on private ownership of the economy, do not directly decide who gets
what. A basic assumption of capitalism is that people can get more of
what they want with less government interference. The level of
government interference in the market varies from government to
government specific to that nation. For example, Cuba still maintains
socialism as an ideal, but numerous indicators suggest a level of
privatization is slowly occurring. Similarly, the United States embraces a


14
laissez-faire (hands-off) government, but history reveals the U.S. has
been distancing itself from the ideas of free-market since the early
1900s. U.S. government interference in the creation of the minimum
wage, the inspection of food and drugs, the implementation of
environmental protection laws, and the increasing and decreasing of
federal and state taxes, to name a few, support the idea of the U.S.
edging away from a free-market system.
A government may determine its level of enforcement (the second
task referred to above) in a variety of ways. Naturally governments prefer
people conform and comply with the law voluntarily. If the population is
socialized to understand and to comply with the needs of the
government, people will more likely authorize government to act, thus
minimizing the use of force. Institutions are the agents of the
socialization process and thus facilitate the process. If the rule book, in
the form of a constitution, does not give rights to citizens, and citizens
view the rule book as legitimate, it is less likely these citizens will seek
such rights. Similarly, if governments monopolize with few checks and
balances, and its citizens view government as the sole regulator of
legitimate force, government has essentially been granted the authority
to do whatever it desires. Thus, authority has been granted absolute yet
legitimate power.
Unlike U.S. Government, the legitimate power of tribal
governments fluctuates at each level of government, whether local, state,
or federal. Moreover, the power of tribal governments is often
determined by the issue not the tribe. For example, the recent debate
regarding gaming on Indian land provides us with a classic example of


15
the use of power and the array of interests. First of all, tribes view the
right to gaming on their territory as a right of sovereignty, not a given
right but an inherent right. Secondly, states believe their rights override
the sovereignty of Tribes. States point to Amendment 10 of the U.S.
Constitution which says states have the right to control territory within
their boundaries. Another emerging player, corporate casinos believe
their right to profit is being infringed upon when Congress allows tribal
governments to operate casinos without paying state taxes, often
referred to their fair share. Among all of these beliefs and interests it is
often the legitimacy of tribal governments that is the first to be
questioned, not the rights of states or corporate casinos. This often
leads to tribal governments having difficulty attaining and sustaining a
sense of rightfulness within its population and certainly outside tribal
land. Consequently, the autonomy and sovereignty of tribal
governments are constantly questioned and challenged not only by its
members but also by federal and state governments, corporations and
American society.
Indian nations continue to be challenged largely because of
differences in ideas and values of the numerous actors involved in these
various issues; often referred to as political ideology.
POLITICAL IDEOLOGY
Generally speaking, as governments cope with issues within their
territory they must be able to apply some semblance of political power.
And in many cases tribal governments have had very little political
power. The application of power is guided by a set of values, beliefs, or


16
as it is often referred to, collective ideology. Ideology is in essence the
paint that paints the picture, or as the Dolbeares (1971:9) state (1) how
the present social, economic, and political order operates, (2) why this is
so and whether it is good or bad, and (3) what should be done about it, if
anything. An ideology then is a set of guiding principles that helps the
governed and government make judgments about a variety of issues.
In terms of public policy, ideology is crucial, for it guides what
public policy is and shapes the political agenda. In other words, ideology
influences the input of the political process as well as the output. In the
United Stated it is essential to note three key political values upon which
that ideology has been constructed: individualism, materialism, and
limited government. These three values are manifested in liberalism and
capitalism, and guided the writing of the American Constitution and
virtually everything political and economic that followed.
Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production and
the distribution of goods and services set by competitive markets. It has
been referred to as an ideology largely because those individuals who
subscribe to capitalism make value based assumptions about the nature
of man and the desirability of certain procedures and their expected
results (Dolbeare 1971:22). That is to say, capitalists must make
decisions on the use of land, labor and capital (money) in order to make
the market work. Additionally, capitalism has three assumptions: that
individuals are by nature self-interested rather than collectively
interested, and in doing so seek to maximize their personal or individual
returns (profit-motive); that man is by nature competitive, (another driving
force of capitalism); and that it is the combination of profit motive and


17
competition that leads to progress and in the end improves the standard
of life. In essence, a free-market must focus on achieving a natural
harmony between supply (production) and demand (desire). It is in
achieving and sustaining this delicate balance that U.S. public policy is
created.
While capitalism is the economic ideology in the United States,
liberalism is the political ideology. Unfortunately most Americans speak
about the two ideologies as if they are inherently dependent upon each
other; sort of the hand and glove concept. While they have become
closely integrated many governments have been very creative in
combining various ideologies using concepts of liberalism and capitalism.
Like capitalism, liberalism focuses on a limited government,
individualism, and materialism. Therefore, liberalism implies a limited
government is needed to ensure optimum individual freedoms. The main
principles of liberalism are associated with John Locke, a seventeenth
century theorist. His central theme was the right of individuals to own and
use property as they saw fit-rights primarily defined as property rights
and equality. In early America rights were defined as the right to own
property and the equal right (access) to participate in the market. Today
the definition of rights has been significantly expanded. It should be
noted that when markets in the U.S. were 95% free, 8% of the population
had political freedom, i.e. democracy. As democracy has increased
markets have become less free.
This certainly raises questions as to the co-existence of capitalism
and democracy. Unfortunately, Americans are not socialized to question
this co-existence. Rather, most Americans support the tenets of


18
capitalism and liberalism and believe the end result of the merging or
integration of these political and economic ideologies is democracy. In
other words, Americans believe that democracy is difficult to achieve
without a free market and individual freedoms are less attainable without
a free market. Interestingly enough, Indigenous philosophy suggests
that there is nothing free about American democracy. There is little
doubt that these freedoms could have been attained without the expense
of the original Americans and the loss of their land.
Simply put, European-Americans set the agenda of Indian/white
relations through their interpretation of political and economic ideologies.
These new Americans brought Christianity (Protestantism) with them and
many believed that in order to be defined as civilized, people needed to
own property and be productive. They also believed it was Gods will to
populate and produce upon the land. Additionally, land that was not
owned by Christians was considered to be vacant. Thus, these were the
main concepts of the Doctrine of Discovery, a pre-colonial doctrine that
the U.S. Supreme Court has used to guide all of its decisions pertaining
to Indian sovereignty and rights.
Therefore, in attempting to understand how political ideology
guides public policy, it is important to know the concepts that dictate
Indian public policy. While the ideology of tribal governments vary, the
ideology that shapes politics on tribal land has historically been shaped
by the basic tenets of capitalism and liberalism, heavily rooted in the
Doctrine of Discovery. How the ideas of the new Americans were
created not only sets the experience of the Americans apart from other
colonizers, but very much determines the kind of political policy that has


19
been created on Indian land.
POLITICAL OUTCOME
The prevailing political-economic philosophies of early America are
reflected in the fundamental procedures and laws of the United States,
including federal Indian legislation. Historically, the values of Euro-
Americans rather than the values of Indians guided Indian legislation,
cheating a national identity founded on those values. For most people in
othe$.countries, national identity is the product of a long process of
historical evolution, involving common ancestors, common ethnic
background, common language and usually, common religion. For them,
national identity is organic in character. This has not been the case in
the United States. What it means to be American or U.S. national
identity has been defined in political rather than organic terms.
Through the colonial period, Americans had tended to assume
that difference of language, culture and religion would prevent the growth
of a common loyalty, Maldwyn Allen Jones states in his book American
Immigration. Such a diverse society required a national identity free of
such differences. Therefore, U.S. national identity became liberty,
freedom, and equality. American culture is the American Creed.
Here, political principle and national identity are inseparable. What
would Americans have in common if it werent for the American Creed?
Two hundred years later, political factors are still at the heart of
U.S. national identity. In the 1950s, 85 percent of the American
population polled mentioned some aspect of American government when


20
asked about their culture. Compare this statistic to seven percent of
Germans, and three percent of Italians (Lipset, 1979).
As a result of an identification based on political ideals, Americans
are less tolerant of ideas and ideologies that are different. In Italy two
Italians can have different political ideologies, states Lipset, and neither
would deny the Italianness of the other. But in the U.S. to say you are
a communist or more recently to challenge the current Bush
Administration is to be un-American. Moreover, to other Americans, to
identify one self through heritage, language, customs, or rituals is also
defined as un-American. It is transferring allegiance from a political
identity to a cultural identity--and there goes a common loyalty created
by the founders.
How much Americans have in common is somewhat divided. On
the one hand, there are individuals who have benefited greatly from the
American Creed and naturally embrace it. On the other hand, there are
people from any number of cultures who have not experienced much
liberty and equality. Consequently, they may pay less tribute to the
American Creed. Once these individuals begin filling the vacuum
created by defining themselves in political rather than organic terms, it is
difficult to suppress the differences among cultures and people even
though the socialization process encourages such suppression. In most
cases, it is the political term that changes rather than the identity. For
example, at one time in American history many African Americans
preferred the term Blacks, and Hispanics preferred the term Chicanos.
These terms or identities while separating the group from larger society,
may also serve an additional purpose. That is to say, these identities are


21
often efforts to recreate what it means to be American and of African or
of Hispanic heritage. Once the term becomes a political lens for which to
view and understand politics it becomes more than a cultural identity, it
has become a political identity as well.
For Native Americans, Indians, American Indians, Indigenous
Peoples, and so forth, identity became political with the arrival of the
Europeans. Prior to the arrival of Europeans, to be Indigenous was to be
steeped in a culture that was free of the need of a stated political lens. In
order to understand the cultural genocide that was occurring, Indians
were forced to create a different lens, a political lens yet continued to
keep their cultural identity in tact. That is to say, the original Americans
have maintained an identity that continues to be rooted in a world-view
consisting of a custodial and non-materialist attitude toward land and
natural resources while often being forced to function within the main
concepts of the American Creed. This world-view naturally sets
American Indians apart from dominant society and apart from American
ethnic groups as well.
Consequently, Indian identity, unlike American ethnic or immigrant
groups is both political and cultural and central to the issue of land. Land
has been the root of interactions between Indians and Euro-Americans.
The Founding Fathers believed the acquisition of land was a right of all
Americans, albeit only for certain Americans. Therefore, the Founders
set out to create a government that valued the right to own property over
other rights, for it was not until the 1950s that Supreme Court decisions
reflected an increase in civil liberties and civil rights. For Indians, the
acquisition of land is not a right but a necessity of their culture. Without


22
land there is no Indian identity, political or cultural.
A very simple method of determining political culture is to examine
the values of people and ask what it means to be an American.
According to Seymore Lipset and many of my American students, to be
an Americani&io believe in freedom*liberty,"equality; fpce market,
competitionpupward'mobilitymatertgfisrnrindividualism, etc. The new
Americans could not have created an identity inclusive of any one
European group, for early Americans differed considerably in dress,
language, food, traditions and ceremonies. Therefore, characteristics
often used in other countries to define ones culture are largely absent
when defining what it means to be an American.
This political identity may be a partial explanation for the creation of
the newly hyphenated-American identity. The term American not only
tells us very little about the person, but also may reflect an historical
identity that is void of such characteristics as liberty, equality and
freedom, where as the terms African-American, Irish-American, Mexican-
American and so forth provide not only information about the heritage of
the person but also some political and historical realities and may tell us
about their different political lens.
In order to understand differences of political ideologies and
identities let us compare a major characteristic of Americans,
materialism, with a major characteristic of Indians, spiritualism. There is
no doubt that the economic system of America, and consequently
American public policy, is highly dependent upon valuing materialism.
The American economy can function sufficiently with a limited number of
Americans valuing spiritualism over materialism, but would be highly


23
unsuccessful if the majority of Americans valued spiritualism over
consumption. For example, there is little doubt that the American system
can accommodate a few Amish who reject technology and a few
Buddhists who meditate instead of shop, but the system cannot
accommodate the majority of Americans valuing such ideas for very
long. It would mean the collapse of a main value, materialism. Add to
this difference, communal living, extended family (rather than a nuclear
family), unique dress, language, food, ceremonies, traditions and a
world-view that suggests traditional people are the caretakers of the
world not the exploiters, and we have a clash of cultures producing
interesting and highly conflicting political outcomes.
Since federal Indian legislation is guided by the ideology of Euro-
Americans not American Indians, the historical conflict was and is
inevitable. If tribal governments were able to develop their own
legislation based on their own political culture, similar to other sovereign
nations, without state and federal intrusion, conflict might well diminish.
But since the federal government refuses to recognize tribal sovereignty
in many areas and since tribal governments have failed to increase their
allegiance to the American ideology, conflict continues. If anything, and
as a consequence of the increased political consciousness of Indians,
the ideology of tribal governments appear to resemble characteristics of
both traditional and modern forms of governments. This in turn may lead
to less internal conflict but increased external conflict.
There are numerous events that illustrate what happens when
politics is driven largely by an ideology that conflicts with or is ill suited to
indigenous political thought. The roots of modern tribal governing,


24
therefore, can be linked to early political thought while the new
complexities of tribal governing can be attributed to the increased
interaction between tribal governments, and numerous key actors within
American society. In short, the conflict between American Indians and
Euro-Americans is not unlike the current conflict between Americans and
traditional Muslims. The traditions of Muslims are held together by a
religion that often views the West as waging a war against their religion,
a war where modern societies will not be content until it has destroyed
the backward civilization. The West must discredit remnants of the past
and in essence destroy traditions that are viewed as impediments to its
definition of progress. Westerners continue to fervently believe they are
creating, as Roger Cohen wrote in The International Herald Tribune, a
century that will make a diverse world more unified, prosperous and free
than ever before. Unfortunately little thought is given as to what is being
destroyed and what is replacing these traditions.
Examine the following information that discusses how corrupt
leadership tried to balance the interests of a more modern government
and those of the more traditional population.
Corrupt Leadership
Tribal Chief Dickie Wilson of the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota
provides a good example of a tribal chief who abused his power and
coerced tribal members. He was charged with misuse of tribal funds,
harassing opposition, and failing to adequately protect the rights and
interests of the Pine Ridge population. Allegations were made that he
accepted government money while allowing Pine Ridge to have high
unemployment, a low annual per capita income, and little if any social
services. Wilson went against the majority of the members by being in
favor of accepting Claims Commission money for the stolen Black Hills


25
and in supporting the department of Interiors plan to reduce the Pine
Ridge reservation by 133,000 acres. Many members described him as a
puppet of the federal government, the BIA and the Department of
Interior.
In order to understand the ideologies of the various tribal
governments it would serve us to form general inferences about
Indigenous political philosophy. The following chapter assists us in
examining the roots of Indigenous political thought and provides students
of American political thought with an alternative for understanding what
influenced the early writers of the Constitution.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1) What is the purpose of government?
2) Identify three key political values of Americans.
3) What is it about capitalism that conflicts with values of Indians?
4) Explain why the term Indian is largely a political identity.
5) What are some of the factors that have the capacity to facilitate
corrupt Indian leadership?


26
CHAPTER TWO
(Portions of this chapter were previously published in Readings in
Politics: Issues and Polemics, edited by Robert Hazan, Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Co., 1997)
INDIGENOUS POLITICAL THOUGHT
In the realm of political thought, the Indian probably had a greater
influence over civilized society than any other savage race... .The
Indian, therefore was a factor of immense importance in the 18th
century, far out of proportion to his actual numbers (Lokken, 1981)
As early as the founding period Europeans developed a curiosity about
Indians, and admitted, to some degree, that the "savages" were capable
of developing a political philosophy. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine,
and Thomas Jefferson, dared to imitate many of the democratic features
of the systems of Indians in establishing the United States.
Unfortunately, throughout history the overall acceptance that American
history, traditions, ideas and ideals are distinctively American, reinforced
the idea that Native Americans played little, if any, in the making of
American democracy. This line of thinking eventually led to the
formation of numerous negative connotations and outright
misrepresentations of the political philosophy of Native Americans.
If the early founders had associated their democracy with Indians,
the process of developing the United States politically and economically
might have taken some strange and interesting detours. New
immigrants needed to be socialized to comply with Indian legislation,
policies of removal, relocation and in some cases annihilation.
Subsequently, any recognition of Indigenous influence on American


27
political philosophy mandated suppression.
The scholarship recently emerging which focuses on the influence
of Native Americans on the writing of the American Constitution and
other American ideas, provides a framework for examining Indigenous
political philosophy. This scholarship yields valuable information about
Native political philosophy, and tells us about the roots of American
political thought. For example, in Exemplar of Liberty. Donald Grinde
and Bruce Johansen provide numerous examples where American
Indian symbols and ideas were present in the new emerging American
identity, symbols that represent liberty, equality, unity and fundamental
principles such as federalism. The authors clearly demonstrate that
American philosophy is really a synthesis of European and American
Indian political thought.
Familiarity with European political thought is widespread. What is
lacking in the literature is a succinct interpretation of Indigenous political
thought. The information that follows illustrates that in almost every tribe,
clan or nation the supreme authority rested in the people rather than the
individual. While many of these tribes have changed in their relationship
to each other, and certainly in their level of sovereignty, many of the
tribal governments in the United States still include portions of their
traditional practices and philosophies. Unfortunately, while the U.S.
Federal Government learned and borrowed from the Indians' systems of
democracy, when it reorganized tribal governments these tribal
governments became less democratic then they had been originally.
The attacks on the southern empires have not left us with much to
examine. With the exception of the Maya, and to some degree, the Inca,


28
no political philosophy exists to observe in the fallen Aztec Empire.
Much of the information on these nations, however, does suggest that
they too had political systems rooted in democracy. The following
information loosely examines these nations, and focuses specifically on
the political philosophy of North American tribes.
DEMOCRACY AND AMERICAN INDIANS
Economists and political theorists have often accepted the notion that
populations of a certain stage of economic development have
traditionally held apolitical attitudes; attitudes that keep them from
achieving political sophistication, traditions that keep them at the lowest
level of economic development. This notion suggests that there is a
strong correlation between economic and political development. The
scholarship that points to the last quarter century when the poor and
vulnerable peasant population leaves the confines of the village in
search of political activity is often given as a classic example. Peasants
suddenly become willing to use politics as a strategy to redress their
severe economic conditions. Protests and movements are defensive
reactions against threats to existing traditional institutions. This suggests
that peasants are not political until the conditions necessitate it.
Since politics centers on actions among a group of people involving
influence, and involves the use of power, this may be partially true.
Peasants and Indigenous populations in the Americas did and are
increasingly participating in a new and different political world. This does
not suggest that they came from a world that was apolitical, quite the
opposite. The arrival of the colonizers and their greed of land, gold,


29
slaves and other resources merely intensified the need for a different
political thought, one with which Indians could better defend themselves
from total destruction. Eventually, their traditional institutions were
unable to stop the new landlord-tenant relations that were evolving as
Europeans arrived.
When the New World was "discovered" as many as 600 tribes in
the North Americas had their own form of government and their various
political ideas. In almost all cases each tribe considered itself sovereign.
While credit is given to the natural-rights philosophers for developing
sovereignty as a political concept in their attack on the theory of divine
right to rule, popular sovereignty was practiced by many of the tribes in
North and South America. Indigenous societies organized themselves
around a society formed by the consent of the individuals and where
decisions of peace and war were vested in people or a council. The
concept of the individual versus the community is one of the major
differences between Indigenous philosophy and the monarchies of the
Europeans. Indians lived in a democratic state for centuries prior to the
arrival of the Europeans. Furthermore, the Inca, Aztec, and Maya
governments displayed many of the same characteristics as the ruling
European aristocracies. Certainly there is no way of telling if tribes of
North America had developed in the same way as their southern
counterparts. Yet, despite differences in their development, and their
governmental structures, traditional tribal governments shared certain
values, ideas of leadership, and styles of decision-making.
While the nations of the new world ranged significantly in
governmental structures, very little distinction was made between the


30
religious and political worlds. Any decision made politically and
religiously was for the main purpose of bringing harmony to things in
both worlds. In order to accomplish this, each tribe stressed that their
members focus on the needs of the community rather than individual
needs. The rights of the individual were never to exceed their duties and
responsibilities to the community. This feeling of oneness and
distinctness from other groups is illustrated by the custom of Indian tribes
naming them with a word or words meaning "the People.
Small bands and tribes like the Yakima operated with a simple
government. Their form of government exuded the purest form of
democracy, power flowing upward from the community to its leaders.
The leaders governed only with the support of the people. Its society was
egalitarian and classless.
Similar to the Yakima in levels of democracy but different because
of their nomadic lifestyle, was the Lakota Nation made up of seven
bands. Each band formed its own societies made up of two types: the
"akicitas or police societies that maintained order; and the "naca or civil
societies that functioned as a tribal council. This council acted only by
consensus on a large range of issues, from tribal hunts location,
mediating conflicts between individuals and families, negotiating with
foreign nations, to declaring war. Another important figure in the Lakota
and many Indigenous societies was the "medicine man. Not only were
medicine men respected for their powers and wisdom but also they were
consulted when making important tribal decisions. In all Indian cultures,
some more than others, there were no divisions between religions and
secular life. Religious beliefs and practices were an integral part of all


31
political and social behavior.
The extreme version of direct democracies was the complex, highly
structured government of the Iroquois Confederation. Five Nations
founded a federal union in hopes of ending the conflict that existed
between the various tribes. The Iroquois source of keeping history,
using oral history, fixed the origin date between 1000 and 1400 A.D.
Arthur C. Parker, a Seneca scholar, estimated the date at 1390. In 1710
the Tuscarora Nation was admitted into the league and it was at this time
that most historians would agree that the confederacy had been in place
for well more than one hundred years, long before Europeans developed
their own constitution and certainly at a time when the Indian population
could be described as traditional, according to economists.
The State of Nature as described by several critics implies
individuals living outside of society, close to God and close to nature.
Most of the Indigenous societies had structures that governed but
societies that resembled the state of nature. Under the Iroquois form of
government there were no laws governing accumulation, none limiting
travel, or any specific law instructing men to submit to its authority. The
laws of the land were strictly procedural on how the Great council was to
operate, rather than a list of rights or instructions on what the
government expected of its citizens.
The philosophy of the Iroquois was based on the concept that all
life is unified with the natural environment and other forces surrounding
the people. The people were united to the environment and to the living
things in it. The very idea that one could own land as the early settlers
did perplex the Indians. "The soil of the earth from the end of the land to


32
the other is the property of the people who inhabits it (Grinde 1977,
161).
The Iroquois life was spiritually connected with nature, much like
the State of Nature concept. However, the power of one was limited,
and was only enhanced when it joined forces with the whole. American
Indian government emphasized honor, duty and responsibility to the
whole. Politics was not removed from any part of the whole. Nor did
their philosophy dictate and control any part of the whole. Land, culture,
politics and religion were intertwined and any form of government or
philosophy could not disentangle these concepts.
As it turned out the Great Law of Peace, as it was called, was
effective in ending much of the bloodshed and became the dominant
native military and diplomatic power east of the Mississippi.
Furthermore, it became the major negotiating force with England.
The similarities between the Great Law of Peace and the U.S.
Constitution are startling. Structurally there are great similarities: (1)
distrust of smaller states dominated by larger ones necessitated a device
where one colony could veto the actions of the rest of the body. This
veto power was already in place in the Iroquois confederacy; (2) the
Great Council was made up of two houses; (3) Iroquois system consisted
of representatives from each nation; (4) a speaker from one of the
houses (for a day) was selected; (5) the Head Chief was symbolic with
little authoritative power; and (6) since certain members in the League
were more powerful than others, checks and balances ere put into the
constitutions as a safeguard against anyone in the council or any of the
tribes from having too much power (Akwesasne Notes, 1987).


33
Differences between the documents lie in how the two
governments defined the role of government. The constitution of the
Iroquois concerned itself less with rights than duties. A major reason for
this is that the rights of the people were so thoroughly entrenched in
popular custom and were taken for granted. The constitution of the
Iroquois did not see the need to explicitly discuss those rights. Cultural
differences also played a role in the differences. For example, women
elected chief statesmen and also had impeachment powers.
The Iroquois Confederation raised the question as to what was the
purpose of politics in traditional societies. European ideologies suggest
that as societies evolve, people are not capable of sustaining a level of
free-state as noted in the state of nature. Government, thus, becomes a
necessary evil in order to control man's passions. If this is the case, the
Iroquois society had progressed into an interesting combination of a
society bearing all the traits of a free state and a highly developed
government. Indigenous societies in the New World had a level of
democracy not then realized in any part of the Old World. Paradoxically,
by emulating the Iroquois Confederation, the U.S. Constitution provided
the mechanisms for political leaders to force a population to conform to
the Europeans' standard of democracy.
In the 1930s the U.S. Federal Government, having failed to destroy
all traditional Indian forms of government, instituted the Indian
Reorganization Act of 1934. This Act forced Indian nations to reorganize
themselves to become the mirror image of the federal government.
Indian tribes were forced to design a constitution, elect representatives,
disentangle religion and politics, and bring about a new philosophy


34
toward tribal rights and lands. The purpose of this Act was to impose an
alien form of government on tribal cultures, while clearly eroding
traditional tribal governments. How ironic that a system so similar to the
Iroquois Confederation, would eventually be forced upon the very
population whose ancestors created it several hundred years earlier.
DEMOCRATIC EMPIRES OF ANTIQUITY IN THE AMERICAS
The Iroquois Confederation is but one strong example of the evolution of
Indigenous political thought. Other examples are the large empires of
the Aztec, the Maya, and the Inca in Latin America. While these empires
were distinctively different in their political philosophy from that of their
northern counterpart and in many cases to each other their ideas were
still deeply rooted in a semblance of democracy.
The empires of Aztec, Maya and the Inca were unlike any form of
government that existed in North America. These three empires
incorporated previously autonomous, culturally heterogeneous societies
into large territories and dominated them. No doubt these dominant
societies exploited resources from the subordinate societies in much the
same way as the Spanish colonists upon their arrival. In fact, the very
idea that these empires eventually became hierarchal in structure made
it easier for the Spaniards to impose their form of servitude.
The political and social institutions of the Aztec and Inca were
undergoing continuous change in response to their varying fortunes and
their rapid cultural evolution. The earlier kinship neighborhoods and
clans, possessed considerable democratic qualities with the leader being
elected by the general membership of commoners and advised by a


35
council of elders. They organized themselves in a similar fashion as the
clans and communities in North America, and in many ways they were
closer to the democratic system of their northern counterpart, than to
systems of Europe at that time.
Eventually the imperial ideology offered the promise of greater
status and wealth for achievements in war and trade. The formal system
of a monarch was not established until about 1370. It was at this time
elite monopolization of land and wealth occurred, privileges of dress, and
limited ownership and education to the nobles. The state comforted the
commoner with the reminder that these decrees were established for the
health of the entire states. A cycle of increasing imperialism and class
stratification began. The new wealth and power of the military
subsequently brought in more tribute furthering their dominance.
The Aztec and Inca societies evolved into separate centralized
political authorities, a landed aristocracy and a large tribute sector of the
economy. Their ideology successfully integrated religion, economic, and
social systems into an imperialist war machine. By the time the
Spaniards arrived, the economic and social foundations of the empire
had been laid. This system proved to be pliable institutions in the hands
of Spanish.
The manner in which the Inca and Aztec organized themselves to
ensure the proper use of the land has been characterized as oppressive.
One portion of the literature on these empires suggests that the
totalitarian rule was an unbearable tyranny and that the Spanish
conquest actually benefited the people. Another portion of the literature
points out that the rule of the Inca and the Aztec was stern and rigorous


36
but just. This literature cites the existence of distinction between
different social classes, but marvels at the manner in which the
guardianship of the government is exercised. Rather than see this as
oppressive, the people looked upon this guardianship as something quite
natural.
Unlike the Aztec and Inca, the Maya culture is still very much alive
in Guatemala and Mexico and does for the most part bear many of the
same characteristics of the Maya of the pre-Columbian period. Two
characteristics that still exist are moderation in all things, and the attitude
of live and let live. Also still apparent, is a highly disciplined society that
believes no one should strive for more than their fair share. Concepts
such as individualism, equality, freedoms, and liberty are rarely strived
for. The practice of self-restraint, cooperative and disciplined work,
rather than an individual work, is seen as key ingredients in a society.
Similar to the northern indigenous population the Maya, like the
Inca and the Aztec, had a devotion to the soil and what it produced. The
method of governing prior to the Spaniards arrival was a loose federation
of autonomous city-states governed by a small caste of priests and
nobles. A civil ruler was defined as both governor and bishop. Thus, the
federation of the southern populations of Central America was similar to
the federation of the Iroquois. No matter what the government structures
were prior to the arrival of the Europeans, devotion to land and what it
produced dictated the type of government. Therefore, it could be said
that as land became centrally owned or individually controlled, and as a
member's responsibility to the community changed, as it had become
within the Inca and Aztec populations, the political philosophy of


37
Indigenous tribes began to change as well. When property began to be
defined not as a natural right, but as a civil right, the role of government
changed as well.
Nevertheless, the federations of the Iroquois, Inca, Maya and Aztec
and the smaller federations like the Yakima and Lakota bands were more
efficient than other governments of their time. According to Benjamin
Franklin, "the councils of the savages proceeded with better order than
the British Parliament (Johansen 1982, 74).
Still, philosophers continue to suggest that the State of Indians was
probably the first state of all nations, uncivilized and apolitical. Not
dominated by the Spaniards, most indigenous people were in that natural
state, "being restrained by no laws, having no Courts, or Ministers of
Justice, no Suits, no Prisons, no Governors vested with any Legal
Authority (Johansen 1982, 88).
There was, however, something intrinsically misleading in the way
Europeans viewed the Indian society in respect to the State of Nature.
This view was inherently rooted in ethnocentrism. The lack of
restrictions put on Indians by their form of government made Thomas
Jefferson assume that the Iroquois government was a truly egalitarian
form of system and a virtuous order. Jefferson erroneously focused on
government and ignored a fundamental part of government, its people.
People created government and Indian governments recognized this.
Indians were more egalitarian and more virtuous because they had not
become greedy, corrupt, or self-centered like Europeans. Was it
government's responsibility to create a virtuous society through laws,
rights and procedures? Could leaders who were susceptible to


38
corruption create a virtuous society, particularly when societal values
consisted of individualism, competition and materialism?
While governments often can and do create society, the underlying
traits of the people who create government need to be examined.
Indigenous political philosophy, or Indigenism, does not attempt nor
pretend to separate religion from politics. At the same time their
philosophy does not include religious proselytizing and economic
imperialism, two main characteristics of many modern governments.
These two ideas became tools, or weapons, for the mobilization of the
people, and thus became increasingly important to the process of
government.
When Indigenous governments of the "New World" adopted these
two ideas as a strategy of surviving and expanding, they began to
portray European societies. This ideology, based on increasing its
number of followers and its territory, required the implementation of
institutional devices in order to keep it sustained. So came the idea of
paying tribute to supreme rulers, and creating a military that was more
expansionist in nature rather than protective. There is little evidence
among indigenous ideologies that indicates religion conversion was
forced upon conquered territory. To the extent that Aztec expansion had
an ideological basis, it lay in its economic benefits rather than its
religious integration.
The imperialist nature of the ancient Meso-American empires, have
been heavily distorted. Most of the literature agrees that their type of
imperialism was one where expansion was a natural consequence of
power differences between polities rather than arising from a particular


39
social structure. We do know that warfare greatly shaped their cultures
and histories as it has societies throughout the world. We also know that
the oppression the Inca, Aztec and Maya people experienced under the
Spanish did not end with the colonial period. To this day, the Maya in
Guatemala and Mexico and Inca in Peru continue to endure very
oppressive conditions. The social conditions these populations are
forced to experience are intolerable, suggesting that no matter how
democratic and independent they were, the democracies of the present
have restructured them to resemble their conquerors, leaving fewer
traditional democracies to examine.
It has taken more than two hundred years to examine the influence
of the first Americans on the United States Government and the idea of
indigenous political thought in the Americas. Since history is often
written by its victors this should come as no surprise. The current
enthusiasm surrounding the contribution of American Indians in books
like Johansen, Grinde, Weatherford, O'Brien, Mohawk, and others, may
make the topic more palatable for some Americans, but not necessarily
any less difficult to swallow. Scholars and publishers are still less inclined
to include in literature the role of American Indians in shaping American
ideas to the same extent they accept the role of the Greeks, for example,
even though many of us realize the Greeks didn't corner the market on
democracy. As Jack Weatherford points out, "Greeks who rhapsodized
about democracy in their rhetoric rarely created democratic institutions
(Weatherford 1988, 145). Most of the Greek cities like Athens
functioned as slave societies and were not egalitarian or democratic in
the Indian sense. U.S. southern states certainly identified much more


40
with the ideal of Greek democracy based on slavery than with the
Iroquois democracy where slavery did not exist. Indigenous political
thought and its contribution to the evolution of modern American thinking
provide us with much to examine. How can we understand American
politics if Indigenous political thought is excluded? Furthermore, how
are we able to understand contemporary American Indians if we do not
understand how the two governments interact?
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
/) What are some of the problems that would arise by associating
American democracy with that of the Iroquois?
2) Identify similarities and differences between the U.S.
Constitution and the Iroquois Confederation.
3) From where did the right of Indians come?
4) Identify some key differences between the indigenous nations of
Central America and those of northern America.
5) What are some of the contributions of Indians to the Americas?


41
CHAPTER THREE
HISTORICAL ANALYSIS
Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they
please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by
themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and
transmitted from the past.
(Marx, printed in Tucker 1974: 595)
The above quotation by Karl Marx suggests that the historical pattern of
a groups subjugation shapes their resistance. That is to say, how Native
Americans move from hopeless submission to hopeful noncompliance is
largely determined by the historical realities of the treatment of Native
Americans by the U.S. federal government. The historical circumstances
of Native Americans, more so than other groups, were essentially
created and conditioned by federal Indian legislation. Indian policies
written and implemented by non-Indians changed the Indian way of life
but did little to significantly improve it. In their attempt to find the ideal
policy, the Euro-Americans developed one vigorous policy after another.
If a policy of removal and isolation was impossible to maintain, if Indians
could no longer be pushed westward to avoid contact, and if it suddenly
became inhumane to conduct wars of extermination against them, the
alternative became assimilation. When this latter option also failed to
bring about the desired effects, Congress tried other approaches such as
reorganization, urban relocation, termination, and a new application of
self-determination. It is only within the last twenty years that there has
been some consistency in how Congress and presidential


42
administrations interact with tribal governments, a consistency that
developed largely out of response to politically active tribal governments
seeking increased sovereignty. Politicized tribal governments and
American Indians evolved by enduring a precarious and often volatile
relationship with the federal government and its administrative
machinery, specifically the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
The relationship between Indians and the federal government can
be described in a variety of ways: landlord to tenant, which focuses on
private ownership of land; father to child, which describes Indians as
historically incapable of taking care of themselves; ward to guardian,
which adopts the idea that Indians look to the U.S. Government for
protection, guidance and support; and core/periphery which centers on
distribution of power between the more developed nations (core) and the
less developed, (periphery). However, the legal definition that guides
and interprets congressional law, provided by Supreme Court Justice
John Marshall in 1830, is that of domestic dependent nations. This
definition is based on the ward to guardian concept, stating that the
federal government is the legal guardian of Indians. No matter what
definition is chosen, one thing is certain, structural inequalities increased
between the two groups, and the ward, periphery, child, or tenant,
became highly dependent upon the guardian, core, father, or landlord;
thus creating an ongoing dependency and a vicious cycle difficult to
break.
Numerous questions emerge with the issue of dependency. Are
Native Americans worse off economically because of their dependency
than they would be otherwise? Does dependence upon the federal


43
government entail a net loss or foreclose opportunities of greater benefit
to the economy of tribal governments? Are US funds exploitive or
beneficial? Are Indian nations structurally underdeveloped because they
are dependent, or are they dependent because they are
underdeveloped? Finally, are Native Americans able to acquire the skills
to free themselves from their dependency on the United States?
The answer to these questions is highly dependent upon the
applied perspective. From the Indigenous perspective, federal Indian
policies kept Indians in a position of subjugation with little power to
design their own destiny. In the course of time Native Americans may
have found a shorter and surely less tortuous road toward a better and
richer society designed by themselves for themselves. From the federal
government perspective, federal Indian policies were written and
implemented not to necessarily benefit Indians, but to benefit larger
society; after all the Europeans came to the Americas to create a nation
consisting of similar people with similar values. Nonetheless, while the
manipulation and suffering of Indians may not have been a conscious
goal of administrators, the environment and competitive nature of
American society fostered policies that increased the inferior position of
Indians and contributed to a life of dependency.
Moreover, federal government continues to assume that as Indians
integrate American life, specifically the American economy, Indian values
and culture will be replaced by American values and culture much like it
has for immigrating groups. While this has occurred to some degree,
what is more noticeable in the various activities of Indians is an
interesting and convoluted mixture of the past with the present.


44
SETTING THE SOCIAL AND STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENTS
Early interactions between the United States Government and
indigenous people were developed through treaties, often referred to as
rational-legal documents, thus providing an illusion that these documents
were free of passion. Early white settlers believed treaties brought about
an air of civility and legitimacy in relations with the Indians. The first
treaty between the various Indian nations and government was in 1778.
In the next century the United States would enter into six hundred
treaties and agreements with Indian nations, many of which were broken
or misinterpreted by the federal government. In short, this civilized
method of negotiation became the government's strategy of acquiring
Indian land.
Treaties continued to be used as a method of transferring land out
of the hands of Indians and into the hands of Euro-Americans.
Eventually the decisions of the Supreme Court made it necessary for
Congress to participate with the creation of laws that would support
those decisions. Legal history underlying the political relationship
between the Indians and the European colonists was shaped by one
significant case. In the 1823 case of Johnson v. McIntosh, the Court
decided that when a non-Indian purchased land from an Indian tribe they
had not obtained a valid title. The United States had become the rightful
owner of all tribal land by virtue of the European discovery of the new
world and the conquest of its people. Therefore, the purchaser of
Indian land could not legally buy land the tribe did not own. Aboriginal
title possessed by indigenous peoples granted them merely a right to
occupancy not a right to sell.


45
Chief Justice Marshall suggested that discovery (recognizing
Columbus as the true discoverer) did indeed give title of the land to the
Spaniards. Europeans took their cue from the Doctrine of Discovery and
Rights of Conquest. In simplest terms these two concepts justified and
rationalized ownership of the land in the Americas. Taken from John
Lockes philosophy of Natural Law, it held that any Christian, clearly read
European, that comes upon waste land, land that was virtually vacant of
inhabitants, assumed ownership because it was Gods will that such land
be put to productive use. Those individuals who laid claim to this land
and cultivated it owned it. Marshall's narrow interpretation of discovery
gave Europeans the justification to refuse Indians the right to their
aboriginal land. His definition, in effect, set the groundwork for land
disputes to be defined as a landlord-tenant relationship between
government and nations. The Chief Justice not only appointed the
federal government as the ultimate landlord with the power to end Indian
occupancy on the land, but also gave the landlord the power to control
and regulate land use (Cohen 1942).
The Johnson v. McIntosh Case set a precedent on how
government and Indians were to interact in the years that followed.
Shortly thereafter, Marshall was asked by the State of Georgia to
interpret which political power controlled land within Georgian territory.
In order for the State of Georgia to acquire new resources, the removal
of thousands of Creek and Cherokee Indians would have to be
undertaken. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia the Supreme Court
determined that the federal government held legal guardianship over
Indian affairs. Furthermore, if the state needed the land, the state was


46
authorized to remove the Indians (Cohen 1942). Despite the court
decision, many Indians refused to leave. Therefore, under the pretense
of protecting both the tribes and the state, Congress passed the Indian
Removal Act (IRA) stipulating Indians would need to be relocated,
certainly for their own protection. Six days later gold was discovered in
the Cherokee land. Relying on the IRA, the state of Georgia declared
that the gold rightfully belonged to the state and began relocating Indians
(Foreman 1953).
THE REMOVAL PERIOD
That it shall and may be lawful for the President of the United States to
cause so much of any territory belonging to the United States, west of
the river Mississippi. .to which the Indian title has been extinguished, as
he may judge necessary, to be divided into a suitable number of districts,
for the reception of such tribes or nations of Indians. .that the United
States will forever secure and guaranty to them, and their heirs or
successors, the country so exchanged with them: Provided always, that
such lands shall revert to the United States, if the Indians become
extinct, or abandon the same.
__________(Getches, Wilkinson and Williams, Jr. 1993, pg. 124)_
By I835 the Cherokee Nation Cases contained two basic thrusts on
the status of Indian tribes: (1) Indians were under the protection of the
federal government-ward and guardian relationship-and (2) tribes
possess a certain amount of sovereignty to shield themselves from any
intrusion by the states. Additionally, it was the federal government's
responsibility to ensure that this sovereignty was maintained (Cohen
1942:83).
One of the fundamental weaknesses with these cases was that the


47
United States Government was not capable of protecting tribes from
state intervention, largely because state militias were much stronger than
the federal army. Deprived of any real protection from invasion, tribes
were, therefore, forced to initiate treaties with states-treaties which may
have protected Indians from physical destruction but which became a
method of the state to take Indian land.
During the next decade Judge Marshall was determined to
strengthen the definition of the Indians' relationship to the U.S.
government as that of "ward to guardian." In his defense of the
government intervention, he stated that Indians looked to the
government for protection, and relied upon its kindness and its power.
Furthermore Indians were "so completely under the sovereignty of the
United States, that any attempt (by foreign nations) to acquire their
lands, or to form a political connection with them, would be considered
by all an invasion of our territory and an act of hostility" (Deloria and Lytle
1983:30).
Marshall established the framework upon which much of the idea
of federal responsibility over Indian affairs is built. Despite the
unfairness of the use of treaties to settle disputes between Indians and
whites, this method was the accepted norm until the I870s. It was only in
1871 when Congress declared Indian Nations would no longer be
recognized for the purpose of making treaties. The era of treaty-making
thus, ended. The Ute signed the last major treaty in 1914, thirty-three
years after Congress' declaration (Cohen 1942).
The 16,000 Cherokee who walked from Georgia on the "Trail of
Tears" as it is known, were not the only Indians forced to move to


48
western reservations. The Choctaw gave up 10 million acres east of the
Mississippi and also moved west. On March 6, 1864, as many as 8,500
Navajo were removed from their homelands and relocated to the banks
of the Pecos River in New Mexico where they became totally dependent
upon the U.S. Army for food rations. It was in this way that the federal
government was able to preserve its domination of Indians.
This relationship of dependency was then preserved by the
implementation of numerous federal policies. States continued to
intervene into the affair of Indians, similar to Georgia, forcing tribes to
seek federal protection against aggressive state actions. This action in
turn firmly established a psychological dependency not only in the minds
of Indians but also in the minds of whites. By appealing to the federal
government to intervene against state aggressiveness government
hoped Indians would view the federal government not as the creator of
their situation, but as the rescuer. Any future encounters or decisions
automatically necessitated the involvement of the federal government
with little concern as to its motive. This made tribes easier to manipulate
while solidifying the control and intervention of government.
Consequently, dependency as a way of thinking and acting became
firmly entrenched in the minds of Indians as well as whites.
Removal and relocation of Indians, however, was not performed
solely as a means of increasing the territory of the new Americans.
Removing Indians onto reservations ensured, to some degree, that
whites and Indians would be separated, thus preventing any real
understanding of each others cultures. Federal government made few
efforts to culturally integrate Native Americans, whether educationally,


49
socially or economically. In fact there were great initiatives on the part of
the US to collectively practice discrimination against the culturally distinct
natives.
If Indians had not rejected one of the main principles of American
liberalism the federal government would not have had to intervene with
such aggression. Liberalism is based on the Lockean view that private
property is a natural right and is viewed as the basis of prosperity as well
as morality, social equality, and a democratic government. This political
philosophy promoted the commercialization and appropriation of land. In
essence, the interaction between American Indians and whites was
based on land and continue to be the impetus for policy making by the
federal government well into the 20th century. In other words,
dependency, removal and relocation worked to increase the rights,
specifically the right to private property, of Euro-Americans, while
stripping Indians of their rights. For the early settlers, the creation of
reservations became the key to solving the land question.
Economists suggest that had there been genuine efforts on the
part of early Americans to incorporate Indians into the American
economy it is less likely removal of Indians onto reservations would have
been necessary. Much like early immigrants, Indians would have been
more fully integrated into local and regional economies. However, the
lack of demand for Indian labor, the refusal of Indians to sell their labor or
become slaves, and the increased demand for Indian land played out a
different scenario. Around the 1880s the federal government altered its
policies in dealing with Indians. Rather than continue the path of
relocationseemingly impossible because land was needed for


50
railroads, new communities and industrygovernment opted for a new
approach to the Indian problem, namely assimilation, or, as many
Indians refer to it, cultural genocide.
UNITING THE TWO DISTINCT CULTURES
Between 1887 and 1927 Indians saw themselves confronted with a
series of new problems. They now had to choose to either live in small
communities as many of them were accustomed to, or they could accept
small allotments of land with the possibility of becoming citizens. If they
refused to live on these small allotments of land, their alternative was to
move further west in hopes of finding land they could settle without fear
of further removal.
In 1887, President Chester A. Arthur believed assimilation was the
key to the "nagging Indian problem." He said that the answer was "to
introduce among the Indians the customs and pursuits of civilized life
and gradually to absorb them into the mass of our citizens", was the
answer (Cohen 1942:129). Responding to his suggestion, Congress
passed the General Allotment Act of 1887 (GAA). There were two main
ideas behind the General Allotment Act:
1) Communal land was savage. White individual ownership would
create pride, self-interest, and healthy selfishness, leading to
Christianity and civilization.
2) This act would make it easier to acquire individual Indian land
than acquiring land from a tribe.
As can be seen in the following provisions, Europeans believed
that this backward civilization, a civilization that collectively held land and
one that did not exploit the fruits of the land as instructed by God, would


51
need to be changed. Traditional modes of thought would need to be
destroyed in order for progress to pursue. Only white individual
ownership of land would lead to Christianity and civilization. If this be the
case, why allot land to Indians at all? Naturally, this raises the question
as to the real intent of the General Allotment Act.
THE CHIEF PROVISIONS OF THE ALLOTMENT ACT
1) a grant of 160 acres to each family head of 80 acres to each single
person over 18 years of age and to each orphan under 18, and 40 acres
to each other single person under 18; 2) a patent in fee issued to every
allottee but to be held in trust by the Government for 25 years, during
which time the land could be alienated or encumbered; 3) four years
allowed Indians when they should make their selections should be
applied to any tribefailure of the Indians to do so should result in
selection for them at the order of the Secretary of the Interior; and 4)
citizenship to be conferred upon allottees and upon any other Indian who
abandon their tribe and adopt the habits of civilized life. (Getches et al,
1983)__________________________________________________________
This process reduced Indian land from 138 million acres in 1887 to
48 million by 1934 (Wax and Buchanan 1975:114). And in 1891 an
amendment to the GAA resulted in Indians losing additional land. In the
1891 amendment the Secretary of Interior was given the right to lease
the land of anyone who, in the secretary's opinion, "by reason of age or
other liability" could not "personally and with benefit to himself occupy or
improve his allotments or any part thereof' (Cohen 1942:130). That is to
say, the Secretary of Interior was given dictatorial powers over the use of
the allotments. He and he alone would decide if the behavior of Indians
after receiving their allotted land portrayed a healthy selfishness.
For the first time, the federal government needed to devise a


52
method whereby Indians could be defined. That is to say, that In order to
distribute Indian land back to individual Indians, government needed to
determine who was Indian. Consequently, an Indian identification
standard would need to be implicitly imposed. This standard would be
explicit in future legislation. If the federal government could set and hold
the criteria of who is Indian, for example, at one-fourth, it was hoped the
Indian problem eventually would be solved either through assimilation
and/or marriage. More importantly, through any one of these processes
Indians would develop characteristics more similar to that of true
Americans, mainly those that focused on an individual identity.
Incorporation of Indians into economic and political structures could
occur only as individuals. The U.S. national identity is highly dependent
upon viewing one self as an individual rather than as part of a collective.
What Europeans failed to understand or ignored is that it is as difficult for
Indians to develop a concept of self as it was and continues to be for
Americans wrapped in liberalism to focus on the collective unit.
Naturally these two distinct processes made the cultural
transformation of Indians historically difficult. Consequently, Senator
Pendleton a fervent supporter of allotment pursued this endeavor in
another drastic way by declaring:
They must either change their mode of life or they must die. We may
regret it, we may wish it were otherwise, our sentiments of humanity
may be shocked by the alternative, but we cannot shut our eyes to
the fact that is the alternative, and that these Indians must either
change their modes of life or they will be exterminated. .In order
that they may change their modes of life, we must change our policy.
. .We must stimulate within them to the very largest degree, the idea
of home, of family, and of property. These are the very anchorages


53
of civilization; the commencement of the dawning of these ideas in
the mind is the commencement of the civilization of any race, and
these Indians are no exception (Gates 1979:11).
It is apparent in the above quotation that the federal government
believed a sense of liberal culture needed to be instilled in Indians
through the invention of new amendments and policies, for it certainly
was not occurring through outdated policies of isolation. Indians needed
first, to be exposed to the cultural modernity of the core, and once this
happened it was believed Indians values and normative orientations
would undergo a major transformation. In their very ethnocentric way,
whites assumed that should Indians be given the choice they would
naturally accept the culture of whites over theirs; eventually cultural
integration would occur. This, however, did not happen.
Survival of traditional Indian nations within a sea of modernity is
based on essential differences of social organizations. For example, the
social organization of the United States is often characterized by a wide
division of labor, high level of urbanization, capital-intensive production,
small nuclear family, bureaucratic structures, high per capita income, and
norms and values that arise from such settings. On the other hand,
traditional social organizations manifest a narrow division of labor, low or
no level of urbanization, labor-intensive products, large extended family,
lower per capita income, and traditional norms and values that often
conflict with those of modern society.
Had economic integration occurred it is highly probable Indian
assimilation would have followed. Economists suggest that as a group
participates in the national economic system, changes in its social
organizations occur and the group becomes more like the national


54
character of the dominant society. However, this cultural integration did
not occur for two reasons: one, the United States did not encourage it,
but opted for increased dependency, possibly because it was less costly;
and two, Indians did not desire integration; rather they preferred
separation.
It is thus fair to say that Indians realized early on that assimilation
meant the eradication of traditions and thus the eventual eradication of
themselves. Their concern was supported by a major slogan of
government officials that stated, kill the Indian... save the man. Whites
believed it was the Indianness of Indians that needed to be extinguished.
However, Indians did not believe the two could be separated. Whites
failed or refused to understand Initiatives that forced Indians onto small
allotments of land and acquire ownership of that land went against the
beliefs of Indians. To value individual rather than collective lifestyles was
interpreted by Indians as an attempt to end their tribal identity and thus
end them.
Religion, education, language and land are the glues that bind
people. When a culture is tied so closely to land as it is in Native
American culture, policies of integration have a monumental impact on
that culture. As a consequence, when certain traits of people are gone, it
can be said that a culture has been essentially wiped out. Cultural
genocide has occurred.
In the end, the United States failed to generate a policy that would
integrate Native Americans politically, socially or economically. Since
integration did not occur, government was in need of a policy that would
create these characteristics. From 1928 through 1945 several studies,


55
reports, reforms, and Congressional responses developed on the Indian
issue. While very few of these policies did little to solve the "Indian
problem," they did continue to have adverse effects on traditional Indian
life.
SELF-CONTROL: SELF-GOVERNMENT
With the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the inception of the New
Deal came new legislation that addressed the Indian issue and sought
reforms. "The Meriam Report" of 1928 was developed in an effort to
thoroughly document the plight of Indians. The report stated that the
poverty of Indians and the failure of Indians to assimilate produced
horrendous conditions. The investigation called for the creation of
"increased appropriations to improve the diet of children in boarding
schools, the creation of new positions in the fields of health and
education, the construction of more Indian day schools, the repair of
Indian Service buildings," and more (Deloria and Lytle 1983:44). Many
policy makers believed that what was needed was an Indian government
modeled after the United States government. It was believed that a form
of self-governing could be established by implementing yet another
Indian policy and more importantly, this policy had the potential of taking
the Indian/white relationship to even greater heights.
In order to create the conditions for a new era of Indian policy-
making, John Collier, an avowed advocate of Indian Rights was
appointed Commissioner of Indian Affairs by the Roosevelt
Administration. Although Collier's major goal, like that of his
predecessors, was assimilation, his tactics were slightly different in that


56
he sought the active cooperation of Indians. Collier firmly believed and
assumed that if Indians were given the right to form a governing body
consisting totally of Indians they would prefer to assimilate into larger
society. Unfortunately, his ideas were shaped by his experiences with
the tightly organized Pueblo people. Neither his background, nor the
background of many Indian reformers prepared them for the diversity of
Indian interests and preferences. Collier, like so many before him,
believed one stroke of the legislative pen could meet all tribal interests.
True to form, Congress obliged Collier by implementing the Indian
Reorganization Act (IRA) in 1930. One hundred years after the first IRA.
Fortunately, unlike the first IRA, the second IRA stripped the state
of having any jurisdiction on Indian land. In addition, the act ended the
earlier allotment policy, stating no land of any Indian reservation shall be
allotted in severalty to any Indian (Wax 1975:37). Additionally, it made it
easier for the federal government to allocate the necessary funds that
many of these nations needed to survive by providing a revolving credit
fund. Similar to the GAA the IRA gave the Secretary of the Interior the
power to make loans to tribes if they pursued its definition of economic
development.
The major thrust behind the IRA was to divert power onto
reservation governments and away from the federal government.
Government believed that reorganized formal tribal governments should
bear the responsibility of governing. Tribes would have to vote to accept
or reject the IRA. During the two-year period set as a deadline for tribes
to vote, 258 elections were held. One hundred and eighty one tribes
voted to accept the IRA provisions. The remaining 77 tribes rejected it,


57
including the large Navajo tribe of 45,000 people.
Indian tribes experienced an array of responses to the
implementation of the IRA. For some tribes, attempts to organize under
the IRA brought disruption and heightened intra-tribal factional disputes.
For others it brought a much-needed organization, a revival or
establishment of tribal government, tribal courts, police, and an improved
economic position. Yet, while some tribes believed the IRA would help
Indians gain some form of self-governing, other tribes viewed the IRA as
just another tool used by whites to impose their form of governing onto
tribes. Some Indians viewed the IRA as giving a few Indians appointed
by the federal government dictatorial power, creating the conditions for
the development of corrupt leadership.
Eventually most tribes were administered under IRA regulations
regardless of how they voted. Having failed to destroy all traditional
Indian forms of government the federal government instituted the Indian
Reorganization Act forcing them to become the mirror image structurally
of the federal government. Indians nations were forced to design a
constitution, elect representative, disentangle religion and politics, and
bring about a new philosophy toward tribal rights and lands. One of the
purposed of the Act was to impose an alien form of government on tribal
cultures, while clearly eroding traditional tribal governments and
facilitating cultural transformation.
How ironic that a system so similar to the Iroquois Confederation
would eventually be forced upon the very population whose ancestors
created it several hundred years earlier. Naturally as stated in chapter
two this raises the question as to the purpose of politics in traditional and


58
American societies. European ideologies suggest that as societies
evolve, people are not capable of sustaining a level of free-state as
noted in the state of nature. Government, thus, becomes a necessary
evil in order to control mens passions. If this is the case, the Iroquois
society had progressed into an interesting combination of a society
bearing all the traits of a free state and a highly developed government.
Yet because of U.S. imperialism and colonization Indian societies were
not at liberty to create tribal government founded on the ideal of the
Iroquois Confederacy. Indigenous societies in the New World had a
level of democracy not then realized in any part of the Old world.
Paradoxically, by emulating the Iroquois Confederation, the U.S.
Constitution, provided the mechanism for political leaders to force a
population to conform to the Europeans standard of democracy.
THE OBJECTIVES OF THE IRA
1) Officially ending the policy of allotment.
2) Set up a revolving fund for purposes of economic development.
3) Tribes now had the right to organize for its common welfare, and
adopt an appropriate constitution and bylaws. (Getches et al,
1993:218-219)
Of all federal Indian legislation the IRA is the most ambiguous
Indian policies in terms of how it affected tribal governments. While it did
end the irrefutably egregious allotment period, in its own way it may have
set the stage for the next policy, specifically termination.


59
FORCED ASSIMILATION: TERMINATION
After winning the presidency in 1952 the Republicans began a reversal
of Roosevelts programs and attempted to "free" the tribes of their
colonial master (Wax and Bucanhan 1975). In other words, massive
cuts were initiated in Indian federal programs for health, education and
housing. Funding for the previous Indian reorganizational period was
attacked as well.
In June of 1953 Representative William Henry Harrison of
Wyoming introduced House Concurrent Resolution 108 that stated all
Indian tribes located within the States of California, Florida, New York
and Texas should be freed from federal supervision and control, and all
federal assistance discontinued. The resolution was accepted. Federal
government began cutting the dependency that historically had been
created and started initiating what has been defined as the Termination
Period.
In August of I953 Congress passed Public Law 280 (67 Stat. 588).
This law gave certain states jurisdiction over civil and criminal activities
on many Indian reservations and limited tribal jurisdiction. Even though
the system of tribal government was still an important part of negotiations
that transpired between the United States and Indians, Public Law 280
significantly diminished tribal authority.
Arthur V. Watkins, a leading congressional proponent of
termination was firmly convinced--out of good faith and ignorance--that if
the Indians were set free they soon would become "productive citizens."
Watkins believed that through termination the people of America would
begin to treat Indians not as Indians but as fellow American citizens.


60
After all the federal government had extended citizenship to Indians in
1924 with the Indian Citizenship Act even though many Indians did not
desire American citizenship. In other words, treat Indians like everyone
else with citizenship with no special treatments.
Watkins' article entitled "Termination of Federal Supervision: The
Removal of Restrictions over Indian Property and Person," written in
1932 (several years before Resolution I08 was proposed), adequately
depicts termination as the best choice for Congress and the general
public in dealing with the Indian problem. This new choice by Congress,
however, delivered much confusion, in some instances disasters, and in
most cases Resolution 108 provided a decade of controversy and Indian
protests (Gates 1979:47-49).
PUBLIC LAW 280
Whereas it is the policy of Congress, as rapidly as possible to make the
Indians within the territorial limits of the United States subject to the
same laws and entitled to the same privileges and responsibilities as are
applicable to other citizens of the United States, and to grant them all the
rights and prerogatives pertaining to American citizenship; and whereas
the Indians within the territorial limits of the United States should assume
their full responsibilities as American citizens: Now therefore be it. .
(Getches et al, 1993:231)______________________________________________
From the very beginning of the Termination Period there were a
number of individuals who opposed termination. Many Americans
viewed termination as a method of robbing the Indians of the few
services rightly deserved (The New York Times 1954). Others believed
that slow integration continue until Indians themselves decide to


61
terminate federal assistance. For many Indians, termination was viewed
as the last effort to eliminate an Indian identity.
The controversy that mounted during this period was the main
reason for the demise of Resolution 108. Many white liberals and Indian
Nationalists branded the termination policy as a great evil. The support
these opponents received was overwhelming. Articles in the press
encouraged Congress to review the possible consequences of
termination. The public response apparently worked. Less than a decade
later, in 1958, Secretary of the Interior Fred Steton announced that no
tribe would be terminated without its consent.
Naturally states were not happy to be handed the responsibility of
assisting Indians. This new policy would shift guardianship of Indians on
to states and away from federal government similar to ethnic groups.
This may be a partial reason why so many Americans rejected the
termination philosophy.
In their article, "The Evolution of the Termination Policy", (1977)
Charles Wilkinson and Eric Biggs discuss the basic consequences of
termination:
1) There were fundamental changes in landownership patterns.
2) The trust relationship between government and Indians
ended.
3) State legislative jurisdiction was imposed.
4) State judicial authority was imposed.
5) Exemption from State taxing power was ended.
6) Special federal programs to tribes were discontinued.
7) Special federal programs to individual Indians were
discontinued.
8) Tribal sovereignty was effectively ended.


62
However, it was not until President Nixon entered the White House that
the Indians' fears of termination were alleviated completely. On July 8,
1970, President Nixon delivered a speech confronting the errors of
termination:
Because termination is morally and legally unacceptable, because
it produces bad practical results, and because the mere threat of
termination tends to discourage greater self-sufficiency among
Indian groups, I'm asking the Congress to pass a new Concurrent
Resolution which would expressly renounce, repudiate and repeal
the termination policy as expressed in House Concurrent
Resolution 108 of the 83rd Congress (Forbes 1974:37).
At best, this policy was an invention of a few aggressive politicians
wishing to hastily incorporate the dependent group into the core. This no
doubt was the reason of extending citizenship to Indians in 1924, and of
the reorganization period. Both of these policies were intended to
transform Indians. But they didnt work in the manner expected. What
these two policies did do was open the door to the possibility of
termination. The federal government could not terminate a population of
a distinct and different national identity without ensuring its incorporation
into the American national identity. The passage of the Indian Citizenship
Act in 1924 assisted the incorporation of Indians into larger society. The
IRA began transforming the institutions and structures of tribal
governments. Termination could follow much easier with the passage of
these two bills.
Still an unexpected positive aspect of the termination proposal
surfaced. The very idea of ending tribal governments and the national
identity of Indians galvanized Native activism. This policy provided an


63
opportunity for Native insurgency to develop; an insurgency that was in
its incubation period for many years. Politicians soon realized that the
very idea of termination was a politically explosive issue. This in turn
forced politicians to return to the drawing board and develop a new
Indian policy, one that would possibly acquiesce Native activism and
appease those Americans that were eager to support Indians during the
early years of the 1960s. Consequently, the termination philosophy was
never fully implemented.
NEO-COLONIALISM: SELF-DETERMINATION
From I960 to the I980s a different approach to the formation of policies
regarding Indians was developed. While the termination period seemed
to have destroyed a portion of Indian culture and encroached
substantially upon the attempts of Indians to remain Indian, through the
development of federal policies Indians were still able to see some slight
improvements in education and health services and gain increased
control of their destiny (Cornell 1988).
After the assassination of President Kennedy, President Johnson
proposed "a new goal for our Indian programs; a goal that ends the old
debate about termination and stressed self-determination," (Levitan and
Hetrick 1971:195). These programs emphasized a greater need to wipe
out a defined portion of the American population known as "the poor."
Public assistance played an increasingly important role in the lives of
poor people during this period and an even larger part for Indians.
In the early 1970s President Nixon furthered the efforts of
President Johnsons war on poverty by creating legislation where tribes


64
could apply some semblance of self-determination. The Area
Redevelopment Administration Act is one example of the type of acts
that permeated the minds of the executive branch in the early 1960s.
This act stressed the importance of allowing Indians a chance to develop
their resources while still not severing their tie to the federal government.
Another act, the Economic Opportunity Act (EOA), passed in 1964,
provided Indians with a form of self-determination through community
organizing. The EOA, an anti-poverty program, stressed the importance
of allowing Indians to create and implement community activities with
minimal interference from federal agencies. Although many reservations
are badly in need of housing, education, health services, economic
development, and manpower assistance, the mere presence of the
Indian Community Action Program (a branch of the EOA) indicates the
desire for tribal councils to adopt resolutions which curtail federal
supervision and allow tribes to produce constructive projects to change
the poverty most reservations experience (Wax and Buchanan
1975:136-138).
ERA OF SELF-DETERMINATION (1961-Present)
The principal legislative initiative to emerge from the Nixon proposals, the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, gives
express authority to the Secretaries of Interior and Health and Human
Services to contract with, and make grants to, Indian tribes and other Indian
organizations for the delivery of federal services. The Act reflects a
fundamental philosophical change concerning the administration of India
affairs; tribal programs are funded by the federal government, but the
programs should be planned and administered by the tribes themselves;
federal domination should end. (Getches, et al: 1993:255)_


65
During the self-determination period the following three pieces of
legislation stand out as portraying the change in policies set forth by the
federal government:
1) The Indian Education Act of 1972, provided special training
programs for teaching Indian children, and provided a base for
including Indian participation.
2) The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
of 1975: Directed the Secretary of the Interior to confer with the
tribe to plan, conduct, and administer programs. In other words,
the act permitted the tribe, not the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
or any other branch of federal government, to decide if Indians
wished to participate in any given program.
3) American Indian Policy Review Commission of I974:
Authorized two-year commission to review existing federal
policies and make recommendations for position change
(Deloria and Lytle: 1983).
Since the passing of these three pieces of legislation very few
initiatives have been proposed to improve the Indians lifestyle. Most of
the legislation has often hampered the lifestyle of Indians while
increasing the need for more federal bureaucratic involvement.
Realizing federal involvement was still very much a part of the Indian
way of life, proponents of self-determination were willing to accept the
intrusion, but only temporarily. Tribal members believe that until certain
institutions are created and until tribes gain the capabilities for
self-governing, the impact of sudden "freedom" could be disastrous for
Indian nations. They suggest that efforts to provide more viable
institutions and a greater ability among Indians to exercise their


66
independence must be combined with a gradual expansion of
self-determination.
There is little doubt that during the self-determination period Indian
nations benefited from numerous federal programs. However, what little
progress Indians may have experienced came at an enormous price. In
order to receive any of the funds generated through national social
welfare legislation, Indians had to pose as a racial minority, even though
there were major differences in the grievances and demands of Indians
and those of domestic minorities. The self-determination of Indians
could not be met by integrationist policies or through piecemeal reforms
created for minorities. Therefore, while these types of reforms seemed
to have appeased national minorities, they galvanized Indian activism.
Indians realized that with the implementation of these types of policies
came a loss of a culture, an increase in U.S. bureaucratic involvement
and a decrease in true self-determination.
The policies, whether they were removal, relocation,
reorganization, or termination, were created to provide economic
incentives and in the end promote assimilation. That is, stop Indians
from being Indian and integrate larger society. While none of these
policies proved to be successful in fulfilling U.S. intent, they did
contribute to a different type of Indian. In the late 1960s, Indians began
reacting to poor legislation in a very organized fashion. Consequently,
for the first time since the arrival of the Europeans, Indians demanded
that Indian legislation be created and influenced by Indians and by Indian
tribal governments. No doubt, this change in demands would contribute
to a very different tribal government as discussed in the following


67
chapter.
In an attempt to bring about assimilation, cultural transformation,
and acquire Indian land, numerous amendments and statues were
adopted. Historically, two major ones stand out: The Act of July 31, 1882
designated army posts and barracks as places to train nomadic tribes
having educational treaty claims upon the United States ( Deloria and
Lytle 1983:11); and The Indian Citizen Act passed in 1924 gave
citizenship to all Indians who had served in the First World War and later
to all Indians. The first act demonstrates the beginning of a commitment
on the part of the federal government to educate Indians while really
focusing on Christianizing, civilizing, and instilling ideas of capital
liberalism. The second act assumed that by giving citizenship (to the
only people in the U.S. who did not desire it) Indians would naturally
adopt American values and assimilate. The main thrust of both of these
acts failed.
Moreover, similar to the above two acts the remainder of federal
Indian legislation plus historical circumstances shaped contemporary
tribal governments. In order to understand how the transformation of
modern forms of tribal government developed, a comprehensive analysis
of tribalization (as suggested by Stephen Cornell) must be developed.
Cornell defines tribalization as the process of how tribes have become
what they are today. In other words, if we are to understand the next
chapter that deals with modern forms of tribal governments we must
understand how the pre-stated various historical policies worked to chip
away at tribal sovereignty until it looked more like the politics of
interference by the courts, congress, the president, the BIA and


68
increasingly, state governments.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1) What are the main tenets of the Doctrine of Discovery?
2) To what extent did the Indian Removal Act protect Indians?
3) Explain how Christianization, Americanization, and civilization
occurred with the acquisition of individual land.
4) What were the purposes and the consequences of Resolution
108?
5) What is the Indian identification standard, and its purpose?


69
CHAPTER FOUR
LEVELS OF TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY
So long as a tribe exists and remains in possession of its lands, its
title and possession are sovereign and exclusive; and there exists
no authority to enter upon their lands, for any purpose whatever,
without their consent.
U. S. Attorney Generals Opinion, 1821
The key to understanding how various nations function, is to determine
the forms by which they are governed. As stated previously, the method
of how Indian nations are governed fluctuates according to the needs of
larger American society rather than the needs of Indians. If land was
needed by early Euro-Americans, Indians were removed and relocated if
not annihilated. The Cherokee Nation Cases demonstrates this well. If
Indians nations were found to be too traditional, too disorganized, or not
functioning as their legal guardian say they should, tribes were forced to
reorganize under the IRA.
Twenty some years after this reorganization period, corporations
began to eye resources on shrinking Indian land. True to form the federal
government obliged corporate needs. And similar to the Cherokee Nation
Cases, a justification was again created in order to remove Indians and
thus giving access to corporations the very land that Indians had
historically resisted developing. Consequently, the various forms by
which Indians nations were governed reflect the politics of interference.
Therefore, it is fair to say, that tribal governments have been largely
shaped by the actions of and in reaction to the U.S. federal government.


70
Thus, levels of tribal sovereignty on any given Indian nation and at any
given time, fluctuates according to the federal government.
As stated in chapter two, early Indigenous populations within the
Western Hemisphere relied upon a variety of activities when negotiating
with other tribes. That is to say that long before Europeans arrived and
forced the original inhabitants to change their methods of governing
Indigenous people were politicking. More importantly, these various
Indian nations were sovereign powers long before Chief Justice Marshall
defined them creatively as Domestic Dependent Nations as noted by
Felix Cohen in the following paragraph:
Indian sovereignty is the principle that those powers which are
lawfully vested in an Indian tribe, are not, in general, delegated
powers granted by express acts of congress, but rather inherent
powers of a limited sovereignty which has never been
extinguished. Each Indian tribe begins its relationship with the
federal government as a sovereign power, recognized as such in
treaty and legislation (Felix Cohen, 1942).
Unfortunately Anglo-American political and legal theory, practice,
and perceptions do not provide any consistent interpretation of tribal
sovereignty. Marshall invented the domestic dependent status believing
that tribes would eventually become states and the withering away of
dependency would eventually follow. This withering away did not occur
fast enough so Congress suggested termination. Similar to other policies
this too did not take hold, making the level of sovereignty continuing to
fluctuate somewhere between absolute and inherent sovereignty, or as
earlier implied as sovereign as Congress allows tribes to be.
Historically, Congress has been given power to regulate almost


71
every facet of life for Indians living on reservations. Naturally most tribal
governments desire absolute sovereignty particularly when making
decisions about culture, education, health, economic development, and
most other matters regarding tribal affairs. And even though the
Supreme Courts affirmation of tribal sovereignty occurred in the 1980s,
by the end of the decade the high court was no longer voting on the side
of tribal sovereignty. Moreover, Congress and other key actors began to
fervently oppose tribal sovereignty, especially in decisions regarding
gaming, fishing, and mineral rights. This suggests that what little
sovereignty tribes had acquired was slowly eroding. The following
bureaucratic maze shows that any initiative started by tribal governments
must go upwards through a series of levels:
Secretary of the Interior
Assistant secretary of the Interior
BIA Area Director
BIA Agency Superintendent
Tribal Council
Naturally there are numerous events and issues that have the
capacity to determine and shape a tribes level of sovereignty. Following
are a few events or issues that have the capacity of determining the level


72
of sovereignty: First, which European power(s) did Indian nations come
in contact with, the French, Dutch, Spanish, English or Russian, that may
have set different patterns of interactions; Second, what treaties were
made and subsequently broken that may provide the tribe with litigation
opportunities; Third, what was the experience of tribes with removal and
relocation and other various federal Indian policies; Fourth, what was the
level of interaction between culturally different tribes that were forced to
share a land base; Fifth, within what state is the tribal government; Sixth,
what types of resources are on the tribal nation; and more importantly,
what level of sovereignty do the various tribal governments desire,
absolute sovereignty, shared sovereignty or a form of self-governing.
Currently, the issue that currently determines tribal sovereignty
more than any other is natural resources on Indian territory. If an Indian
nation has resources desired by larger society or corporations, federal
Indian legislation is often shaped by those interests rather than the
interest of the tribe, regardless of other issues. Nations that have water,
uranium, coal, natural gas, agriculture or other resources have
confronted legislation that seeks to develop those resources. For
example, the large Navajo Nation of Arizona faced the Navajo Relocation
Act of 1976 largely because Peabody Coal Company desired access to a
large body of coal on Navajo and Hopi land. Similarly, the Lummi Nation
in Washington battled commercial and game fishers supported by state
and federal governments in order to secure their fishing rights
guaranteed in an 1855 treaty. Both of these nations have had to assert
tribal sovereignty in different ways in order to adequately represent their
members.


73
It wasnt until after the Boldt Decision in 1974 that the Lummi were
able to reclaim some of their fishing rights. This right was achieved
largely as a result of a strong tribal government and native protests
opposing numerous state and federal actors. For the Navajo Nation,
members continue to oppose and defy the relocation of tribal members.
Unfortunately, they have been largely unsuccessful in stopping
corporations from developing their land base since the Navajo Tribal
Council began approving mineral extraction with large corporations as
early as 1952. In their efforts to provide jobs and stimulate their
economy, various tribal governments often go into agreements with
corporations, only to regret it later.
Since the creation of the Indian Reorganization Act, and as a result
of tribal governments having created court systems, Congress often
defers to these courts to establish laws and codes in regulating many
aspects of the tribe. There are instances, however, when there is no
clear distinction as to which court or which agency has power within
Indian country, particularly when it comes to freedoms and rights. As
noted in the following subcommittee hearing in 1977, the subject of
Indian rights is complex and ambiguous:
It is almost always a mistake to seek answers to Indian legal issues
by making analogies to seemingly similar fields. General notions of
civil rights law and public land laws, for example, simply fail to
resolve many questions relating to American Indian tribes and
individuals. This extraordinary body of law and policy holds its own
answers, which are often wholly unexpected to those unfamiliar
with it (The Rights of Indians and Tribes 1992:lntro).
We can see how ambiguous Indian rights are when examining


74
religious rights. Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. .. .
The First Amendment was adopted in 1791 thus justifying the claim that
the United States was founded on religious freedoms. In reality America
was originally founded on the right to own property and religious freedom
of Protestants, later to include other religions. It was not until 1978 that
Congress took positive steps to guarantee Native Americans had the
same religious freedoms as other Americans. The American Indian
Religion Act reads:
Henceforth it shall be the policy of the United States to protect and
preserve for American Indians their inherent rights of freedom to
believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions of the
Americans, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians, including but not
limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects,
and the freedom to worship through ceremonies and traditional
rites (Petoskey 1985:233)
Obviously, the religious practices of American Indians on tribal land were
not protected by the First Amendment and therefore required special
legislation. Since many of the standards for Indian legislation have been
based on Judeo-Christian religions, many of them, like the one above,
cannot be fully implemented or accommodated without some level of
conflict. For example, in order for Indians to practice their religion they
often require access to a pristine environment or in some cases the use
of a substance deemed illegal by states and/or federal government.
Tribes argue their religious rights are violated when the federal land they
use to practice their beliefs face economic development. Consequently,
government must violate the religious rights of Indians in its pursuit of


75
economic interests, suggesting economic interests virtually always
override religious rights. The issue of Indian rights to religious expression
has been almost consistently denied when the expression of the right
conflicts with economic rights of Americans as stated in the following
case:
INDIAN RELIGIOUS RIGHTS
In 1988 Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture, et al. v. Northwest Indian
Cemetery Protective Association the court ruled in favor of the U.S.
Forest Service to pave a road that was sacred to the Karok, Yurok, and
Tolowa Indians in northern California. The opinion of Justice Sandra
Day OConnor stated that U.S. economic interests outweighed Indian
religious rights. In essence, society could destroy sacred sites for
economic reasons. The Lyng Case illustrated that while Indian religions
are entitled to the same protection as other Americans under the First
Amendment and certainly by the Indian Religious Act of 1978, economic
interests may and often do override this entitlement.____________
By passing the Major Crimes Act of 1885, the federal government
spread its jurisdictional wings over Indian country. At the time of passing
the Act the federal government was given jurisdiction over seven crimes:
murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary,
and larceny. Today it has increased its jurisdiction to include additional
crimes. States may not exercise authority over tribes unless specifically
authorized by Congress or by the tribes, but they too have historically
tried to assert their power within native territory. This intrusion by the
federal government and states leaves tribal governments with limited
jurisdiction. And even though tribal governments are recognized as
having a higher status than that of states, they nonetheless continue to


76
be subordinate to and dependent on the U.S. federal government.
One area where the federal government has allowed tribes to assert
themselves is in determining their tribal membership. Tribes define their
membership by emphasizing descendants, meaning anyone descended
from Indians, by residency, or blood quantum. On the one hand, the
federal government defines an American Indian as one having one-fourth
Indian blood and enrolled in a federally recognized tribe. On the other
hand, many tribes require members have anywhere from one-eighth to
one-half tribal blood. The so-called blood quantum policies became an
implicit part of federal Indian legislation beginning in 1887 as part of the
General Allotment Act. Congress had hoped that by setting a degree of
Indian blood standard, Indians would intermarry or assimilate and
eventually be defined out of existence. While this has not occurred, the
blood quantum of one-fourth is the current federal standard to
determine who is Indian particularly when determining who receives
federal assistance.
Today, the purpose or function of having a blood quantum, a
Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood or any method of deciding who is
Indian is seen by many Indians as just another attempt of the classic
divide and conquer strategy; pitting Indians against Indians and/or
Indians against those individuals that do not have enough Indian blood.
In some cases whenever the question of some ones Indianness is
raised it is usually about who will receive the few federal crumbs the BIA
or the Secretary of Interior is tossing at individual Indians. How Indians
themselves determine who is Indian has less to do with level of Indian
blood and more to do with if that person is working collectively on


77
increasing tribal sovereignty and other Indian rights. To adopt the identity
without adopting the struggle contributes nothing to the expansion of
tribal sovereignty.
The following case demonstrates that the federal government is
eager to support tribal sovereignty as long as it doesnt interfere with the
rights, usually defined as economic rights of Americans
Martinez v. Santa Clara Pueblo Nation
Martinez, a member of the Santa Clara Pueblo Nation, brought a
suit against her tribe because it did not recognize her daughter as a
member. Santa Clara Pueblos consider children of male tribal members
eligible for membership but children of female members who marry
nonmembers, as Ms. Martinez did, were viewed as ineligible. The Santa
Clara Pueblo is a patriarchal society where membership is defined
through the father. The Supreme Court agreed with the tribes argument
that tribal membership is a matter for the tribe to determine, not the
federal government. Consequently the child of Ms. Martinez cannot be
tribally enrolled in either tribe even though she is a full-blooded Indian.
LAW ENFORCEMENT
Obviously tribal courts have jurisdiction only within the territory of the
nation and do not expect to have jurisdiction out of this defined territory.
Whether the nation has total, concurrent or shared jurisdiction with state
and federal governments will be largely determined by the crime, the
location, and the identity of the victim and of the accused. If the crime is
a misdemeanor and involves non-Indians, the state normally will have
jurisdiction. In a misdemeanor that involves an Indian and non-Indian
jurisdiction is given to the federal government. Tribal courts have some


78
jurisdiction when a misdemeanor and major crimes involve Indians.
While this is the method most often used in determining the appropriate
court, which court has jurisdiction can fluctuate at the whim of the federal
and state interests. It is only when two Indians are involved in a crime
that the tribe could have total jurisdiction, particularly if the crime is
minor. Complications arise when the individuals are from different tribal
nations. When this occurs tribal governments must agree on the
sentence. In many cases, it is not unheard of for tribal courts to ask
offenders to pay compensation to the victim or to the victims community.
Some tribes continue to punish some crimes by a ritualistic whipping, or
by banishing the guilty individual.
MAJOR CRIMES
Persons Involved
Jurisdiction
--Indian accused
Indian victim
--Indian accused
non-Indian victim
--Non-Indian accused
Indian victim
Federal government (MCA), Indians
Federal government, Indians
Federal government
NON-MAJOR CRIMES
--Indian accused
Indian victim
--non-Indian accused
--Indian accused
non-Indian victim
Indian victim
Tribal government
Federal government
Federal government and Indians
The Rights of Indians and Tribes 1992:132


79
Obviously, those tribal governments that are strong and have the capital
to pursue the interest of the tribe are the most successful in asserting and
guaranteeing self-government. Similar to states, tribal governments
exercise power regarding taxation, economic regulations, zoning,
extradition, the regulation of domestic and family relations, health care,
housing, education, and much more. However, this power is frequently
constrained, changed, and even extinguished by the actions of the
federal government and states particularly if tribal decisions should
infringe on the rights of larger society. The debate over use of sacred
sites demonstrates this issue well.
The struggle for American Indians to protect sacred sites and to
have access to them for traditional ceremonies and rituals has been a
hotly debated issue. For example, some Native nations have requested
specific areas defined as sacred sites be off limits to people during a
period when this area is in need of rejuvenating itself. At some of these
sacred sites rock climbers and other tourists were asked to not use the
area during a specific month. Many Americans recognized the importance
of not entering this area during this period and respected the tribes
wishes. Others protested the closure and refused to respect the request
of Native peoples.
There are three examples of sacred sites currently being
threatened. One is the Medicine Wheel in Wyoming, which is sacred to
many tribes in Montana, Wyoming, Oklahoma and South Dakota. Another
one is Mt Graham in Arizona. The third one is Badger Two Medicine in
Montana where oil drilling would destroy a sacred area used by Blackfeet


80
and other tribes. More recently other debates have surfaced such as
snow making for ski areas on many mountains defined as sacred by
Natives.
Unfortunately while tribal governments are defined as sovereign
nations they often must rely on the actions of the federal government and
decisions of the Supreme Court to protect the limited rights they are
allowed to exercise. As non-Indians and society encroach upon and
threaten tribal sovereignty, tribal governments will continue appealing to
the federal government. After all it was the federal government that
defined itself as the legal guardian of Indians. It seems only fair that the
federal government therefore fulfill its mission as the protectorate of
Indian people.
For the past one hundred years the federal government dominated
tribal governments. This demonstrated in chapter three. However, in the
last thirty years tribal governments have been asserting their sovereignty
by lobbying Congress, negotiating with state governments, and making
demands. Naturally a major obstacle of tribes in representing the
interests of their members is their poor structures of government some of
which were created during the reorganizational period in the 1930s.
Some tribal members suggest that tribal governments that
incorporate Anglo-American political values are faulty because they can
not and do not adequately protect cultural values. In most cases, tribal
members suggest American values work against traditional cultural
values. No doubt Indian values such as consensus versus majority rule,
community rather than individualism, and a holistic approach to religion
and politics are comprised to the point of extinction within some


81
contemporary tribal governments. This certainly raises the question as to
what extent tribal governments can be efficient and traditional at the
same time, or must they give up their traditional values in order to
interact on a government to government relationship.
Whatever the outcome, we do know that as governments of all
types become stronger there is little doubt they are better equipped to
shape their governments in ways that better support the interests of their
members, whether they are traditional, modern or mixture of the two.
More importantly, the level of sovereignty exercised by tribal
governments will continue to be highly dependent upon two factors: the
federal government recognizing and treating them as sovereign and the
tactical responses of tribal governments to the various actors. It is within
this context that tribal governments are increasingly becoming political
actors and edging towards a higher level of sovereignty.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1) Why is it important to define Indian Nations as Domestic
Dependent Nations?
2) What was the impetus for the Indian Religious Rights Act?
3) If an Indian should kill a non-Indian on an Indian Nation other
than their reservation, who has jurisdiction?
4) Why is tribal sovereignty so complex, ambiguous and
important?
5) What does the Lyng case illustrate?


83
CHAPTER FIVE
(Much of the information in this chapter comes from data collected by the
author for completion of Ph.D. dissertation in 1992)
INDIGENOUS MOVEMENT POLITICS
They promised us that we could fish.. .as long as the mountain
stands, the grass grows green and the sun shines. But now the
State of Washington has declared the steelhead trout a white
mans fish. They must think the steelhead swam over behind the
Mayflower
(Steiner, 1968:55)
The framers of the U.S. Constitution recognized the cultural diversity of
American society but they could not have foreseen the influence this
diversity would play in government. No doubt the framers saw the
necessity of creating various channels for this diversity to express itself
believing that various interests would lead to the creation of a number of
factions forming. As long as there were a number of factions with
diverse interests it was less likely these factions would become one large
faction and overthrow the elites.
Today, interest groups provide individuals with numerous channels,
besides voting to shape legislation. Simply put, interest groups or
pressure groups, (pluralism as it is known) are groups of people who
organize to pursue a common interest, passion, by applying pressure on
the political process. The largest and probably the most powerful of U.S.
interest groups are economic interest groups, groups that seek greater
private profits for their members. Other interest groups are often
organized around religious, social or political concerns and work on


84
collective interests. A few examples are Common Cause, the National
Organization of Women, the National Rifle Association and the National
Congress of American Indians.
Regardless of their respective diverse interests, all interest groups
recognize the need to put pressure on government through an
assortment of activities. The most common form of tactic is lobbying.
Lobbyists are hired by the group to directly or indirectly influence
legislation specific to the interests of the group they represent. Their
activities include asking a congressional member to vote for or against a
particular bill, raising monetary support for congressional campaigns,
writing letters to congress expressing the groups interests, and aligning
the group with other groups with similar goals and interests.
While interest groups on the whole use institutional tactics to get
their interests met, some groups use other types of activities defined as
non-institutional or non-conventional. Non-institutional tactics are those
tactics outside of the accepted institutional forum. Strikes, boycotts,
demonstrations, protests and other forms of disruptive tactics are usually
identified as non-conventional. When an interest group uses primarily
non-institutional or non-conventional tactics they are viewed as engaging
in movement politics.
Therefore, it is fair to say that a social movement is an interest
group, meaning it too is made up of people with a collective interest and
attempts to influence policies in its direction, but what separates social
movements from interest groups among other things, are the types of
strategies used to achieve their goals. A useful definition of a social
movement is, rational attempts by excluded groups to mobilize sufficient


85
political leverage to advance collective interests through non-institutional
means (McAdam 1982, 37).
Consequently, social movements are interest groups but interest
groups are not necessarily social movements. Social movements often
become interest groups like the Womens Movement became the
National Organization of Women (NOW) or the Civil Rights Movement
became various interest groups defending rights of African Americans.
These groups got involved in movement or confrontational politics when
they realized their interests could be better achieved using the political
process. Interest groups can also become a social movement
particularly when the group recognizes that using conventional strategies
do not further its interests and view themselves as excluded from
politically participating. An example of this process is the National Indian
Youth Council (NIYC). When Indians realized using conventional tactics
was futile in getting their demands met they pursued strategies described
as militant. Some key members of the NIYC eventually joined the
American Indian Movement (AIM) and pushed the level of militancy even
more.
Another key difference between interest groups and movement
politics is how American society reacts to them. American society has
historically embraced interest group politics largely because they use the
political channels open to them, voting, letter writing, signing petitions
and so forth. When a group uses other types of strategies such as
protest, demonstrations, occupations, economic boycotts and certainly
tactics that entail a use of violence, Americans become less supportive.
That is because Americans are socialized to support the political process


86
and use the designated channels to get their demands met. The irony of
this is that democracy in the United States has expanded greatly as a
result of social movement activity. For example, the efforts of the labor
movement severely expanded the voice of the worker and pushed
government to institute a number of policies that protected workers, and
created the conditions whereby workers could increase their political
power. The Womens Movement also expanded the democracy of
women in a number of ways, specifically by garnishing the vote for
women, pushing for equality in the work force, and ensuring reproductive
choice. Finally, most American would acknowledge that without the Civil
Rights Movement it is highly unlikely that Black Americans and other
minorities would have the political and economic clout they have today.
These various movements worked to increase democracy for those
Americans who may have been citizens but were largely excluded from
full participation.
During the period that many of these activities took place the
United States experienced a level of social movement activity
unparalleled since the depression decade of the 1930s. The Civil Rights
Movement gained momentum, the Anti-War Movement hit the street,
university students challenged restrictions on the right to free speech,
and numerous people participated in riots in the urban areas. It was
amidst this turmoil that Native Americans began to resist more intensely,
policies of the United States Government. But how did Indians move
from hopeless submission to hopeful noncompliance?


87
THE EARLY YEARS OF INSURGENCY
In the 1960s Indians numbered close to 1.5 million nationwide, and were
scattered across 26 states in 278 reservations. They had an
unemployment rate escalating in some areas to as high as 90 percent,
an increasing birthrate, plus a large population under 19 years of age.
With conditions like these Indians realized they needed to alter the grim
statistics plaguing their lives and believed the only way they could turn
these statistics around was to achieve some form of self-government.
Merely demanding it had not proven to be effective, possibly taking it
would.
It was during this period that a new type of Indian materialized,
ready to challenge the federal government in a more militant way.
Consequently, out of a response to a lack of participation on the part of
Indians in initiating and controlling government programs, a number of
indigenous organizations began to spring up. Indian groups that used
similar tactics as other American interest groups began to form.
Membership of early American Indian interest groups was entirely
white. And while the Friends of Indians and the Association on American
Indian Affairs were good advocates for Indian interests, Indians began to
realize Indian interests could only be achieved by Indians. Consequently
on November 15, 1944 the National Congress of American Indians
convention assembled in Denver in hopes of creating an organization
made up entirely by Indians.
There is no doubt that the NCAI laid the foundation for the creation
of a more organized and militant national Indian movement. The first
large national organized Indian event occurred in 1961. More than 500


88
Native Americans from 67 tribes met in Chicago. The purpose of this
meeting was to demand from the Kennedy Administration cultural
survival and a preservation of their land base (New York Times Index).
From this meeting a Declaration of Indian Purpose was generated, it
stated:
We believe in the inherent rights of all people to retain spiritual and
cultural values and that the free exercise of these values is necessary
to the normal development of any people. Indians exercised this
inherent right to live their own lives for thousands of years before the
white man came and took their lands. When Indians speak of the
continent they yielded, they are not referring only to the loss of some
millions of acres in real estate. They have in mind that the land
supported a universe of things they knew, valued, and loved. With
that continent gone, except for the few parcels they still retain, the
basis of life is precariously held, but they mean to hold the scraps and
parcels as earnestly as any small nation or ethnic group was ever
determined to hold to identity and survival (Witt and Steiner
1972:216).
While many of the demands of the various tribes were cohesive,
the meeting exposed a division among the more traditional members and
the younger urban members. The younger and more militant members
such as Clyde Warrior, an Oklahoma Ponca, thought that the declaration
may have spelled out their desires but to believe participation in federal
policies was the key to change was ignoring Indian history. He
suggested a more aggressive policy needed to be implemented. Several
months later Clyde Warrior and other younger members met in New
Mexico and formed the National Indian Youth Council (NIYC).
The NIYC set the lead for which many of the organizations
followed. They began to link members of the aggrieved population into a


89
more organized campaign of mass political action. More importantly, the
NIYC distinguished itself from other organizations by making a more
visible shift toward activism. It called for the end to racism,
ethnocentrism, and paternalism characteristic of many federal policies.
They demanded a new role for Native Americans in determining policies
that affected their lives--one that would not be given to them but one that
they would create (Josephy 1971). The NIYC thus distinguished itself
from the strict definition of interest groups and began to use tactics that
would later define them as a movement.
From 1961 through 1968 the NIYC and various tribes initiated
many events directed at the federal government in an effort to alert the
administration that a new Native American had arrived. Some events
were initiated to bring tribes together such as the meeting in September
of 1962 in North Carolina, where 75 tribal leaders met to unify their
grievances; and in April of 1966 when the National Congress called for
an emergency meeting of 80 representatives to reshape Indian policy.
Other events were staged to increase Indian land base. The Sioux in
Wisconsin sought to regain 800,000 acres of land ceded in 1837; the
Seminoles in Florida and Oklahoma sought to regain 32 million acres;
the Ottawa Tribe in Michigan demanded $938,291 for land sold to the
government; and 40 Indians stopped logging operations as part of a long
standing dispute over rights to 19,000 acres. Tribal jurisdiction was
challenged in other events. In South Dakota tribes and various church
groups opposed a referendum to bring dual federal/tribal law system
under the state jurisdiction. And the American Indian National Congress
supported the end of federal control of Indians in the state of


90
Washington.
Many groups and individuals Indians called for an increase in
cultural and civil rights. The Iroquois in New York demanded the return
of wampum belts from a New York museum; in San Francisco Native
Americans declared textbooks slanderous to Indians; Mohawks
boycotted school board elections in an effort to seek their right to vote;
and, after protesting their right to travel freely on US/Canadian border
and blocking a bridge, 41 Indians were held by Canadian police.
These types of events illustrate a change in the direction of Native
Americans. They signified a new nationalism and an awareness that
was promoted particularly by the NIYC. No longer were Indians willing to
sit passively while government orchestrated their destiny. There
continued to be small protests to stock reduction, methods of education
and other programs. However, these protests occurred in individual
tribes and had very little support from other tribes or from non-indigenous
groups. Consequently, a resurgent nationalism did not develop at this
time. Indians were still in a position of making very little progress
towards changing the federal policies they individually or tribally
opposed.
Within a few years all of this was to change. The single greatest
change in the structure of the Native American community in the '60s
was the mass migration to urban centers. This migration had enormous
political ramifications. Either under the relocation programs or on their
own volition, migration provided Indian organizations with thousands of
Indians who, if mobilized, could mount an effective insurgency. In this
respect urbanization benefited Indian organizations. Yet, in another


91
respect organizations were confronted with how the interests of those
Indians living in the cities could be joined with the interests of those living
on reservations. Indians living on the reservation were isolated from the
urban events of the sixties and additionally held rather narrow political
interests. Motivating them to challenge federal policies would be a
difficult but necessary task.
This task was undertaken by the American Indian Movement (AIM),
an opposition group that was organized by a small group of Indians who
began to observe the rising activism of African and Hispanic Americans.
These urban Indians saw that their conditions were much worse than the
general population, and moreover, worse than those minorities seeking
change. Russell Means, an AIM activist and an urbanite at the time, said
his involvement was generated by the realization of funds going to
Blacks while Indians were virtually being overlooked.
According to Means, the key to mobilizing Indians living on the
reservation was to encourage them to continue resisting the BIA (a
long-standing target of resistance) in conjunction with instilling a desire to
return to their traditional customs. During the early stages of organizing,
the newly developed groups were not completely clear as to the potential
effects of motivating both sectors of the Indian population. "We just
knew they had to be united," Means said. Getting the reservation
Indians to recognize the need for change would come to be a major
focus of the American Indian Movement. Migration made it possible to
organize meetings and demonstrations easily. Combine these
individuals with a portion of the reservation population willing to resist
poor policy-making, and Americans began to see the creation of a social


92
movement.
Subsequently, the organization could not build their goals solely on
the concern of either urban or reservation Indians. AIM organizers
clearly defined their grievances as ones that affected both groups:
self-determination. Broadly defined, self-determination served as the
fundamental goal of the movement. AIM suggested that the problem
facing all Indians was their lack of power to direct their destiny and
change their conditions. Moreover this issue provided AIM leaders with
the ability to easily mobilize various segments of the Indian population.
No Indian or non-Indian could deny the historical realities of Indians.
Government had already generated leanings toward self-determination it
was just a matter of defining the term and forcing its implementation.
Additionally, AIM did not demand the dissolution of other
organizations. Using the courts and other less militant tactics such as
monitoring legislative activities and other institutional activities were
never fully relinquished nor discouraged by the movement.
Unforeseen by the federal government as a stimulus of native
activism was a policy developed in the 1960s. This policy allowed for
land once used by the military to revert to its original owners if it was not
in use. Many Indians saw this policy as an opportunity to announce their
stance for Indian self-determination and rightfully claim much of the land
defined by this policy.
Out of response to the above policy, AIM initiated its first action in
1969, the occupation of Alcatraz Island. .
We want all Indians people to join with us. .We are issuing this
call in an attempt to unify all our Indian Brothers behind a common


93
cause. We realize .that we are not getting anywhere fast by
working alone as individual tribes. If we can gather together as
brothers and come to a common agreement, we feel that we can
be much more effective, doing things for ourselves, instead of
having someone else doing it, telling us what is good for us
(Josephey 1971:187).
The objective of the occupation was twofold: first to acquire Alcatraz and
build a cultural center for Native Americans; second, to use the
occupation as a basis for launching a pan-Indian movement. The first
objective was never realized, the second was. This dramatic opportunity
captured national press coverage and brought to the attention of Indians
as well as non-Indians that an insurgency was in the making. More
importantly, it signaled the United States as to the arrival of AIM.
The main objectives of the militant activists in AIM were to stop
their land base from shrinking, re-familiarize themselves with their culture
and preserve the earth. And in order to achieve these objectives AIM did
not reject the probability of using violence. If violence was necessary to
achieve its goal, then violence became an acceptable strategy of AIM.
After occupying the Island for 18 months, the leadership returned the
land, but not without some loss. One of the principal Indian leaders was
shot and killed by the federal government.
As a result of Alcatraz, other occupations of land and buildings
occurred, some resulted in violence and arrests. The following events
reported in newspapers are a few of the activities that took place in cities
across the United States:
--Jane Fonda and over 100 Indians occupied Fort Lauton in Seattle
in an attempt to make it into a cultural center, 72 people were arrested.


94
--Eight Indians in New York City were arrested when they occupied
Ellis Island and demanded that the island be made into a living center of
Indian culture.
--In Davis, California an unused army base was seized and
occupied by 75 Indians who wanted to use it as a cultural center.
--In Los Angeles, 12 Indians locked themselves in a museum to
protest an exhibition of their ancestral bones.
--In Minnesota, 35 Indians occupied an unused federal building
stating that it be used as a cultural center.
-In North Dakota, the Sioux occupied a portion of the Black Hills,
held a prayer vigil and planned to fast until the land was returned to
them.
-And in Chicago over 80 Indians occupied the Nike Missile site in
Chicago for 7 months to protest Indian housing in Chicago, 12 were
arrested.
Numerous sit-ins were also a method used to bring attention to
Indian causes. In Colorado a four-day sit-in was held demanding the
commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs resign, nine protestors were
jailed. In Cleveland, eight Indians were held by the police for
demonstrating against the BIA in a eight-city campaign. In Ft. Totten
over 40 Indians took over the jail and staged a peaceful sit-in to protest
of police brutality. And in North Carolina, the Lumbee staged a
classroom sit-in to oppose the integration of schools.
Most of the events in the early part of the '60s began with few
participants and less violence. As the end of the 60s neared events
became larger and violence appeared with more frequency. At the same
time, the use of courts as a form of strategy was used less but not


95
completely abandoned. Indians were becoming increasingly
disenchanted with the outcomes of the court hearings. In almost all court
claims during this and prior periods, government responded to land
claims and other claims with money. Money no longer would suffice.
The goals of the militant Indians shifted: large sums of money were now
rejected and land was demanded instead (Means 1988).
Occupations, sit-ins, and large demonstrations thus signaled to the
government that the political current had begun to change. Grievances
were taken from the courts and into the streets with much rapidity, further
suggesting that to defy institutions from which they are excluded made
little sense. To demand sovereignty by using non-conventional tactics
was increasingly being embraced.
THE PEAK
In the 1970s, well past the peak of other protesting groups, the shape of
the Native American Movement began to change significantly; it became
much more militant. How Indians in general viewed life, land and
resources not only shaped the movement but also added to the epic
confrontation between whites and Indians. Johansen and Maestas
suggest that the rationalization of the accumulation of profits masks a
clash between two fundamentally different world views:
The Judeo-Christian view is anthropocentric: the human race is
charged (as reflected in the Biblical book Genesis) with dominating
the natural world. The Native Americans view, on the other hand,
meshes humankind with nature as part of its dominant ways. The
European immigrants had a well-defined concept of wealth and
private property, which fueled their ambitions for accumulation;..


96
native cultures, with a few exceptions, had no such concept
(1979:25-26).
Furthermore, Judeo-Christian (protestant) beliefs centers on the
individual, while the ideas of Native Americans centers on the communal
values of the nation or clan. Again, the trait of individuality was strongly
connected to ownership of property. Following the Lockeian view,
private property was a natural right, but also the basis of civilized society.
AIM organized several events that revealed differences in values
between whites and Indians. For example, AIM asked the Cleveland
Indian Baseball team and Pocatello Idaho University to drop its Indian
mascot. Both institutions refused. Unlike Cleveland and Pocatello,
Stanford students called for a change in the University mascot and
Stanford complied. And in a different case the governor of Iowa ordered
the remains of five graves taken off public display after a protest. These
types of events were ones with which most non-Indians could empathize.
Subsequently, these symbolic actions helped AIM in its effort to make
Native Americans more conscious of the way non-Indians displayed
Indians and their heritage. It was hoped that this consciousness would
encourage Indians to change their place in American society while not
alienating non-Indians.
Consequently, during the 70s numerous suits were filed against
the federal government. Most of these suits had to do with the return of
land. In 1972 a major suit was filed by 300 Indians demanded that the
land claims reopen so that claims regarding leasing and gambling by
tribes could be pursued. In few cases government responded positively.


97
In most of these cases money continued to be given instead of land.
For example, the Acoma Pueblo in New Mexico was awarded $6.1
million out of court settlement when they originally sought $2.5 million;
the Osage in Oklahoma received $13.2 million for 28 million acres; and
the Nez Perce in Idaho won $2,119,071 for land they sought to reclaim.
Also, in very few instances land was awarded. The Taos Pueblo in New
Mexico won a suit to regain use of Blue Lake. The Yakima tribe received
21,000 acres in central Washington (New York Times Index).
Even though there appeared to be some initiatives on the part of
the federal government to reform itself, AIM continued to encourage the
escalation of protests. A major march, the "Trail of Broken Treaties" was
formed in the summer of 1972 by AIM activists. This demonstration
started in California and ended in Washington, D. C. Five hundred
people participated. For six days the activists occupied the BIA building,
demanding amnesty and a return to tribal sovereignty. One week later
federal authorities gave the protesters immunity from prosecution and
funds to help the marchers return home, but little else (Weyler 1982).
This event, unfortunately, did little to increase tribal sovereignty. It
did, however, get the attention of the media and as a result sparked
other protests. In support of the BIA occupation, 50 Indians invaded the
BIA office in Custer, S.D. and initiated a sit-in. In another event, AIM
organized a protest in Nebraska, where 200 Indians clashed with police
seeking a stiffer sentence for a white man who had killed an Indian. The
courthouse was burned, 8 Indians injured and 36 AIM members arrested.
Another incident in Rapid City, S.D. was held in support of those
demonstrating against the light sentence. Twenty Indians were injured


98
and 40 arrested.
From February 27, 1973 through May 8, 1973, under the
leadership of AIM, the town of Wounded Knee on Pine Ridge
Reservation in South Dakota was occupied. This action made it
inevitable that a qualitatively higher stage of resistance had developed.
The site of this large occupation was symbolic to many Native
Americans. This is the site where the infamous December 29, 1890,
Wounded Knee massacre occurred. After the army disarmed Sioux
warriors, the soldiers opened fire, killing an estimated 300 Indians,
mostly women and children.
In the occupation of February 1973, AIM demanded that the
government investigate BIA practices on all Sioux Reservations in South
Dakota, that government recognize the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty which
formally gave Sioux sovereignty over much of what is now the Dakotas,
Montana, Wyoming, and Nebraska, and eliminate federal control over
Indians. An AIM founder and chair, Clyde Bellecourt said "the group
organized the 1973 Wounded Knee occupation to draw maximum
attention to the plight of American Indians" (Guardian 1990). The
occupiers were surrounded by law enforcement officials, the military, and
the FBI. The confrontation ended in a negotiated settlement.
In the end more than 100 Indians were arrested, two were killed
and 15 injured. Wounded Knee clearly illustrates the repressive nature
of the government. The Nixon Administration responded as if it was a
war rather than a peaceful occupation. Nixon ordered that "troops,
tanks, planes and helicopters" go to Wounded Knee, "to teach the Indian
militants a lesson" (Ortiz 1984a: 160).


99
The effect Wounded Knee had on the movement and on society in
general was enormous. This event sparked a number of events across
the nation. Many events were staged by Indians and non-Indians in
support of Indian grievances and were in support of the occupiers of
Wounded Knee. However, the federal government attempted to
suppress this support as well. For example, the caravan representing
"people of all races" was intercepted by federal authorities when they
attempted to bring food for the militants at Wounded Knee. A group of
Chippewa and Iroquois were charged with intent to incite a riot when
they crossed the state line in support of the Wounded Knee occupiers.
And 13 supporters were arrested while transporting supplies to Wounded
Knee on charges of violating federal anti-riot laws.
Although the Occupation of Alcatraz in 1969, the Trail of Broken
Treaties caravan in 1972, and the Occupation of Wounded Knee in 1973
were the most dramatic and most publicized events of Native Americans,
many other events occurred. A 100-mile march took place in Raleigh,
North Carolina in support of Indians controlling Indian schools. Twenty
Indians and Black supporters were arrested for protesting on the steps of
the North Carolina State Indian Commission building when they sought
to gain recognition as members of Tuscarora Tribe. In Sacramento,
California six armed Indians were arrested after they occupied the site of
a proposed governor's mansion which occupiers claim was ancient burial
ground. In the Black Hills in South Dakota, over 500 Indians occupied
the area stating the land is Indian land. And in February of 1978, AIM
member Clyde Bellecourt led more than 200 Native Americans on the
"Longest Walk" from Alcatraz to Washington, D.C. to protest a rash of


Full Text

PAGE 1

t:.F tn tf7 .......................................... THE OTHER AMERICAN GOVERNMENTS TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS IN TRANSITION FROM DEPENDENCY TO SOVEREIGNTY Dr. Zia J. Meranto Professor of Political Science/Director of Native American Studies Metropolitan State College of Denver

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................... 1 Chapter One Politic: Power, Authority and Legitimacy ... 8 Chapter Two Indigenous Political Thought. ............ 25 Chapter Three Historical Analysis ..................... 41 Chapter Four Levels of Tribal Sovereignty ............. 68 Chapter Five Indigenous Movement Behavior .......... 81 Chapter Six Indigenous Women ..................... 110 Chapter Seven Survival of Tribal Governments ........... 126 BIBILOGRAPHY ........................... 132

PAGE 4

INTRODUCTION It may be that Americans will have to come face to face with the loathsome idea that their invasion of the New World was never a movement of moral courage at all; rather, it was a pseudoreligious and corrupt socioeconomic movement for the possession of resources. (Elizabeth Cook-Lynn 1996:33) America's love of the American Indian undoubtedly ebbs and flows. Indians are regarded with affection whenever they fit the white man's image of the passive stoic "Red Man." But when Indians attempt to reverse repressive and vacillating federal policies, Americans quickly distance themselves from the original inhabitants, for a rebellious Indian remind Americans of a past they have yet to fully embrace. Still, Americans continue to have an undying interest, albeit confused, in American Indians and tribal governments. How Americans view Indians has largely to do with what they know about them. For example, do Americans see Indians as American citizens or members of tribal governments? Are they ethnic groups with minority interests or minorities acting as nations? Furthermore, who has the right to control tribal affairs, states, congress, federal government the BIA or tribal governments? The increased complexities and actors in tribal affairs, coupled with increased politicization of tribal governments, has made it all the more urgent to understand how American Indian politics work. American

PAGE 5

2 Indians are citizens of the United States and members of Indian tribal governments. This unique dual citizenship requires that Indians interact with federal and state governments unlike other minority populations. Moreover, increased political participation of Indians and tribal governments in both American and tribal politics has stimulated an interest in knowing exactly how these governments function and how they fit into American politics and larger society. Consequently, the interests of American Indians have become increasingly involved, overlapped, and intertwined with the interests of Americans in a variety of ways. These and other features make American Indian politics exciting as well as ambiguous. Therefore, our analysis must examine multiple levels of power. We as students of politics must not only examine the interrelated power struggles between Native and non-Native U.S. citizens but also the power struggle between numerous governments and bureaucracies. In order to do this we must start by creating a clear interpretation of history. The first people to narrate the history of Indians within Euro American society were obviously whites. Therefore the world did not hear the indigenous voice until well into the mid-20th century. This suggests that the history of Indians created by whites lacked not only Indian participation but Indian credibility as well. Keeping Indians in the past, where the history of Indians could be created and where Indian culture could be defined and in reality remade, was important in developing the new American national character. There is little doubt that the purpose of this history was not merely to entertain, but first to teach certain cultural values and then to put a political order in play that

PAGE 6

would perpetuate those cultural values. But what are the values of this history, whose culture was being sustained, what political orders do they represent, and with what ferocity and intensity have they been created and maintained? In answering these questions we would need to examine both American and American tribal governments. To only examine the former would show a bias that matches much of what history books already portray about Indians. Similarly, to examine the latter without comprehending and applying their unique federal status within American politics would tend to serve a disparate purpose and mission. It is virtually impossible to get a clear and complete grasp of American tribal government without discussing American politics. How complete would a study be of U.S. domestic labor that excludes the historical role of African slaves and Chinese laborers, or a theory on American democracy that excludes the role of European political theorists? American history has not been written excluding the influences of Europeans, nor should American history exclude the voice of the first inhabitants. Clearly, since these two peoples have met, their ideologies, interests, and cultures have intersected if not collided in countless ways. MEDIA MESSAGES "Conservationists Question Maka Treaty" "Toxic Waste Decree Burns Idaho Tribes" "Tribal Sovereignty at Supreme Court" "Donald Trump Wants Indians Out of Gaming Business" The above national newspaper headlines show how the interests of tribal 3

PAGE 7

4 governments interact and coincide with those of Indians and other key players within American Politics. In two events American citizens protested the right of Indians to fish whales and gamble. While in another event, Idaho tribes refused to accept the toxic waste of larger society. A third headline demonstrates that most of the conflicts relate to issues of sovereignty and the trust relationship that assumes a U.S. protectorate role for tribal peoples, their lands and their resources and thus necessitates the role of Supreme Court. Unfortunately, most Americans react to these news stories with confusion and stereotypes, ignoring the unique category that American Indian Nations occupy within the United States. Opinions regarding fishing, water and mineral rights are created with virtually no knowledge about Indian treaty rights or the special federal status of Indians. Conclusions are then made without fully understanding how and for whom federal Indian legislation is created. Consequently, crucial decisions and opinions are often biased and thus have the potential of escalating conflict and unfortunately perpetuating historical stereotypes or creating new ones. Another confusion and hotly debated issue is terminology. Are the first people of this continent to be addressed as Indian, American Indian, Native American, Indigenous, or Aboriginals? Good arguments have been made for the use of any one of these terms, as each suggests somewhat different emphases in regards to the American experience, social and political goals, cultural nationalism, or global identity. In addition, diverse tribal members are divided over their own preference, not to mention the preference of urban Indians. American Indians who have a close relationship with their tribe, either through enrollment or

PAGE 8

heritage, prefer to be identified through their tribal name. Other terms are often used when paying special significance to power relationships. For example, the term "Indigenous" often refers to the original inhabitants of the world, a term that is used at the United Nations or in international politics and therefore posits the relationships between the colonizer and the colonized. The term "Red Power" used during the militant years of the late 60s and 70s and in the early 1800s during the "Red Sticks Revolt," reflects the position of Indians in American politics during particular rebellious periods. And Native American and American Indian can be interpreted to mean Indians of the Americas rather than strictly those original inhabitants of the United States. In this manuscript the terms are used interchangeably. However, when speaking of individual indigenous persons I often use Indian or American Indian When I speak of tribes I try to refer to them as nations largely to encourage students to think of them as nations rather than ethnic groups or minorities. In The Other American Governments I examine the politics of tribal governments and how these governments attempt to meet the needs of their population. On the one hand, Indian politics is not that different from American politics Tribal governments are elected making them procedurally similar to the U .S. Government. On the other hand, American Indian politics is quite different. There are significant differences in the distribution of power among the various interests largely, Indian and non-Indian and a major difference in the level of jurisdiction claimed by federal, state, and tribal governments. All of these issues are examined in the following pages. Chapter one discusses general information about politics, power, and governing--5

PAGE 9

6 illustrating how power/politics work in governments. Chapter two covers the evolution of Indigenous political philosophy and to what extent contemporary Native Americans incorporate traditional political philosophy. Moreover, chapter two visits the Iroquois Confederation and examines its influence on American values and ideas. Chapter three demonstrates how Indian nations and American Indians have become what they are today. This chapter relies heavily on the historical relationship between Indians and federal government, information that is crucial to any analysis on contemporary Indian issues. Chapter four is an observation of the characteristics and functions of modern tribal governments. We examine the extent distinctive peoples with various histories and traditions incorporate certain elements of a developed government and society. Like other governments, tribal governments desire self-determination and autonomy. Unlike other governments, tribal governments must cooperate, comply, or challenge the numerous agencies that control them, while being cognizant of the dominant actors involved in Indian affairs. These interests and agencies include, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), federal government's primary Indian agent; Congress, who maintains partial supremacy over tribes; states, who continue to declare themselves the primary power in deciding what happens within state territories; and a more recent actor, corporations, that wield an incredible amount of economic and political clout over the self-determination of Indian affairs. Chapter five addresses the consequences of colonization on Indian women. As a result of this treatment the relationship between American Indian men and Indian women changed dramatically, contributing to a

PAGE 10

higher level of conflict and gender inequality within and outside of tribal governments. This chapter analyzes those factors that gave rise to the inequality and provides some suggestions as to how Indian women are capable of achieving a level of equality within their communities while not sidestepping the larger issue of tribal sovereignty. Chapter six addresses the creation of interest groups and social movements, noting various types of activities used by Indians to increase political power. Provided in this chapter are strategies Indians use to shape Indian legislation and increase self-determination of tribal governments. Similar to American politics, contemporary issues of Indians cannot be addressed nor solved without having a fundamental understanding of structures and institutions. More recent information suggests that Indians have increased knowledge of tribal and U.S. federal structures and are therefore better equipped to play the political game. One example of modified political tactics is a shift away from protest in the streets to protest in the courts. Finally chapter seven speculates on the survival of tribal governments and how they are able to maintain a place at the bargaining table with federal and state governments This chapter also reflects on the use of the international arena as a tactic to increase Indian rights. While this book incorporates portions of Indian history, culture, and traditions, it primarily focuses on the power relationship between the federal government and the various tribal nations. It clearly is not meant to be a comprehensive or exhaustive examination of Indians. Instead its purpose is to provide students sufficient knowledge to interpret more clearly information regarding tribal government and American politics. 7

PAGE 11

CHAPTER ONE POLITICS: POWER, AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY An Indian is a member of any federally recognized Indian Tribe. To be federally recognized an Indian Tribe must be comprised of Indians. To gain federal recognition, an Indian Tribe must have a land base. To secure a land base, an Indian Tribe must be federally recognized (Jaimes et al1992:133) Politics is about power. Simply defined, power is the ability to influence another's behavior, getting someone to do something they wouldn't otherwise do. Power is often measured by the resources available to influence the power brokers. In politics these resources are often referred to as political resources. Resources whether they are measured in terms of wealth, numbers, ideology, education, or status, provide governments with the capacity for increased power. Within governments the distribution of power usually involves a relationship between government and the people it represents. However, for tribal governments the definition, application, and use of power are highly dependent upon additional factors. The power of tribal governments is often negotiated with federal government, corporations, American society, and numerous key actors, all of which try to exert power over tribal governments in an effort to get their respective and sometimes collective interests met. More often than not, the powers of tribal government become highly deluded. Therefore, unlike American politics, where most of the politicking is 9

PAGE 12

10 between people and government, American Indian politics is often between tribal governments and the federal government. Tribal governments are defined as sovereign nations, albeit domestic dependent nations. Under the special federal status of tribes, tribal nations are forced to confer with the federal government when making decisions about education, infrastructure, jobs, religion, housing, and many other issues within trial boundaries. Given this unique relationship, it has been difficult to examine not only the power of tribal governments and their capacity to govern, but also their capacity within what is defined as federal and state jurisdictions. Consequently the authority, or legitimate power, of tribal governments has always been variable if not questionable. Without authority, political resources do not easily convert into useable power. Without legitimate power, the potential for the use of coercion increases, particularly if authority figures perceive nothing wrong with coercing rather than convincing its population of its rightfulness. Most tribal governments were reorganized in 1930 under the Indian Reorganization Act. Since this was more or less mandated by the federal government, tribal members may not view these contemporary tribal governments as legitimate. Opposition was made known in the 1960s when many of the demands of militant Indians centered on the removal of abusive and sometimes corrupt tribal governments. For example, the Indian Occupation of Wounded Knee in South Dakota in 1973 was a culmination of numerous grievances against an imposed tribal government gone corrupt. Tribal Chief Dick Wilson was not viewed as legitimate by many tribal members. Thus, he was forced to rely on

PAGE 13

coercion of the population rather than persuasion. Still not all tribal governments lack legitimacy and consequently authority. Many of them such as the Lummi, Hopi, and Mohawk, have been able to use authority efficiently and effectively. Their members view these governments as having a sense of rightfulness and legitimacy and therefore members conform, comply and participate with these governments. Power, authority, and legitimacy must be viewed as central to politics, whether about politics on the job, at school, home, or in the case of American Indians on tribal land. Politics then is the study of whom, what and how; who does the influencing, and what or who is influenced. This is often referred to as the process of governing. GOVERNING Government is largely viewed as the how of politics, the implementation of the political process. Many governments, more specifically authoritarian governments, or those lacking a level of participatory democracy, control the process and its influence (or coercion) on the people. Most often when we examine power of nations we examine military power. The nation with advanced military power is better equipped to control its own destiny as well as the destiny of other weaker nations. Within Native nations, the level of military power is not a factor, largely because they do not have a military. They do have, however, the right to have a police force. In addition, they have the right to establish a tribal justice system, regulate criminal matters that deal with civil matters such as divorce, personal injury, adoption and so forth. In 1978 the Supreme Court stated the rights of tribes more clearly in the following: 11

PAGE 14

1 2 It is undisputed that Indian tribes have the power to enforce their criminal laws against tribe members. Although physically within the territory of the United States and subject to ultimate federal control, they nonetheless remain a separate people, with the power of regulating their internal and social relations. Their right of internal self-government includes the right to prescribe laws applicable to tribe members and to enforce those laws by criminal sanctions. (Rights of Indians and Tribes 1992: 95) Mas governments Efe tw-0 tllings : j) tbey mak:e tbe r:oles of tt:te game, governments accomplish the first part of what governments do, making the rules and parceling out the valued things of a society, the rights of tribal government must be examined Tribal governments have the right to form a government. In the 1930s under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), more than a hundred tribes chose to restructure their governments. The IRA was implemented to help tribes "modernize" their governments. Each tribe was encouraged to draft a constitution giving the tribe specific power, although subject to approval of the Secretary of the Interior Naturally, this meant that the various constitutions had within them a provision that gave the Secretary review and approval. Only those tribes that reorganized with the approval of the Secretary of Interior were eligible to receive certain federal loans. This in and of itself limits tribal power. Tribes with constitutions and other various types of political

PAGE 15

organizations have rights to determine tribal membership, create tribal courts, and regulate tribal property, domestic affairs, commerce and trade. In addition, tribes have the right to fulfill the second part of what governments do, that is, regulate the use of legitimate force to get society to participate and comply with tribal rules. No doubt one of the factors that heavily affect tribal government's ability to govern is the ominous hand of Congress. Congress has the ability and power to limit tribal powers in a number of ways. In general, Congress allows tribes to have the same power as state government to regulate their internal affairs, with some exceptions. This minor difference has the potential of diminishing the power of tribal governments significantly. Another method of determining what governments do is to examine the level of participation of both government and its population. Levels of participation can be largely dependent on the type of political and economic system governments create. For example, socialist governments play a direct role in who gets what because their economic system is based upon a planned economy with a focus on equal distribution of resources. Governments with a capitalist system, based on private ownership of the economy, do not directly decide who gets what. A basic assumption of capitalism is that people can get more of what they want with less government interference. The level of government interference in the market varies from government to government specific to that nation. For example, Cuba still maintains socialism as an ideal, but numerous indicators suggest a level of privatization is slowly occurring. Similarly, the United States embraces a 13

PAGE 16

1 4 laissez-faire (hands-off) government, but history reveals the U.S. has been distancing itself from the ideas of free-market since the early 1900s. U.S. government interference in the creation of the minimum wage, the inspection of food and drugs, the implementation of environmental protection laws, and the increasing and decreasing of federal and state taxes, to name a few, support the idea of the U.S. edging away from a free-market system. A government may determine its level of enforcement (the second task referred to above) in a variety of ways. Naturally governments prefer people conform and comply with the law voluntarily. If the population is socialized to understand and to comply with the needs of the government, people will more likely authorize government to act, thus minimizing the use of force. Institutions are the agents of the socialization process and thus facilitate the process. If the rule book, in the form of a constitution, does not give rights to citizens, and citizens view the rule book as legitimate, it is less likely these citizens will seek such rights. Similarly, if governments monopolize with few checks and balances, and its citizens view government as the sole regulator of legitimate force, government has essentially been granted the authority to do whatever it desires. Thus, authority has been granted absolute yet legitimate power. Unlike U.S. Government, the legitimate power of tribal governments fluctuates at each level of government whether local, state, or federal. Moreover, the power of tribal governments is often determined by the issue not the tribe. For example, the recent debate regarding gaming on Indian land provides us with a classic example of

PAGE 17

the use of power and the array of interests. First of all, tribes view the right to gaming on their territory as a right of sovereignty, not a given right but an inherent right. Secondly, states believe their rights override the sovereignty of Tribes States point to Amendment 10 of the U.S. Constitution which says states have the right to control territory within their boundaries. Another emerging player, corporate casinos believe their right to profit is being infringed upon when Congress allows tribal governments to operate casinos without paying state taxes, often referred to their "fair share." Among all of these beliefs and interests it is often the legitimacy of tribal governments that is the first to be questioned, not the rights of states or corporate casinos. This often leads to tribal governments having difficulty attaining and sustaining a sense of rightfulness within its population and certainly outside tribal land. Consequently, the autonomy and sovereignty of tribal governments are constantly questioned and challenged not only by its members but also by federal and state governments, corporations and American society. Indian nations continue to be challenged largely because of differences in ideas and values of the numerous actors involved in these various issues; often referred to as political ideology. POLITICAL IDEOLOGY Generatly speaking, as governments cope with issues within their territory they must be able to apply some semblance of political power And in many cases tribal governments have had very little political power. The application of power is guided by a set of values, beliefs, or 15

PAGE 18

16 as it is often referred to, collective ideology. Ideology is in essence the paint that paints the picture, or as the Dolbeares (1971 :9) state "(1) how the present social, economic, and political order operates, (2) why this i s so and whether it is good or bad, and (3) what should be done about it, if anything." An ideology then is a set of guiding principles that helps the governed and government make judgments about a variety of issues. In terms of public policy, ideology is crucial, for it guides what public policy is and shapes the political agenda. In other words, ideology influences the input of the political process as well as the output. In the United Stated it is essential to note three key political values upon which that ideology has been constructed: ana limited ggvernment. ifhese three values are manifested in liberalism and capitalism, and guided the writing of the American Constitution and virtually everything political and economic that followed. been referred to as an ideology largely because those individuals who subscribe to capitalism "make value based assumptions about the nature of man and the desirability of certain procedures and their expected results (Dolbeare 1971 :22)." That is to say, capitalists must make decisions on the use of land, labor and capital (money) in order to make the market work. Additionally, capita as ff.ir;e assumtJtior:ts: tba r-e 0 oatore self-interested rathe[ tbar:-t ceUeetivel force o

PAGE 19

Ge petition tnat leads to prog es ancJ-.-in the end improves tbe staodar:d a life In essence, a fr:ee-market must focus on achieving a natural harmony between supply (production) and demand (desire). It is in achieving and sustaining this delicate balance that U.S. public policy is created. While capitalism is the economic ideology in the United States liberalism is the political ideology. Unfortunately most Americans speak about the two ideologies as if they are inherently dependent upon each other; sort of the hand and glove concept. While they have become closely integrated many governments have been very creative in combining various ideologies using concepts of liberalism and capitalism Like capitalism, liberalism focuses on a limited government ind i vidualism and materialism. Therefore liberalism implies a limited government is needed to ensure optimum individual freedoms The main principles of liberalism are associated w ith John Locke a seventeenth century theorist. His central theme was the right of individuals to own and use property as they saw fit--rights primarily defined as property rights and equality. In early America rights were defined as the right to own property and the equal right (access) to participate in the market. Today the definition of rights has been significantly expanded It should be noted that when markets in the U.S. were 95% free 8% of the populat ion had political freedom, i.e. democracy. As democracy has increased markets have become less free This certainly raises questions as to the co-ex i stence of capitalism and democracy. Unfortunately Americans are not socialized to ques t ion thi s co existence. Rather, most Americans support the tenets of 1 7

PAGE 20

18 capitalism and liberalism and believe the end result of the merging or integration of these political and economic ideologies is democracy. In other words, Americans believe that democracy is difficult to achieve without a free market and individual freedoms are less attainable without a free market. Interestingly enough, Indigenous philosophy suggests that there is nothing free about American democracy There is little doubt that these freedoms could have been attained without the expense of the original Americans and the loss of their land. Simply put, European-Americans set the agenda of Indian/white relations through their interpretation of political and economic ideologies. These new Americans brought Christianity (Protestantism) with them and main concepts of the odri er_of, f)isca-v: ry, a pre-colonial doctrine that the U.S Supreme Court has used to guide all of its decisions pertaining to Indian sovereignty and rights. Therefore, in attempting to understand how political ideology guides public policy it is important to know the concepts that dictate Indian public policy. While the ideology of tribal governments vary the ideology that shapes politics on tribal land has historically been shaped by the basic tenets of capitalism and liberalism, heavily rooted in the Doctrine of Discovery. How the ideas of the new Americans were created not only sets the experience of the Americans apart from other colonizers, but very much determines the kind of political policy that has

PAGE 21

been created on Indian land. POLITICAL OUTCOME The prevailing political-economic philosophies of early America are reflected in the fundamental procedures and laws of the United States including federal Indian legislation. tt:le \lalues of E:l-.IEO-national identity is organic in character. This has not been the case i n the United States. hat it means to be Amer:icaA er l:J.S. nat1onal has been definee in political ratber: tbar:t rgank te r m ne cetonial period, Amedcar:ts ad teAde to assume t t ff e e_n_ce of angoage, cultt:JFe and religioo would re.vent t-Ie growth
PAGE 22

2 0 asked about their culture. Compare this statistic to seven percent of Germans, and three percent of Italians (Lipset, 1979). Italians can have different political ideologies, states Lipset and neither would deny the "ltalianness" of the other. But in the U.S. to say you are a communist or more recently to challenge the current Bush Administration is to be un-American. ctefir:teEt as I:JR-Amenean. is Fansferring aBegtance from a politicaf to a ctJitural "dentity--and there goes a common loyalty created by the founders. How much Americans have in common is somewhat divided. On the one hand, there are individuals who have benefited greatly from the American Creed and naturally embrace it. On the other hand, there are people from any number of cultures who have not experienced much liberty and equality. Consequently, they may pay less tribute to the American Creed. Once these individuals begin filling the vacuum created by defining themselves in political rather than organic terms, it i s difficult to suppress the differences among cultures and people even though the socialization process encourages such suppression. In most cases, it is the political term that changes rather than the identity. For example, at one time in American history many African Americans preferred the term Blacks, and Hispanics preferred the term Chicanos. These terms or identities while separating the group from larger society, may also serve an additional purpose. That is to say, these identities are

PAGE 23

often efforts to recreate what it means to be American and of African or of Hispanic heritage Once the term becomes a political lens for which to view and understand politics it becomes more than a cultural identity it has become a political identity as well. For Native Americans, Indians, American Indians, Indigenous Peoples and so forth identity became political with the arr i val of the Europeans. Prior to the arrival of Europeans, to be Indigenous was to be steeped in a culture that was free of the need of a stated pol it ical lens In order to understand the cultural genocide that was occurring I ndians were forced to create a different lens, a political lens yet continued to keep their cultural identity in tact. That is to say the original Americans have maintained an identity that continues to be rooted in a world-view consisting of a custodial and non-materialist attitude toward land and natural resources while often being forced to function within the main concepts of the American Creed. This world-view naturally sets American Indians apart from dominant society and apart from American ethnic groups as well. Consequently, Indian identity, unlike American ethnic or immigrant groups is both political and cultural and central to the issue o f land. Land has been the root of interactions between Indians and Euro-Americans albeit only for certain Americans. Therefore the Founders set out to create a government that valued the right to own property over other rights for it was not until the 1950s that Supreme Court decisions reflected an increase in civil liberties and civil rights For Indians, the acquisition of land is not a right but a necessity of their culture Without 2 1

PAGE 24

22 land there is no Indian identity, political or cultural. A very simple method of determining political culture is to examine the values of people and ask what it means to be an American. According to Seymore Upset and many of my AlTier-fGar:t te e Americans could not have created an identity inclusive of any one European group, for early Americans differed considerably in dress, language, food, traditions and ceremonies. Therefore characteristics often used in other countries to define one s culture are largely absent when defin ing what i t means to be an American. This political identity may be a partial explanation for the creation of the newly hyphenated-American identity. The term American not only tells us very little about the person, but also may reflect an historical identity that is void of such cha r acteristics as liberty, equality and freedom, where as the terms African-American Irish-American, Mexican American and so forth provide not only information about the heritage of the person but also some pol i tical and historical realities and may tell us about their different political lens. In order to understand differences of political ideologies and identities let us compare a major characteristic of Americans materialism with a major characteristic of Indians, spiritualism. There is no doubt that the economic system of America, and consequently American public policy, is highly dependent upon valuing materialism. The American economy can function sufficiently with a limited number of Americans valuing spiritualism over materialism but would be highly

PAGE 25

unsuccessful if the majority of Americans valued spiritualism over consumption. For example there is little doubt that the American system can accommodate a few Amish who reject technology and a few Buddhists who meditate instead of shop but the system cannot accommodate the majority of Americans valuing such ideas for very long. It would mean the collapse of a main value materialism. Add to this difference communal living extended family (rather than a nuclear family), unique dress language food, ceremonies traditions and a world-view that suggests traditional people are the caretakers of the world not the exploiters, and we have a clash of cultures producing interesting and highly conflicting political outcomes. Since federal Indian legislation is guided by the ideology of Euro Americans not American Indians the historical conflict was and is inevitable. If tribal governments were able to develop their own legislation based on their own political cul ture, similar to other sovereign nations, without state and federal intrusion conflict might well diminish But since the federal government refuses to recognize tribal sovereignty in many areas and since tribal governments have failed to increase their allegiance to the American ideology, conflict continues. If anything, and as a consequence of the increased political consciousness of Indians the ideology of tribal governments appear to resemble characteristics of both traditional and modern forms of governments. This in turn may lead to less internal conflict but increased external conflict. There are numerous events that illustrate what happens when politics is driven largely by an ideology that conflicts with or is ill suited to indigenous political thought. The roots of modern tribal governing, 23

PAGE 26

24 therefore, can be linked to early political thought while the new complexities of tribal governing can be attributed to the increased interaction between tribal governments, and numerous key actors within American society. In short, the conflict between American Indians and Euro-Americans is not unlike the current conflict between Americans and traditional Muslims. The traditions of Muslims are held together by a religion that often views the West as waging a war against their religion, a war where modern societies will not be content until it has destroyed the "backward civilization." The West must discredit remnants of the past and in essence destroy traditions that are viewed as impediments to its definition of progress Westerners continue to fervently bel i eve they are creating, as Roger Cohen wrote in The International Herald Tribune "a century that will make a diverse world more unified prosperous and free than ever before." Unfortunately little thought is given as to what is being destroyed and what is replacing these traditions. Examine the following information that discusses how corrupt leadership tried to balance the interests of a more modern government and those of the more traditional population. Corrupt Leadership Tribal Chief Dickie Wilson of the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota provides a good example of a tribal chief who abused his power and coerced tribal members. He was charged with misuse of tribal funds harassing opposition and failing to adequately protect the rights and interests of the Pine Ridge population. Allegations were made that he accepted government money while allowing Pine Ridge to have high unemployment, a low annua l per capita income and little if any social services. Wilson went against the majority of the members by being in favor of accepting Claims Commission money for the stolen Black Hills

PAGE 27

and in supporting the department of Interior s plan to reduce the Pine Ridge reservation by 133,000 acres. Many members described him as a puppet of the federal government, the BIA and the Department of Interior. In order to understand the ideologies of the various tribal governments it would serve us to form general inferences about Indigenous political philosophy. The following chapter assists us in examining the roots of Indigenous political thought and provides students of American political thought with an alternative for understanding what influenced the early writers of the Constitution. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION: 1) What is the purpose of government? 2) Identify three key political values of Americans. 3) What is it about capitalism that conflicts with values of Indians? 4) Explain why the term Indian is largely a political identity. 5) What are some of the factors that have the capacity to facilitate corrupt Indian leadership? 25

PAGE 28

2 6 CHAPTER TWO (Portions of this chapter were previously published in Readings in Politics: Issues and Polemics, edited by Robert Hazan, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1997) INDIGENOUS POLITICAL THOUGHT In the realm of political thought, the Indian probably had a greater influence over civilized society than any other savage race .... The Indian, therefore was a factor of immense importance in the 18th century, far out of proportion to his actual numbers (Lokken, 1981) As early as the founding period Europeans developed a curiosity about Indians, and admitted, to some degree, that the "savages" were capable of developing a political philosophy. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson, dared to imitate many of the democratic features of the systems of Indians in establishing the United States Unfortunately, throughout history the overall acceptance that American history, traditions, ideas and ideals are distinctively American, reinforced the idea that Native Americans played little, if any, in the making of American democracy This line of thi nking eventually led to the formation of numerous negative connotations and outright misrepresentations of the political philosophy of Native Americans. If the early founders had associated their democracy w i th Indians the process of developing the United States politically and economically might have taken some strange and interesting detours New immigrants needed to be socialized to comply with Indian legislation policies of removal relocation and in some cases annihilation Subsequent l y any recognition of Indigenous influence on American

PAGE 29

political philosophy mandated suppression. The scholarship recently emerging which focuses on the influence of Native Americans on the writing of the American Constitution and other American ideas provides a framework for examining Indigenous political philosophy. This scholarship yields valuable information about Native political philosophy, and tells us about the roots of American political thought. For example, in Exemplar of Liberty, Donald Grinde and Bruce Johansen provide numerous examples where American Indian symbols and ideas were present in the new emerging American identity symbols that represent liberty, equality, unity and fundamental principles such as federalism. The authors clearly demonstrate that American phi losophy is really a synthesis of European and American Indian political thought. Familiarity with European political thought is widespread What i s lacking in the literature is a succinct interpretation of Indigenous political thought. The information that follows illustrates that in almost every tribe clan or nation the supreme authority rested in the people rather than the individual. While many of these tribes have changed in their relationship to each other and certainly in their level of sovereignty, many of the tribal governments in the United States still include portions of their traditional practices and philosophies. Unfortunately while the U .S. Federal Government learned and borrowed from the Indians' systems of democracy when it reorganized tribal governments these tribal governments became less democratic then they had been originally The attacks on the southern empires have not left us with much to examine. With the exception of the Maya, and to some degree the Inca 2 7

PAGE 30

28 no political philosophy exists to observe in the fallen Aztec Empire. Much of the information on these nations, however, does suggest that they too had political systems rooted in democracy. The following information loosely examines these nations, and focuses specifically on the political philosophy of North American tribes. DEMOCRACY AND AMERICAN INDIANS Economists and political theorists have often accepted the notion that populations of a certain stage of economic development have traditionally held apolitical attitudes; attitudes that keep them from achieving political sophistication, traditions that keep them at the lowest level of economic development. This notion suggests that there is a strong correlation between economic and political development. The scholarship that points to the last quarter century when the poor and vulnerable peasant population leaves the confines of the village in search of political activity is often given as a classic example. Peasants suddenly become willing to use politics as a strategy to redress their severe economic cond i tions Protests and movements are defensive reactions against threats to existing traditional institutions. This suggests that peasants are not political until the conditions necessitate it. Since politics centers on actions among a group of people involving influence, and involves the use of power, this may be partially true. Peasants and Indigenous populations in the Americas did and are increasingly participating in a new and different political world. This does not suggest that they came from a world that was apolitical, quite the opposite The arrival of the colonizers and their greed of land, gold,

PAGE 31

slaves and other resources merely intensified the need for a different political thought, one with which Indians could better defend themselves from total destruction. Eventually, their traditional institutions were unable to stop the new landlord-tenant relations that were evolving as Europeans arrived. When the New World was "discovered" as many as 600 tribes in the North Americas had their own form of government and their various political ideas. In almost all cases each tribe considered itself sovereign. While credit is given to the natural-rights philosophers for developing sovereignty as a political concept in their attack on the theory of divine right to rule, popular sovereignty was practiced by many of the tribes in North and South America. Indigenous societies organized themselves around a society formed by the consent of the individuals and where decisions of peace and war were vested in people or a council. The concept of the individual versus the community is one of the major differences between Indigenous philosophy and the monarchies of the Europeans. Indians lived in a democratic state for centuries prior to the arrival of the Europeans. Furthermore, the Inca, Aztec, and Maya governments displayed many of the same characteristics as the ruling European aristocracies Certainly there is no way of telling if tribes of North America had developed in the same way as their southern counterparts. Yet, despite differences in their development and their governmental structures, traditional tribal governments shared certain values, ideas of leadership, and styles of decision-making While the nations of the new world ranged significantly in governmental structures, very little distinction was made between the 29

PAGE 32

30 religious and political worlds. Any decision made politically and religiously was for the main purpose of bringing harmony to things in both worlds. In order to accomplish this, each tribe stressed that their members focus on the needs of the community rather than individual needs. The rights of the individual were never to exceed their duties and responsibilities to the community. This feeling of oneness and distinctness from other groups is illustrated by the custom of Indian tribes naming them with a word or words meaning "the People." Small bands and tribes like the Yakima operated with a simple government. Their form of government exuded the purest form of democracy, power flowing upward from the community to its leaders. The leaders governed only with the support of the people. Its society was egalitarian and classless. Similar to the Yakima in levels of democracy but different because of their nomadic lifestyle, was the Lakota Nation made up of seven bands. Each band formed its own societies made up of two types: the "akicitas" or police societies that maintained order; and the "naca" or civil societies that functioned as a tribal council. This council acted only by consensus on a large range of issues, from tribal hunts location, mediating conflicts between individuals and families, negotiating with foreign nations, to declaring war. Another important figure in the Lakota and many Indigenous societies was the "medicine man." Not only were medicine men respected for their powers and wisdom but also they were consulted when making important tribal decisions. In all Indian cultures, some more than others, there were no divisions between religions and secular life. Religious beliefs and practices were an integral part of all

PAGE 33

political and social behavior. The extreme version of direct democracies was the complex, highly structured government of the Iroquois Confederation. Five Nations founded a federal union in hopes of ending the conflict that existed between the various tribes. The Iroquois source of keeping history, using oral history, fixed the origin date between 1000 and 1400 A.D. Arthur C. Parker, a Seneca scholar, estimated the date at 1390. In 1710 the Tuscarora Nation was admitted into the league and it was at this time that most historians would agree that the confederacy had been in place for well more than one hundred years, long before Europeans developed their own constitution and certainly at a time when the Indian population could be described as traditional, according to economists. The State of Nature as described by several critics implies individuals living outside of society, close to God and close to nature. Most of the Indigenous societies had structures that governed but societies that resembled the state of nature. Under the Iroquois form of government there were no laws governing accumulation, none limiting travel, or any specific law instructing men to submit to its authority. The laws of the land were strictly procedural on how the Great council was to operate, rather than a list of rights or instructions on what the government expected of its citizens. The philosophy of the Iroquois was based on the concept that all life is unified with the natural environment and other forces surrounding the people. The people were united to the environment and to the living things in it. The very idea that one could own land as the early settlers did perplex the Indians. "The soil of the earth from the end of the land to 31

PAGE 34

32 the other is the property of the people who inhabits it (Grinde 1977, 161 )." The Iroquois life was spiritually connected with nature, much like the State of Nature concept. However, the power of one was limited, and was only enhanced when it joined forces with the whole. American Indian government emphasized honor, duty and responsibility to the whole. Politics was not removed from any part of the whole. Nor did their philosophy dictate and control any part of the whole. Land, culture, politics and religion were intertwined and any form of government or philosophy could not disentangle these concepts. As it turned out the Great Law of Peace, as it was called, was effective in ending much of the bloodshed and became the dominant native military and diplomatic power east of the Mississippi. Furthermore, it became the major negotiating force with England. The similarities between the Great Law of Peace and the U.S. Constitution are startling. Structurally there are great similarities: (1) distrust of smaller states dominated by larger ones necessitated a device where one colony could veto the actions of the rest of the body. This veto power was already in place in the Iroquois confederacy; (2) the Great Council was made up of two houses; (3) Iroquois system consisted of representatives from each nation; ( 4) a speaker from one of the houses (for a day) was selected; (5) the Head Chief was symbolic with little authoritative power; and (6) since certain members in the League were more powerful than others, checks and balances ere put into the constitutions as a safeguard against anyone in the council or any of the tribes from having too much power (Akwesasne Notes, 1987).

PAGE 35

Differences between the documents lie in how the two governments defined the role of government. The constitution of the Iroquois concerned itself less with rights than duties. A major reason for this is that the rights of the people were so thoroughly entrenched in popular custom and were taken for granted. The constitution of the Iroquois did not see the need to explicitly discuss those rights Cultural differences also played a role in the differences For examp l e women elected chief statesmen and also had impeachment powers. The Iroquois Confederation raised the question as to what was the purpose of politics in traditional societies. European ideologies suggest that as societies evolve people are not capable of sustaining a level of free-state as noted in the state of nature. Government, thus becomes a necessary evil in order to control man's passions. If this is the case, the Iroquois society had progressed into an interesting combination of a society bearing all the traits of a free state and a highly developed government. Indigenous societies in the New World had a level of democracy not then realized in any part of the Old World. Paradoxically by emulating the Iroquois Confederation the U.S. Constitution provided the mechanisms for political leaders to force a population to conform to the Europeans' standard of democracy. In the 1930s the U.S. Federal Government having failed to destroy all traditional Indian forms of government instituted the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. This Act forced Indian nations to reorganize themselves to become the mirror image of the federal government. Indian tribes were forced to design a constitution elect representatives disentangle religion and politics and bring about a new philosophy 33

PAGE 36

34 toward tribal rights and lands. The purpose of this Act was to impose an alien form of government on tribal cultures, while clearly eroding traditional tribal governments. How ironic that a system so similar to the Iroquois Confederation, would eventually be forced upon the very population whose ancestors created it several hundred years earlier. DEMOCRATIC EMPIRES OF ANTIQUITY IN THE AMERICAS The Iroquois Confederation is but one strong examp l e of the evolution of Indigenous political thought. Other examples are the large empires of the Aztec the Maya and the Inca in Latin America While these empires were distinctively different in their political philosophy from that of the i r northern counterpart and in many cases to each other their ideas were still deeply rooted in a semblance of democracy. The empires of Aztec Maya and the Inca were unlike any form of government that existed in North America These three empires incorporated previously autonomous culturally heterogeneous societ i es i nto large territories and dominated them No doubt these dominant societies exploited resources from the subordinate societies in much the same way as the Spanish colonists upon the i r arrival. In fact, the very idea that these empires eventually became hierarchal in structure made it easier for the Spaniards to impose their form of servitude. The pol i tical and social institutions of the Aztec and Inca were undergoing continuous change in response to their varying fortunes and their rapid cul tural evolution The ea r lier kinship neighborhoods and clans possessed considerable democratic qualities with the leader being elected by the general membership of commoners and advised by a

PAGE 37

council of elders. They organized themselves in a similar fashion as the clans and communities in North America, and in many ways they were closer to the democratic system of their northern counterpart, than to systems of Europe at that time. Eventually the imperial ideology offered the promise of greater status and wealth for achievements in war and trade. The formal system of a monarch was not established until about 1370. It was at this time elite monopolization of land and wealth occurred, privileges of dress, and limited ownership and education to the nobles. The state comforted the commoner with the reminder that these decrees were established for the health of the entire states A cycle of increasing imperialism and class stratification began. The new wealth and power of the military subsequently brought in more tribute furthering their dominance. The Aztec and Inca societies evolved into separate centralized political authorities, a landed aristocracy and a large tribute sector of the economy Their ideology successfully integrated religion, economic, and social systems into an imperialist war machine. By the time the Spaniards arrived, the economic and social foundations of the empire had been laid. This system proved to be pliable institutions in the hands of Spanish. The manner in which the Inca and Aztec organized themselves to ensure the proper use of the land has been characterized as oppressive. One portion of the literature on these empires suggests that the totalitarian rule was an unbearable tyranny and that the Spanish conquest actually benefited the people. Another portion of the literature points out that the rule of the Inca and the Aztec was stern and rigorous 35

PAGE 38

36 but just. This literature cites the existence of distinction between different social classes, but marvels at the manner in which the guardianship of the government is exercised. Rather than see this as oppressive, the people looked upon this guardianship as something qu i te natural. Unlike the Aztec and Inca, the Maya culture is still very much alive in Guatemala and Mexico and does for the most part bear many of the same characteristics of the Maya of the pre-Columbian period. Two characteristics that still exist are moderation in all things, and the attitude of live and let live. Also still apparent, is a highly disciplined society that believes no one should strive for more than their fair share. Concepts such as individualism, equality, freedoms, and liberty are rarely strived for. The practice of self-restraint, cooperative and disciplined work, rather than an individual work, is seen as key ingredients in a society. Similar to the northern indigenous population the Maya, like the Inca and the Aztec, had a devotion to the soil and what it produced. The method of governing prior to the Spaniards arrival was a loose federation of autonomous city-states governed by a small caste of priests and nobles. A civil ruler was defined as both governor and bishop. Thus, the federation of the southern populations of Central America was similar to the federat i on of the Iroquois. No matter what the government structures were prior to the arrival of the Europeans, devotion to land and what it produced dictated the type of government. Therefore, it could be said that as land became centrally owned or individually controlled, and as a member's responsibility to the community changed, as it had become within the Inca and Aztec populations, the political philosophy of

PAGE 39

Indigenous tribes began to change as well. When property began to be defined not as a natural right, but as a civil right, the role of government changed as well. Nevertheless, the federations of the Iroquois, Inca, Maya and Aztec and the smaller federations like the Yakima and Lakota bands were more efficient than other governments of their time. According to Benjamin Franklin, "the councils of the savages proceeded with better order than the British Parliament (Johansen 1982, 74)." Still, philosophers continue to suggest that the State of Indians was probably the first state of all nations, uncivilized and apolitical. Not dominated by the Spaniards, most indigenous people were in that natural state, "being restrained by no laws, having no Courts, or Ministers of Justice, no Suits, no Prisons, no Governors vested with any Legal Authority (Johansen 1982, 88). There was, however, something intrinsically misleading in the way Europeans viewed the Indian society in respect to the State of Nature. This view was inherently rooted in ethnocentrism. The lack of restrictions put on Indians by their form of government made Thomas Jefferson assume that the Iroquois government was a truly egalitarian form of system and a virtuous order. Jefferson erroneously focused on government and ignored a fundamental part of government, its people. People created government and Indian governments recognized this. Indians were more egalitarian and more virtuous because they had not become greedy, corrupt or self-centered like Europeans. Was it government's responsibility to create a virtuous society through laws rights and procedures? Could leaders who were susceptible to 37

PAGE 40

38 corruption create a virtuous society, particularly when societal values consisted of individualism, competition and materialism? While governments often can and do create society, the underlying traits of the people who create government need to be examined. Indigenous political philosophy or lndigenism, does not attempt nor pretend to separate religion from politics. At the same time their philosophy does not include religious proselytizing and economic imperialism, two main characteristics of many modern governments. These two ideas became tools, or weapons, for the mobilization of the people and thus became increasingly important to the process of government. When Indigenous governments of the "New World" adopted these two ideas as a strategy of surviving and expanding, they began to portray European societies. Thi s ideology, based on increasing its number of f ollowers and its territory, required the implementation of institutiona l devices in order to keep it sustained. So came the idea of paying tribute to supreme rulers, and creating a military that was more expansionist in nature rather than protective. There is little evidence among indigenous ideologies that indicates religion conversion was forced upon conquered territory. To the extent that Aztec expansion had an ideological basis, it lay in its economic benefits rather than its religious int egration. The imperialist nature of the ancient Meso-American empires, have been heavily distorted. Most of the literature agrees that their type of imperialism was one where expansion was a natural consequence of power differences between polities rather than arising from a particular

PAGE 41

social structure. We do know that warfare greatly shaped their cultures and histories as it has societies throughout the world. We also know that the oppression the Inca, Aztec and Maya people experienced under the Spanish did not end with the colonial period. To this day, the Maya in Guatemala and Mexico and Inca in Peru continue to endure very oppressive conditions. The social conditions these populations are forced to experience are intolerable, suggesting that no matter how democratic and independent they were, the democracies of the present have restructured them to resemble their conquerors, leaving fewer traditional democracies to examine. It has taken more than two hundred years to examine the influence of the first Americans on the United States Government and the idea of indigenous political thought in the Americas. Since history is often written by its victors this should come as no surprise. The current enthusiasm surrounding the contribution of American Indians in books like Johansen, Grinde, Weatherford, O'Brien, Mohawk, and others, may make the topic more palatable for some Americans, but not necessarily any less difficult to swallow. Scholars and publishers are still less inclined to include in literature the role of American Indians in shaping American ideas to the same extent they accept the role of the Greeks, for example, even though many of us realize the Greeks didn't corner the market on democracy. As Jack Weatherford points out, "Greeks who rhapsodized about democracy in their rhetoric rarely created democratic institutions (Weatherford 1988, 145)." Most of the Greek cities like Athens functioned as slave societies and were not egalitarian or democratic in the Indian sense. U.S southern states certainly identified much more 39

PAGE 42

40 with the ideal of Greek democracy based on slavery than with the Iroquois democracy where slavery did not exist. Indigenous political thought and its contribution to the evolution of modern American thinking provide us with much to examine. How can we understand American politics if Indigenous political thought is excluded? Furthermore, how are we able to understand contemporary American Indians if we do not understand how the two governments interact? QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION: I) What are some of the problems that would arise by associating American democracy with that of the Iroquois? 2) Identify similarities and differences between the U.S. Constitution and the Iroquois Confederation. 3) From where did the right of Indians come? 4) Identify some key differences between the indigenous nations of Central America and those of northern America. 5) What are some of the contributions of Indians to the Americas?

PAGE 43

CHAPTER THREE HISTORICAL ANALYSIS "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past." (Marx, printed in Tucker 197 4: 595) The above quotation by Karl Marx suggests that the historical pattern of a group's subjugation shapes their resistance. That is to say, how Native Americans move from hopeless submission to hopeful noncompliance is largely determined by the historical realities of the treatment of Native Americans by the U.S federal government. The historical circumstances of Native Americans, more so than other groups, were essentially created and conditioned by federal Indian legislation. Indian policies written and implemented by non-Indians changed the Indian way of life but did little to significantly improve it. In their attempt to find the ideal policy, the Euro-Americans developed one vigorous policy after another. If a policy of removal and isolation was impossible to maintain, if Indians could no longer be pushed westward to avoid contact, and if it suddenly became inhumane to conduct wars of extermination against them, the alternative became assimilation. When this latter option also failed to bring about the desired effects, Congress tried other approaches such as reorganization, urban relocation, termination, and a new application of self-determination. It is only within the last twenty years that there has been some consistency in how Congress and presidential 41

PAGE 44

4 2 administrat ions interact with tribal governments, a consistency that developed l argely out of response to politically active tribal governments seeking increased sovereignty. Politicized tribal governments and American Indians evolved by enduring a precarious and often volatile relationship with the federal government and its administrative machinery, specifically the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The relationship between Indians and the federal government can be described in a variety of ways: landlord to tenant which focuses on private ownership of land; father to child, which describes Indians as historically incapable of taking care of themselves; ward to guardian which adopts the idea that Indians look to the U.S. Government for protection guidance and support; and core/periphery which centers on distribution of power between the more developed nations (core) and the less developed, (periphery). However, the legal definition that guides and interprets congressional law provided by Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in 1830, is that of domestic dependent nations This definition is based on the ward to guardian concept stating that the federal government is the legal guardian of Indians. No matter what definition is chosen, one thing is certa i n structural inequalities increased between the two groups and the ward periphery child, or tenant, became highly dependent upon the guardian, core father, or landlord; thus creating an ongoing dependency and a vicious cycle difficult to break Numerous questions emerge with the issue of dependency. Are Native Americans worse off economically because of their dependency than they would be otherwise? Does dependence upon the federal

PAGE 45

government entail a net loss or foreclose opportunities of greater benefit to the economy of tribal governments? Are US funds exploitive or beneficial? Are Indian nations structurally underdeveloped because they are dependent, or are they dependent because they are underdeveloped? Finally, are Native Americans able to acquire the skills to free themselves from their dependency on the United States? The answer to these questions is highly dependent upon the applied perspective. From the Indigenous perspective, federal Indian policies kept Indians in a position of subjugation with little power to design their own destiny. In the course of time Native Americans may have found a shorter and surely less tortuous road toward a better and richer society designed by themselves for themselves. From the federal government perspective, federal Indian policies were written and implemented not to necessarily benefit Indians, but to benefit larger society; after all the Europeans came to the Americas to create a nation consisting of similar people with similar values. Nonetheless, while the manipulation and suffering of Indians may not have been a conscious goal of administrators, the environment and competitive nature of American society fostered policies that increased the inferior position of Indians and contributed to a life of dependency. Moreover, federal government continues to assume that as Indians integrate American life, specifically the American economy, Indian values and culture will be replaced by American values and culture much like it has for immigrating groups. While this has occurred to some degree, what is more noticeable in the various activities of Indians is an interesting and convoluted mixture of the past with the present. 43

PAGE 46

44 SETTING THE SOCIAL AND STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENTS Early interactions between the United States Government and indigenous people were developed through treaties, often referred to as rational-legal documents, thus providing an illusion that these documents were free of passion. Early white settlers believed treaties brought about an air of civility and legitimacy in relations with the Indians. The first treaty between the various Indian nations and government was in 1778. In the next century the United States would enter into six hundred treaties and agreements with Indian nations, many of which were broken or misinterpreted by the federal government. In short, this "civilized method" of negotiation became the government's strategy of acquiring Indian land. Treaties continued to be used as a method of transferring land out of the hands of Indians and into the hands of Euro-Americans. Eventually the decisions of the Supreme Court made it necessary for Congress to participate with the creation of laws that would support those decisions. Legal history underlying the political relationship between the Indians and the European colonists was shaped by one significant case. In the 1823 case of Johnson v. Mcintosh, the Court decided that when a non-Indian purchased land from an Indian tribe they had not obtained a valid title. The United States had become the rightful owner of all tribal land by virtue of the European "discovery" of the "new world" and the "conquest" of its people. Therefore, the purchaser of Indian land could not legally "buy" land the tribe did not own. Aboriginal title possessed by indigenous peoples granted them merely a "right to occupancy" not a right to sell.

PAGE 47

Chief Justice Marshall suggested that discovery (recognizing Columbus as the true discoverer) did indeed give title of the land to the Spaniards. Europeans took their cue from the DC?ctrine of Discovery and Rights of Conquest. In simplest terms these two concepts justified and rationalized ownership of the land in the Americas. Taken from John Locke's philosophy of Natural Law, it held that any Christian, clearly read European, that comes upon waste land, land that was virtually vacant of inhabitants, assumed ownership because it was God's will that such land be put to productive use. Those individuals who laid claim to this land and cultivated it owned it. Marshall's narrow interpretation of discovery gave Europeans the justification to refuse Indians the right to their aboriginal land. His definition, in effect, set the groundwork for land disputes to be defined as a landlord-tenant relationship between government and nations. The Chief Justice not only appointed the federal government as the ultimate landlord with the power to end Indian occupancy on the land, but also gave the landlord the power to control and regulate land use (Cohen 1942). The Johnson v. Mcintosh Case set a precedent on how government and Indians were to interact in the years that followed. Shortly thereafter, Marshall was asked by the State of Georgia to interpret which political power controlled land within Georgian territory. In order for the State of Georgia to acquire new resources, the removal of thousands of Creek and Cherokee Indians would have to be undertaken. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia the Supreme Court determined that the federal government held legal guardianship over Indian affairs. Furthermore, if the state needed the land, the state was 45

PAGE 48

46 authorized to remove the Indians (Cohen 1942) Despite the court decision, many Indians refused to leave. Therefore under the pretense of protecting both the tribes and the state, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act (IRA) stipulating Indians would need to be relocated certainly for their own protection. Six days later gold was discovered in the Cherokee land. Relying on the IRA the state of Georgia declared that the gold rightfully belonged to the state and began relocating Ind i ans (Foreman 1953). THE REMOVAL PERIOD That it shall and may be lawful for the President of the United States to cause so much of any territory belonging to the United States west of the river Mississippi. .. to which the Indian title has been extinguished as he may judge necessary, to be divided into a suitable number of districts for the reception of such tribes or nations of Indians ... that the United States will forever secure and guaranty to them and their heirs or successors, the country so exchanged with them: Provided always that such lands shall revert to the United States, if the Indians become extinct or abandon the same. (Getches Wilkinson and Williams Jr. 1993, pg. 124) By 1835 the Cherokee Nation Cases contained two basic thrusts on the status of Indian tribes: (1) Indians were under the protection of the federal government -ward and guardian relationship--and (2) tribes possess a certain amount of sovereignty to shield themselves from any intrusion by the states. Additionally i t was the federal government's responsibility to ensu r e that this sovereignty was maintained (Cohen 1942:83). One of the fundamental weaknesses with these cases was that the

PAGE 49

United States Government was not capable of protecting tribes from state intervention, largely because state militias were much stronger than the federal army. Deprived of any real protection from invasion, tribes were, therefore, forced to initiate treaties with states--treaties which may have protected Indians from physical destruction but which became a method of the state to take Indian land During the next decade Judge Marshall was determined to strengthen the definition of the Indians' relationship to the U.S. government as that of "ward to guardian." In his defense of the government intervention, he stated that Indians looked to the government for protection, and relied upon its kindness and its power. Furthermore Indians were "so completely under the sovereignty of the United States, that any attempt (by foreign nations) to acquire their lands or to form a political connection with them, would be considered by all an invasion of our territory and an act of hostility" (Deloria and Lytle 1983:30) Marshall established the framework upon which much of the idea of federal responsibility over Indian affairs is built. Despite the unfairness of the use of treaties to settle disputes between Indians and whites, this method was the accepted norm until the 1870s. It was only in 1871 when Congress declared I ndian Nations would no longer be recognized for the purpose of making treaties The era of treaty-mak ing thus, ended The Ute signed the last ma j or treaty in 1914 thirty-three years after Congress' declaration (Cohen 1942). The 16, 000 Cherokee who walked from Georgia on the Trail of Tears" as it is known, were not the only Indians forced to move to 47

PAGE 50

4 8 western reservations. The Choctaw gave up 10 million acres east of the Mississippi and also moved west. On March 6, 1864, as many as 8,500 Navajo were removed from their homelands and relocated to the banks of the Pecos River in New Mexico where they became totally dependent upon the U .S. Army for food rations. It was in this way that the federal government was able to preserve its domination of Indians. This relationship of dependency was then preserved by the implementation of numerous federal policies. States continued to intervene into the affair of Indians, similar to Georgia forcing tribes to seek federal protection against aggressive state actions. This action in turn firmly established a psychological dependency not only in the minds of Indians but also in the minds of whites. By appealing to the federal government to intervene against state aggressiveness government hoped Indians would view the federal government not as the creator of their situation but as the rescuer. Any future encounters or decisions automatically necessitated the involvement of the federal government with little concern as to its motive This made tribes easier to manipulate while solidifying the control and intervention of government. Consequently dependency as a way of thinking and acting became firmly entrenched in the minds of Indians as well as whites. Removal and relocation of Indians however was not performed solely as a means of increasing the territory of the new Americans. Removing Indians onto reservations ensured to some degree that whites and Indians would be separated, thus preventing any real understanding of each other's cultures Federal government made few efforts to culturally integrate Native Americans whether educationally

PAGE 51

socially or economically. In fact there were great initiatives on the part of the US to collectively practice discrimination against the culturally distinct natives. If Indians had not rejected one of the main principles of American liberalism the federal government would not have had to intervene with such aggression. Liberalism is based on the Lockean view that private property is a natural right and is viewed as the basis of prosperity as well as morality, social equality, and a democratic government. This political philosophy promoted the commercialization and appropriation of land. In essence, the interaction between American Indians and whites was based on land and continue to be the impetus for policy making by the federal government well into the 20th century. In other words, dependency, removal and relocation worked to increase the rights, specifically the right to private property, of Euro-Americans, while stripping Indians of their rights. For the early settlers, the creation of reservations became the key to solving the land question. Economists suggest that had there been genuine efforts on the part of early Americans to incorporate Indians into the American economy it is less likely removal of Indians onto reservations would have been necessary. Much like early immigrants, Indians would have been more fully integrated into local and regional economies. However, the lack of demand for Indian labor, the refusal of Indians to sell their labor or become slaves, and the increased demand for Indian land played out a different scenario. Around the 1880s the federal government altered its policies in dealing with Indians. Rather than continue the path of relocation-seemingly impossible because land was needed for 49

PAGE 52

50 railroads new communities and industry-government opted for a new approach to the Indian problem namely assimilation or as many Indians refer to it, cultural genocide. UNITING THE TWO DISTINCT CULTURES Between 1887 and 1927 Indians saw themselves confronted with a series of new problems. They now had to choose to either live in small communities as many of them were accustomed to or they could accept small allotments of land with the possibility of becoming citizens. If they refused to live on these small allotments of land their alternative was to move further west in hopes of finding land they could settle without fear of further removal. In 1887 President Chester A. Arthur believed assimilation was the key to the "nagging Indian problem He said that the answer was "to introduce among the Indians the customs and pursuits of civilized life and gradually to absorb them into the mass of our citizens" was the answer (Cohen 1942 : 129). Responding to his suggestion, Congress passed the General Allotment Act of 1887 (GAA). There were two main ideas behind the General Allotment Act: 1) Communal land was savage White individual ownership would create pride self-interest, and healthy selfishness, leading to Christianity and civilization. 2) This act would make it easier to acquire individual Indian land than acquiring land from a tr ibe. As can be seen in the following provisions Europeans believed that this backward civilization a civilization that collectively held land and one that did not exploit the fruits of the land as instructed by God, would

PAGE 53

need to be changed. Traditional modes of thought would need to be destroyed in order for progress to pursue. Only white individual ownership of land would lead to Christianity and civilization. If this be the case why allot land to Indians at all? Naturally this raises the question as to the real intent of the General Allotment Act. THE CHIEF PROVISIONS OF THE ALLOTMENT ACT 1) a grant of 160 acres to each family head of 80 acres to each single person over 18 years of age and to each orphan under 18, and 40 acres to each other single person under 18; 2) a patent in fee issued to every allottee but to be held in trust by the Government for 25 years during which time the land could be alienated or encumbered; 3) four years allowed Indians when they should make their selections should be applied to any tribe-failure of the Indians to do so should result in selection for them at the order of the Secretary of the Interior; and 4) citizenship to be conferred upon allottees and upon any other Indian who abandon their tribe and adopt "the habits of civilized life." (Getches et al, 1983) This process reduced Indian land from 138 million acres in 1887 to 48 million by 1934 (Wax and Buchanan 1975:114). And in 1891 an amendment to the GAA resulted in Indians losing additional land. In the 1891 amendment the Secretary of Interior was given the right to lease the land of anyone who, in the secretary's opinion "by reason of age or other liability" could not "personally and with benefit to himself occupy or improve his allotments or any part thereof' (Cohen 1942: 130). That is to say, the Secretary of Interior was given dictatorial powers over the use of the allotments. He and he alone would decide if the behavior of Indians after receiving their allotted land portrayed a "healthy selfishness." For the first time, the federal government needed to devise a 5 1

PAGE 54

52 method whereby Indians could be defined That is to say, that In order to distribute Indian land back to individual Indians government needed to determine who was Indian. Consequently an "Indian identification standard" would need to be implicitly imposed This standard would be explicit in future legislation If the federal government could set and ho l d the criteria of who is Indian for example, at one-fourth, it was hoped the "Indian problem" eventually would be solved either through assimilation and/or marriage. More importantly, through any one of these processes Indians would develop characteristics more similar to that of true" Americans mainly those that focused on an individual identity. Incorporation of Indians into economic and political structures could occur only as individuals. T he U.S national identity is highly dependent upon viewing one self as an individual rather than as part of a collective. What Europeans failed to understand or ignored is that it is as difficult for Indians to develop a concept of self as it was and continues to be for Americans wrapped in liberalism to focus on the collective unit. Naturally these two distinct processes made the cultural transforma t ion of Indians historically difficult. Consequently Senator Pendleton a fervent supporter of allotment pursued this endeavor in another drastic way by declaring : They must either change their mode of life or they must die. We may regret it we may wish it were otherwise our sentiments of humanity may be shocked by the alternative but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that is the alternative and that these Indians must either change their modes of l i fe or they will be exterminated ... In order that they may change their modes of life, we must change our pol i cy. .We must stimulate within them to the very largest degree, the idea of home of family and of property These are the very anchorages

PAGE 55

of civilization; the commencement of the dawning of these ideas in the mind is the commencement of the civilization of any race, and these Indians are no exception (Gates 1979:11). It is apparent in the above quotation that the federal government believed a sense of liberal culture needed to be instilled in Indians through the invention of new amendments and policies, for it certainly was not occurring through outdated policies of isolation. Indians needed first, to be exposed to the cultural modernity of the core, and once thi s happened it was believed Indian s values and normative orientations would undergo a major transformation. In their very ethnocentric way, whites assumed that should Indians be given the choice they would naturally accept the culture of whites over theirs; eventually cultural integration would occur. This however did not happen. Survival of traditional Indian nations within a sea of modernity is based on essential differences of social organizations. For example the social organization of the United States i s often characterized by a wide division of labor, high level of urbanization, capital-intensive production small nuclear family bureaucratic structures, high per capita income and norms and values that arise from such settings. On the other hand, traditional social organizations manifest a narrow division of labor, low or no level of urbanization, labor-intensive products large extended family lower per capita income and traditional norms and values that often conflict with those of modern society. Had economic integration occurred it is highly probable Indian assimilation would have followed. Economists suggest that as a group participates in the national economic system, changes in its social organizations occur and the group becomes more like the national 53

PAGE 56

54 character of the dominant society. However, this cultural integration did not occur for two reasons: one, the United States did not encourage it but opted for increased dependency possibly because it was less costly; and two, Indians did not desire integration; rather they preferred separation. It is thus fair to say that Indians realized early on that assimilation meant the eradication of traditions and thus the eventual eradication of themselves. Their concern was supported by a major slogan of government officials that stated "kill the Indian ... save the man". Whites believed it was the lndianness of Indians that needed to be extinguished. However, Indians did not believe the two could be separated. Whites failed or refused to understand Initiat i ves that forced Indians onto small allotments of land and acquire ownership of that land went against the beliefs of Indians. To value individual rather than collective lifestyles was interpreted by Indians as an attempt to end their tribal identity and thus end them. Relig i on, education, language and land are the glues that bind people. When a culture is tied so closely to land as it is in Native American culture, policies of integration have a monumental impact on that culture. As a consequence, when certain traits of people are gone, it can be said that a culture has been essentially wiped out. Cultural genocide has occurred In the end, the United States failed to generate a policy that would integrate Native Americans politically, socially or economically. Since integration did not occur, government was in need of a policy that would create these characteristics. From 1928 through 1945 several studies,

PAGE 57

reports, reforms, and Congressional responses developed on the Indian issue. While very few of these policies did little to solve the "Indian problem," they did continue to have adverse effects on traditional Indian life. SELF-CONTROL: SELF-GOVERNMENT With the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the inception of the New Deal came new legislation that addressed the Indian issue and sought reforms. "The Meriam Report" of 1928 was developed in an effort to thoroughly document the plight of Indians. The report stated that the poverty of Indians and the failure of Indians to assimilate produced horrendous conditions. The investigation called for the creation of "increased appropriations to improve the diet of children in boarding schools, the creation of new positions in the fields of health and education, the construction of more Indian day schools, the repair of Indian Service buildings," and more (Deloria and Lytle 1983:44 ). Many policy makers believed that what was needed was an Indian government modeled after the United States government. It was believed that a form of self-governing could be established by implementing yet another Indian policy and more importantly, this policy had the potential of taking the Indian/white relationship to even greater heights. In order to create the conditions for a new era of Indian policy making, John Collier, an avowed advocate of Indian Rights was appointed Commissioner of Indian Affairs by the Roosevelt Administration. Although Collier's major goal, like that of his predecessors, was assimilation, his tactics were slightly different in that 55

PAGE 58

56 he sought the active cooperation of Indians. Collier firmly believed and assumed that if Indians were given the right to form a governing body consisting totally of Indians they would prefer to assimilate into larger society. Unfortunately, his ideas were shaped by his experiences with the tightly organized Pueblo people. Neither his background, nor the background of many Indian reformers prepared them for the diversity of Indian interests and preferences. Collier, like so many before him, believed one stroke of the legislative pen could meet all tribal interests. True to form, Congress obliged Collier by implementing the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) in 1930. One hundred years after the first IRA. Fortunately, unlike the first IRA, the second IRA stripped the state of having any jurisdiction on Indian land. In addition, the act ended the earlier allotment policy, stating "no land of any Indian reservation shall be allotted in severalty to any Indian" (Wax 1975:37). Additionally, it made it easier for the federal government to allocate the necessary funds that many of these nations needed to survive by providing a revolving credit fund. Similar to the GAA the IRA gave the Secretary of the Interior the power to make loans to tribes if they pursued its definition of economic development. The major thrust behind the IRA was to divert power onto reservation governments and away from the federal government. Government believed that reorganized formal tribal governments should bear the responsibility of governing. Tribes would have to vote to accept or reject the IRA. During the two-year period set as a deadline for tribes to vote, 258 elections were held. One hundred and eighty one tribes voted to accept the IRA provisions. The remaining 77 tribes rejected it,

PAGE 59

including the large Navajo tribe of 45,000 people. Indian tribes experienced an array of responses to the implementation of the IRA. For some tribes, attempts to organize under the IRA brought disruption and heightened intra-tribal factional disputes For others it brought a much-needed organization, a revival or establishment of tribal government, tribal courts, police, and an improved economic position. Yet, while some tribes believed the IRA would help Indians gain some form of self-governing, other tribes viewed the IRA as just another tool used by whites to impose their form of governing onto tribes. Some Indians viewed the IRA as giving a few Indians appointed by the federal government dictatorial power, creating the conditions for the development of corrupt leadership. Eventually most tribes were administered under IRA regulations regardless of how they voted. Having failed to destroy all traditional Indian forms of government the federal government instituted the Indian Reorganization Act forcing them to become the mirror image structurally of the federal government. Indians nations were forced to design a constitotion, elect representative, disentangle religion and politics, and bring about a new philosophy toward tribal rights and lands. One of the purposed of the Act was to impose an alien form of government on tribal cultures, while clearly eroding traditional tribal governments and facilitating cultural transformation. How ironic that a system so similar to the Iroquois Confederation would eventually be forced upon the very population whose ancestors created it several hundred years earlier. Naturally as stated in chapter two this raises the question as to the purpose of politics in traditional and 57

PAGE 60

58 American societies European ideologies suggest that as societies evolve people are not capable of sustaining a level of free-state as noted in the state of nature. Government, thus, becomes a necessary evil in order to control men s passions If this is the case, the Iroquois society had progressed into an interesting combination of a society bearing all the traits of a free state and a highly developed government. Yet because of U.S. imperial i sm and colonization Indian societies were not at liberty to create tribal government founded on the ideal of the Iroquois Confederacy. Indigenous societies in the "New World" had a level of democracy not then realized in any part of the Old world. Paradoxically by emulating the Iroquois Confederation, the U.S. Constitution, provided the mechanism for political leaders to force a population to conform to the European's standard of democracy. THE OBJECTIVES OF THE IRA 1) Officially ending the policy of allotment. 2) Set up a revolving fund for purposes of economic development. 3) Tribes now had the right to organize for its common welfare and adop t an appropriate constitution and bylaws. (Getches et al, 1993 : 218-219) Of all federal Indian legislation the IRA is the most ambiguous Indian policies in terms of how it affected tribal governments. While it did end the irrefutably egregious allotment period in its own way it may have set the stage for the next policy, specifically termination.

PAGE 61

FORCED ASSIMILATION: TERMINATION After winning the presidency in 1952 the Republicans began a reversal of Roosevelt's programs and attempted to "free" the tribes of their colonial master (Wax and Bucanhan 1975). In other words, massive cuts were initiated in Indian federal programs for health, education and housing. Funding for the previous Indian reorganizational period was attacked as well. In June of 1953 Representative William Henry Harrison of Wyoming introduced House Concurrent Resolution 108 that stated all Indian tribes located within the States of California, Florida, New York and Texas should be freed from federal supervision and control, and all federal assistance discontinued. The resolution was accepted. Federal government began cutting the dependency that historically had been created and started initiating what has been defined as the Termination Period. In August of 1953 Congress passed Public Law 280 (67 Stat. 588). This law gave certain states jurisdiction over civil and criminal activities on many Indian reservations and limited tribal jurisdiction. Even though the system of tribal government was still an important part of negotiations that transpired between the United States and Indians, Public Law 280 significantly diminished tribal authority. Arthur V. Watkins, a leading congressional proponent of termination was firmly convinced--out of good faith and ignorance--that if the Indians were set free they soon would become "productive citizens." Watkins believed that through termination the people of America would begin to treat Indians not as Indians but as fellow American citizens. 59

PAGE 62

60 After all the federal government had extended citizenship to Indians in 1924 with the Indian Citizenship Act even though many Indians did not desire American citizenship. In other words, treat Indians like everyone else with citizenship with no special treatments. Watkins' article entitled "Termination of Federal Supervision: The Removal of Restrictions over Indian Property and Person," written in 1932 (several years before Resolution 108 was proposed), adequately depicts termination as the best choice for Congress and the general public in dealing with the Indian problem. This new choice by Congress, however, delivered much confusion, in some instances disasters, and in most cases Resolution 108 provided a decade of controversy and Indian protests (Gates 1979:4 7 -49) PUBLIC LAW 280 "Whereas it is the policy of Congress, as rapidly as possible to make the Indians within the territorial limits of the United States subject to the same laws and entitled to the same privileges and responsibilities as are applicable to other citizens of the United States, and to grant them all the rights and prerogatives pertaining to American citizenship; and whereas the Indians within the territorial limits of the United States should assume their full responsibilities as American citizens: Now therefore be it. .. (Getches et al, 1993 : 231) From the very beginning of the Termination Period there were a number of individuals who opposed termination Many Americans viewed termination as a method of robbing the Indians of the few services rightly deserved (The New York Times 1954). Others believed that slow integration continue until Indians themselves decide to

PAGE 63

terminate federal assistance. For many Indians, termination was viewed as the last effort to eliminate an Indian identity. The controversy that mounted during this period was the main reason for the demise of Resolution 108. Many white liberals and Indian Nationalists branded the termination policy as a great evil. The support these opponents received was overwhelming. Articles in the press encouraged Congress to review the possible consequences of termination. The public response apparently worked. Less than a decade later, in 1958, Secretary of the Interior Fred Steton announced that no tribe would be terminated without its consent. Naturally states were not happy to be handed the responsibility of assisting Indians. This new policy would shift guardianship of Indians on to states and away from federal government similar to ethnic groups. This may be a partial reason why so many Americans rejected the termination philosophy. In their article, "The Evolution of the Termination Policy", (1977) Charles Wilkinson and Eric Biggs discuss the basic consequences of termination: 1) There were fundamental changes in landownership patterns. 2) The trust relationship between government and Indians ended. 3) State legislative jurisdiction was imposed. 4) State judicial authority was imposed. 5) Exemption from State taxing power was ended. 6) Special federal programs to tribes were discontinued. 7) Special federal programs to individual Indians were discontinued. 8) Tribal sovereignty was effectively ended. 61

PAGE 64

62 However, it was not until President Nixon entered the White House tha t the Indians' fears of termination were alleviated completely. On Jul y 8 1970, President Nixon delivered a speech confronting the errors of termination: Because termination is morally and legally unacceptable because it produces bad practical results and because the mere threat of termination tends to discourage greater self-sufficiency among Indian groups I'm asking the Congress to pass a new Concurrent Resolution which would expressly renounce repudiate and repeal the termination policy as expressed in House Concurrent Resolution 108 of the 83rd Congress (Forbes 197 4:37). At best this policy was an invention of a few aggressive politicians wishing to hastily incorporate the dependent group into the core This no doubt was the reason of extending citizenship to Indians in 1924, and of the reorganization per iod. Both of these policies were intended to transform Indians But they didn't work in the manner expected What these two policies did do was open the door to the possibility of termination. The federal government could not terminate a population of a distinct and different national identity without ensuring its incorporation into the American national identity. The passage of the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924 assisted the incorporation of Indians into larger society. The IRA began transforming the institutions and structures of triba l governments Termination could follow much easier with the passage of these two bills. Still an unexpected positive aspect of the termination proposal surfaced. The very idea of ending tribal governments and the national identity of Indians galvanized Native activism. This policy p r ovided an

PAGE 65

opportunity for Native insurgency to develop; an insurgency that was in its incubation period for many years. Politicians soon realized that the very idea of termination was a politically explosive issue. This in turn forced politicians to return to the drawing board and develop a new Indian policy, one that would possibly acquiesce Native activism and appease those Americans that were eager to support Indians during the early years of the 1960s. Consequently, the termination philosophy was never fully implemented. NEO-COLONIALISM: SELF-DETERMINATION From 1960 to the 1980s a different approach to the formation of policies regarding Indians was developed. While the termination period seemed to have destroyed a portion of Indian culture and encroached substantially upon the attempts of Indians to remain Indian, through the development of federal policies Indians were still able to see some slight improvements in education and health services and gain increased control of their destiny (Cornell 1988). After the assassination of President Kennedy, President Johnson proposed "a new goal for our Indian programs; a goal that ends the old debate about termination and stressed self-determination," (Levitan and Hetrick 1971: 195). These programs emphasized a greater need to wipe out a defined portion of the American population known as "the poor." Public assistance played an increasingly important role in the lives of poor people during this period and an even larger part for Indians. In the early 1970s President Nixon furthered the efforts of President Johnson's war on poverty by creating legislation where tribes 63

PAGE 66

6 4 could apply some semblance of self-determination. The Area Redevelopment Administration Act is one example of the type of acts that permeated the minds of the executive branch in the early 1960s. This act stressed the importance of allowing Indians a chance to develop their resources while still not severing their tie to the federal government. Another act, the Economic Opportunity Act (EOA), passed in 1964 provided Indians with a form of self-determination through community organizing The EOA, an anti-poverty program, stressed the importance of allowing Indians to create and implement community activities with minimal interference from federal agencies. Although many reservations are badly in need of housing education, health services, economic development and manpower assistance, the mere presence of the Indian Community Action Program (a branch of the EOA) indicates the des ire for tribal councils to adopt resolutions which curtail federal supervision and allow tribes to produce constructive projects to change the poverty most reservations experience (Wax and Buchanan 1975 : 136-138). ERA OF SELF-DETERMINATION (1961-Present) "The principal legislative initiative to emerge from the Nixon proposals the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, gives express authority to the Secretaries of Interior and Health and Human Services to contract with, and make grants to, Indian tribes and other Indian organizations for the delivery of federal services. The Act reflects a fundamental philosophical change concerning the administration of India affairs; tribal programs are funded by the federal government, but the programs should be planned and administered by the tribes themselves; federal "domination" should end." (Getches, et al: 1993:255)

PAGE 67

During the self-determination period the following three pieces of legislation stand out as portraying the change in policies set forth by the federal government: 1) The Indian Education Act of 1972, provided special training programs for teaching Indian children, and provided a base for including Indian participation. 2) The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975: Directed the Secretary of the Interior to confer with the tribe to plan, conduct, and administer programs. In other words, the act permitted the tribe, not the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) or any other branch of federal government, to decide if Indians wished to participate in any given program. 3) American Indian Policy Review Commission of 197 4: Authorized two-year commission to review existing federal policies and make recommendations for position change (Deloria and Lytle: 1983). Since the passing of these three pieces of legislation very few initiatives have been proposed to improve the Indians lifestyle. Most of the legislation has often hampered the lifestyle of Indians while increasing the need for more federal bureaucratic involvement. Realizing federal involvement was still very much a part of the Indian way of life, proponents of self-determination were willing to accept the intrusion, but only temporarily. Tribal members believe that until certain institutions are created and until tribes gain the capabilities for self-governing, the impact of sudden "freedom" could be disastrous for Indian nations. They suggest that efforts to provide more viable institutions and a greater ability among Indians to exercise their 65

PAGE 68

66 independence must be combined with a gradual expansion of self-determination. There is little doubt that during the self-determination period Indian nations benefited from numerous federal programs. However, what little progress Indians may have experienced came at an enormous price. In order to receive any of the funds generated through national social welfare legislation, Indians had to pose as a racial minority, even though there were major differences in the grievances and demands of Indians and those of domestic minorities. The self-determination of Indians could not be met by integrationist policies or through piecemeal reforms created for minorities. Therefore, while these types of reforms seemed to have appeased national minorities, they galvanized Indian activism. Indians realized that with the implementation of these types of policies came a loss of a culture, an increase in U.S. bureaucratic involvement and a decrease in true self-determination. The policies, whether they were removal, relocation, reorganization, or termination, were created to provide economic incentives and in the end promote assimilation. That is, stop Indians from being Indian and integrate larger society. While none of these policies proved to be successful in fulfilling U.S. intent, they did contribute to a different type of Indian. In the late 1960s, Indians began reacting to poor legislation in a very organized fashion. Consequently, for the first time since the arrival of the Europeans, Indians demanded that Indian legislation be created and influenced by Indians and by Indian tribal governments No doubt, this change in demands would contribute to a very different tribal government as discussed in the following

PAGE 69

chapter. In an attempt to bring about assimilation, cultural transformation and acquire Indian land, numerous amendments and statues were adopted. Historically two major ones stand out: The Act of July 31, 1882 designated army posts and barracks as places to train "nomadic tribes having educational treaty claims upon the United States" ( Deloria and Lytle 1983:11 ); and The Indian Citizen Act passed in 1924 gave citizenship to all Indians who had served in the First World War and later to all Indians. The first act demonstrates the beginning of a commitment on the part of the federal government to educate Indians while really focusing on Christianizing, civilizing, and instilling ideas of capital liberalism. The second act assumed that by giving citizenship (to the only people in the U.S. who did not desire it) Indians would naturally adopt American values and assimilate. The main thrust of both of these acts failed. Moreover, similar to the above two acts the remainder of federal Indian legislation plus historical circumstances shaped contemporary tribal governments. In order to understand how the transformation of modern forms of tribal government developed, a comprehensive analysis of tribalization (as suggested by Stephen Cornell) must be developed. Cornell defines tribalization as the process of how tribes have become what they are today. In other words, if we are to understand the next chapter that deals with modern forms of tribal governments we must understand how the pre-stated various historical policies worked to chi p away at tribal sovereignty until it looked more like the politics of interference by the courts, congress, the president the BIA and 67

PAGE 70

68 increasingly, state governments. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION: 1) What are the main tenets of the Doctrine of Discovery? 2) To what extent did the Indian Removal Act protect Indians? 3) Explain how Christianization Americanization and civilization occurred with the acquisition of individual land. 4) What were the purposes and the consequences of Resolution 108? 5) What is the Indian identification standard", and its purpose?

PAGE 71

CHAPTER FOUR LEVELS OF TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY So long as a tribe exists and remains in possession of its lands, its title and possession are sovereign and exclusive; and there exists no authority to enter upon their lands, for any purpose whatever, without their consent. U. S. Attorney General's Opinion, 1821 The key to understanding how various nations function, is to determine the forms by which they are governed. As stated previously, the method of how Indian nations are governed fluctuates according to the needs of larger American society rather than the needs of Indians. If land was needed by early Euro-Americans, Indians were removed and relocated if not annihilated. The Cherokee Nation Cases demonstrates this well. If Indians nations were found to be too traditional, too disorganized, or not functioning as their legal guardian say they should, tribes were forced to reorganize under the IRA. Twenty some years after this reorganization period, corporations began to eye resources on shrinking Indian land. True to form the federal government obliged corporate needs. And similar to the Cherokee Nation Cases, a justification was again created in order to remove Indians and thus giving access to corporations the very land that Indians had historically resisted developing. Consequently, the various forms by which Indians nations were governed reflect the politics of interference. Therefore, it is fair to say, that tribal governments have been largely shaped by the actions of and in reaction to the U.S. federal government. 69

PAGE 72

70 Thus, levels of tribal sovereignty on any given Indian nation and at any given time, fluctuates according to the federal government. As stated in chapter two, early Indigenous populations within the Western Hemisphere relied upon a variety of activities when negotiating with other tribes. That is to say that long before Europeans arrived and forced the original inhabitants to change their methods of governing Indigenous people were politicking. More importantly, these various Indian nations were sovereign powers long before Chief Justice Marshall defined them creatively as Domestic Dependent Nations as noted by Felix Cohen in the following paragraph: Indian sovereignty is the principle that those powers which are lawfully vested in an Indian tribe, are not, in general, delegated powers granted by express acts of congress, but rather inherent powers of a limited sovereignty which has never been extinguished. Each Indian tribe begins its relationship with the federal government as a sovereign power, recognized as such in treaty and legislation (Felix Cohen, 1942). Unfortunately Anglo-American political and legal theory, practice, and perceptions do not provide any consistent interpretation of tribal sovereignty. Marshall invented the domestic dependent status believing that tribes would eventually become states and the withering away of dependency would eventually follow. This withering away did not occur fast enough so Congress suggested termination. Similar to other policies this too did not take hold, making the level of sovereignty continuing to fluctuate somewhere between absolute and inherent sovereignty, or as earlier implied as sovereign as Congress allows tribes to be. Historically, Congress has been given power to regulate almost

PAGE 73

every facet of life for Indians living on reservations. Naturally most tribal governments desire absolute sovereignty particularly when making decisions about culture, education, health, economic development, and most other matters regarding tribal affairs And even though the Supreme Court's affirmation of tribal sovereignty occurred in the 1980s by the end of the decade the high court was no longer voting on the side of tribal sovereignty. Moreover, Congress and other key actors began to fervently oppose tribal sovereignty, especially in decisions regarding gaming, fishing, and m i neral rights. This suggests that what l i ttle sovereignty tribes had acquired was slowly eroding. The following bureaucratic maze shows that any initiative started by tribal governments must go upwards through a series of levels: Secretary of the Interior Assistant secretary of the Interior BIA Area Director BIA Agency Superintendent Tribal Council Naturally there are numerous events and issues that have the capacity to determine and shape a tribe s level of sovereignty. Following are a few events or issues that have the capacity of determining the level 71

PAGE 74

72 of sovereignty: First, which European power(s) did Indian nations come in contact with, the French, Dutch, Spanish, English or Russian, that may have set different patterns of interactions; Second, what treaties were made and subsequently broken that may provide the tribe with litigation opportunities; Third, what was the experience of tribes with removal and relocation and other various federal Indian policies; Fourth, what was the level of interaction between culturally different tribes that were forced to share a land base; Fifth, within what state is the tribal government; Sixth, what types of resources are on the tribal nation; and more importantly, what level of sovereignty do the various tribal governments desire, absolute sovereignty, shared sovereignty or a form of self-governing. Currently, the issue that currently determines tribal sovereignty more than any other is natural resources on Indian territory. If an Indian nation has resources desired by larger society or corporations, federal Indian legislation is often shaped by those interests rather than the interest of the tribe, regardless of other issues. Nations that have water, uranium, coal, natural gas, agriculture or other resources have confronted legislation that seeks to develop those resources. For example, the large Navajo Nation of Arizona faced the Navajo Relocation Act of 1976 largely because Peabody Coal Company desired access to a large body of coal on Navajo and Hopi land. Similarly, the Lummi Nation in Washington battled commercial and game fishers supported by state and federal governments in order to secure their fishing rights guaranteed in an 1855 treaty. Both of these nations have had to assert tribal sovereignty in different ways in order to adequately represent their members.

PAGE 75

It wasn't until after the Boldt Decision in 197 4 that the Lummi were able to reclaim some of their fishing rights. This right was achieved largely as a result of a strong tribal government and native protests opposing numerous state and federal actors. For the Navajo Nation, members continue to oppose and defy the relocation of tribal members. Unfortunately, they have been largely unsuccessful in stopping corporations from developing their land base since the Navajo Tribal Council began approving mineral extraction with large corporations as early as 1952. In their efforts to provide jobs and stimulate their economy, various tribal governments often go into agreements with corporations, only to regret it later. Since the creation of the Indian Reorganization Act, and as a result of tribal governments having created court systems, Congress often defers to these courts to establish laws and codes in regulating many aspects of the tribe. There are instances, however, when there is no clear distinction as to which court or which agency has power within Indian country, particularly when it comes to freedoms and rights. As noted in the following subcommittee hearing in 1977, the subject of Indian rights is complex and ambiguous: It is almost always a mistake to seek answers to Indian legal issues by making analogies to seemingly similar fields. General notions of civil rights law and public land laws, for example, simply fail to resolve many questions relating to American Indian tribes and individuals. This extraordinary body of law and policy holds its own answers, which are often wholly unexpected to those unfamiliar with it (The Rights of Indians and Tribes 1992:1ntro). We can see how ambiguous Indian rights are when examining 73

PAGE 76

74 religious rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .... The First Amendment was adopted in 1791 thus justifying the claim that the United States was founded on religious freedoms. In reality America was originally founded on the right to own property and religious freedom of Protestants, later to include other religions. It was not until 1978 that Congress took positive steps to guarantee Native Americans had the same religious freedoms as other Americans. The American Indian Religion Act reads: Henceforth it shall be the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent rights of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions of the Americans, Eskimo, Aleut and Native Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonies and traditional rites (Petoskey 1985:233) Obviously, the religious practices of American Indians on tribal land were not protected by the First Amendment and therefore required special legislation. Since many of the standards for Indian legislation have been based on Judea-Christian religions, many of them, like the one above cannot be fully implemented or accommodated without some level of conflict. For example in order for Indians to practice their religion they often require access to a pristine environment or in some cases the use of a substance deemed illegal by states and/or federal government. Tribes argue their religious rights are violated when the federal land they use to practice their beliefs face economic development. Consequently, government must violate the religious rights of Indians in its pursuit of

PAGE 77

economic interests, suggesting economic interests virtually always override religious rights. The issue of Indian rights to religious expression has been almost consistently denied when the expression of the right conflicts with economic rights of Americans as stated in the following case: INDIAN RELIGIOUS RIGHTS In 1988 Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture, eta/. v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association the court ruled in favor of the U.S Forest Service to pave a road that was sacred to the Karok, Yurok, and Tolowa Indians in northern California. The opinion of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated that U.S. economic interests outweighed Indian religious rights. In essence, society could destroy sacred sites for economic reasons. The Lyng Case illustrated that while Indian religions are entitled to the same protection as other Americans under the First Amendment and certainly by the Indian Religious Act of 1978, economic interests may and often do override this entitlement. By passing the Major Crimes Act of 1885, the federal government spread its jurisdictional wings over Indian country. At the time of passing the Act the federal government was given jurisdiction over seven crimes: murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary, and larceny. Today it has increased its jurisdiction to include additional crimes. States may not exercise authority over tribes unless specifically authorized by Congress or by the tribes, but they too have historically tried to assert their power within native territory. This intrusion by the federal government and states leaves tribal governments with limited jurisdiction. And even though tribal governments are recognized as having a higher status than that of states, they nonetheless continue to 75

PAGE 78

76 be subordinate to and dependent on the U.S. federal government. One area where the federal government has allowed tribes to assert themselves is in determining their tribal membership. Tribes define their membership by emphasizing descendants meaning anyone descended from Indians, by residency, or blood quantum. On the one hand, the federal government defines an American Indian as one having one-fourth Indian blood and enrolled in a federally recognized tribe. On the other hand, many tribes require members have anywhere from one-eighth to one-half tribal blood. The so-called "blood quantum" policies became an implicit part of federal Indian legislation beginning in 1887 as part of the General Allotment Act. Congress had hoped that by setting a degree of Indian blood standard, Indians would intermarry or assimilate and eventually be defined out of existence. While this has not occurred, the "blood quantum" of one-fourth is the current federal standard to determine who is Indian particularly when determining who receives federal assistance. Today, the purpose or function of having a "blood quantum," a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood" or any method of deciding who is Indian is seen by many Indians as just another attempt of the classic "divide and conquer" strategy ; pitting Indians against Indians and/or Indians against those individua l s that do not have enough" Indian blood. In some cases whenever the question of some one's Indian ness is raised it is usually about who will receive the few federal crumbs the BIA or the Secretary of Interior is tossing at individual Indians How Indians themselves determine who is Indian has less to do with level of Indian blood and more to do with if that person is working collectively on

PAGE 79

increasing tribal sovereignty and other Indian rights. To adopt the identity without adopting the struggle contributes nothing to the expansion of tribal sovereignty. The following case demonstrates that the federal government is eager to support tribal sovereignty as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights, usually defined as economic rights of Americans Martinez v. Santa Clara Pueblo Nation Martinez, a member of the Santa Clara Pueblo Nation brought a suit against her tribe because it did not recognize her daughter as a member. Santa Clara Pueblos consider children of male tribal members eligible for membership but children of female members who marry nonmembers, as Ms. Martinez did, were viewed as ineligible The Santa Clara Pueblo is a patriarchal society where membership is defined through the father. The Supreme Court agreed with the tribe s argument that tribal membership is a matter for the tribe to determine, not the federal government. Consequently the child of Ms. Martinez cannot be tribally enrolled in either tribe even though she is a full-blooded Indian. LAW ENFORCEMENT Obviously tribal courts have jurisdiction only within the territory of the nation and do not expect to have jurisdiction out of this defined territory. Whether the nation has total, concurrent or shared jurisdiction with state and federal governments will be largely determined by the crime, the location, and the identity of the victim and of the accused. If the crime is a misdemeanor and involves non-Indians, the state normally will have jurisdiction. In a misdemeanor that involves an Indian and non-Indian jurisdiction is given to the federal government. Tribal courts have some 77

PAGE 80

78 jurisdiction when a misdemeanor and major crimes involve Indians. While this is the method most often used in determining the appropriate court, which court has jurisdiction can fluctuate at the whim of the federal and state interests. It is only when two Indians are involved in a crime that the tribe could have total jurisdiction, particularly if the crime is minor. Complications arise when the individuals are from different tribal nations. When this occurs tribal governments must agree on the sentence. In many cases, it is not unheard of for tribal courts to ask offenders to pay compensation to the victim or to the victim's community. Some tribes continue to punish some crimes by a ritualistic whipping, or by banishing the guilty individual. Persons Involved --Indian accused Indian victim --Indian accused non-Indian victim --Non-Indian accused Indian victim --Indian accused Indian victim --non-Indian accused --Indian accused non-Indian victim Indian victim MAJOR CRIMES Jurisdiction Federal government (MCA) Indians Federal government, Indians Federal government NON-MAJOR CRIMES Tribal government Federal government Federal government and Indians The Rights of Indians and Tribes 1992:132

PAGE 81

Obviously, those tribal governments that are strong and have the capital to pursue the interest of the tribe are the most successful in asserting and guaranteeing self-government. Similar to states, tribal governments exercise power regarding taxation, economic regulations, zoning, extradition, the regulation of domestic and family relations, health care, housing, education, and much more. However, this power is frequently constrained, changed, and even extinguished by the actions of the federal government and states particularly if tribal decisions should infringe on the rights of larger society. The debate over use of sacred sites demonstrates this issue well. The struggle for American Indians to protect sacred sites and to have access to them for traditional ceremonies and rituals has been a hotly debated issue. For example, some Native nations have requested specific areas defined as sacred sites be off limits to people during a period when this area is in need of rejuvenating itself. At some of these sacred sites rock climbers and other tourists were asked to not use the area during a specific month. Many Americans recognized the importance of not entering this area during this period and respected the tribe's wishes. Others protested the closure and refused to respect the request of Native peoples. There are three examples of sacred sites currently being threatened. One is the Medicine Wheel in Wyoming, which is sacred to many tribes in Montana, Wyoming, Oklahoma and South Dakota. Another one is Mt Graham in Arizona. The third one is Badger Two Medicine in Montana where oil drilling would destroy a sacred area used by Blackfeet 79

PAGE 82

80 and other tribes. More recently other debates have surfaced such as snow making for ski areas on many mountains defined as sacred by Natives. Unfortunately while tribal governments are defined as sovereign nations they often must rely on the actions of the federal government and decisions of the Supreme Court to protect the limited rights they are allowed to exercise. As non-Indians and society encroach upon and threaten tribal sovereignty, tribal governments will continue appealing to the federal government. After all it was the federal government that defined itself as the legal guardian of Indians. It seems only fair that the federal government therefore fulfill its mission as the "protectorate" of Indian people. For the past one hundred years the federal government dominated tribal governments. This demonstrated in chapter three. However, in the last thirty years tribal governments have been asserting their sovereignty by lobbying Congress, negotiating with state governments, and making demands. Naturally a major obstacle of tribes in representing the interests of their members is their poor structures of government some of which were created during the reorganizational period in the 1930s. Some tribal members suggest that tribal governments that incorporate Anglo-American political values are faulty because they can not and do not adequately protect cultural values. In most cases, tribal members suggest American values work against traditional cultural values. No doubt Indian values such as consensus versus majority rule community rather than individualism, and a holistic approach to religion and politics are comprised to the point of extinction within some

PAGE 83

contemporary tribal governments. This certainly raises the question as to what extent tribal governments can be efficient and traditional at the same time, or must they give up their traditional values in order to interact on a government to government relationship. Whatever the outcome, we do know that as governments of all types become stronger there is little doubt they are better equipped to shape their governments in ways that better support the interests of their members, whether they are traditional, modern or mixture of the two More importantly, the level of sovereignty exercised by tribal governments will continue to be highly dependent upon two factors: the federal government recognizing and treating them as sovereign and the tactical responses of tribal governments to the various actors. It is within this context that tribal governments are increasingly becoming political actors and edging towards a higher level of sovereignty. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION: 1) Why is it important to define Indian Nations as Domestic Dependent Nations? 2) What was the impetus for the Indian Religious Rights Act? 3) If an Indian should kill a non-Indian on an Indian Nation other than their reservation, who has jurisdiction? 4) Why is tribal sovereignty so complex, ambiguous and important? 5) What does the Lyng case illustrate? 81

PAGE 84

CHAPTER FIVE (Much of the information in this chapter comes from data collected by the author for completion of Ph.D. dissertation in 1992) INDIGENOUS MOVEMENT POLITICS They promised us that we could fish ... as "long as the mountain stands, the grass grows green and the sun shines." But now the State of Washington has declared the steel head trout a "white man's fish." They must think the steelhead swam over behind the Mayflower (Steiner, 1968:55) The framers of the U.S. Constitution recognized the cultural diversity of American society but they could not have foreseen the influence this diversity would play in government. No doubt the framers saw the necessity of creating various channels for this diversity to express itself believing that various interests would lead to the creation of a number of factions forming. As long as there were a number of factions with diverse interests it was less likely these factions would become one large faction and overthrow the elites. Today, interest groups provide individuals with numerous channels, besides voting to shape legislation Simply put, interest groups or pressure groups, (pluralism as it is known) are groups of people who organize to pursue a common interest, passion, by applying pressure on the political process. The largest and probably the most powerful of U.S. interest groups are economic interest groups, groups that seek greater private profits for their members. Other interest groups are often organized around religious, social or political concerns and work on 83

PAGE 85

84 collective interests. A few examples are Common Cause, the National Organization of Women, the National Rifle Association and the National Congress of American Indians. Regardless of their respective diverse interests, all interest groups recognize the need to put pressure on government through an assortment of activities. The most common form of tactic is lobbying. Lobbyists are hired by the group to directly or indirectly influence legislation specific to the interests of the group they represent. Their activities include asking a congressional member to vote for or against a particular bill, raising monetary support for congressional campaigns writing letters to congress expressing the groups' interests, and aligning the group with other groups with similar goals and interests. While interest groups on the whole use institutional tactics to get their interests met, some groups use other types of activities defined as non-institutional or non-conventional. Non-institutional tactics are those tactics outside of the accepted institutional forum. Strikes, boycotts, demonstrations, protests and other forms of disruptive tactics are usually identified as non-conventional. When an interest group uses primarily non-institutional or non-conventional tactics they are viewed as engaging in movement politics. Therefore, it is fair to say that a social movement is an interest group, meaning it too is made up of people with a collective interest and attempts to influence policies in its direction, but what separates social movements from interest groups among other things, are the types of strategies used to achieve their goals. A useful definition of a social movement is, "rational attempts by excluded groups to mobilize sufficient

PAGE 86

political leverage to advance collective interests through non-institutional means (McAdam 1982, 37). Consequently, social movements are interest groups but interest groups are not necessarily social movements. Social movements often become interest groups like the Women's Movement became the National Organization of Women (NOW) or the Civil Rights Movement became various interest groups defending rights of African Americans These groups got involved in movement or confrontational politics when they realized their interests could be better achieved using the political process. Interest groups can also become a social movement particularly when the group recognizes that using conventional strategies do not further its interests and view themselves as excluded from politically participating. An example of this process is the National Indian Youth Council (NIYC). When Indians realized using conventional tactics was futile in getting their demands met they pursued strategies described as militant. Some key members of the NIYC eventually joined the American Indian Movement (AIM) and pushed the level of militancy even more. Another key difference between interest groups and movement politics is how American society reacts to them. American society has historically embraced interest group politics largely because they use the political channels open to them, voting, letter writing, signing petitions and so forth. When a group uses other types of strategies such as protest, demonstrations, occupations, economic boycotts and certainly tactics that entail a use of violence, Americans become less supportive. That is because Americans are socialized to support the political process 85

PAGE 87

8 6 and use the designated channels to get their demands met. The irony of this is that democracy in the United States has expanded greatly as a result of social movement activity. For example, the efforts of the labor movement severely expanded the voice of the worker and pushed government to institute a number of policies that protected workers, and created the conditions whereby workers could increase their political power. The Women's Movement also expanded the democracy of women in a number of ways, specifically by garnishing the vote for women, pushing for equality in the work force, and ensuring reproductive choice Finally, most American would acknowledge that without the Civil Rights Movement it is highly unlikely that Black Americans and other minorities would have the political and economic clout they have today These various movements worked to increase democracy for those Americans who may have been citizens but were largely excluded from full participation. During the period that many of these activities took place the United States experienced a level of social movement activity unparalleled since the depression decade of the 1930s. The Civil Rights Movement gained momentum the Anti-War Movement hit the street university students challenged restr i ctions on the right to free speech and numerous people participated in r i ots in the urban areas It was amidst this turmoil that Native Americans began to resist more intensely, policies of the United States Government. But how did Indians move from hopeless submission to hopeful noncompliance?

PAGE 88

THE EARLY YEARS OF INSURGENCY In the 1960s Indians numbered close to 1.5 million nationwide, and were scattered across 26 states in 278 reservations. They had an unemployment rate escalating in some areas to as high as 90 percent, an increasing birthrate, plus a large population under 19 years of age. With conditions like these Indians realized they needed to alter the grim statistics plaguing their lives and believed the only way they could turn these statistics around was to achieve some form of self-government. Merely demanding it had not proven to be effective, possibly taking it would. It was during this period that a new type of Indian materialized, ready to challenge the federal government in a more militant way. Consequently, out of a response to a lack of participation on the part of Indians in initiating and controlling government programs, a number of indigenous organizations began to spring up. Indian groups that used similar tactics as other American interest groups began to form. Membership of early American Indian interest groups was entirely white. And while the Friends of Indians and the Association on American Indian Affairs were good advocates for Indian interests, Indians began to realize Indian interests could only be achieved by Indians. Consequently on November 15, 1944 the National Congress of American Indians' convention assembled in Denver in hopes of creating an organization made up entirely by Indians. There is no doubt that the NCAIIaid the foundation for the creation of a more organized and militant national Indian movement. The first large national organized Indian event occurred in 1961. More than 500 87

PAGE 89

88 Native Americans from 67 tribes met in Chicago. The purpose of this meeting was to demand from the Kennedy Administration cultural survival and a preservation of their land base (New York Times Index). From this meeting a Declaration of Indian Purpose was generated, it stated: We believe in the inherent rights of all people to retain spiritual and cultural values and that the free exercise of these values is necessary to the normal development of any people. Indians exercised this inherent right to live their own lives for thousands of years before the white man came and took their lands When Indians speak of the continent they yielded, they are not referring only to the loss of some millions of acres in real estate. They have in mind that the land supported a universe of things they knew, valued, and loved. With that continent gone, except for the few parcels they still retain, the basis of life is precariously held, but they mean to hold the scraps and parcels as earnestly as any small nation or ethnic group was ever determined to hold to identity and survival (Witt and Steiner 1972:216). While many of the demands of the various tribes were cohesive, the meeting exposed a division among the more traditional members and the younger urban members. The younger and more militant members such as Clyde Warrior, an Oklahoma Ponca, thought that the declaration may have spelled out their desires but to believe participation in federal policies was the key to change was ignoring Indian history. He suggested a more aggressive policy needed to be implemented Several months later Clyde Warrior and other younger members met in New Mexico and formed the National Indian Youth Council (NIYC). The NIYC set the lead for which many of the organizations followed. They began to link members of the aggrieved population into a

PAGE 90

more organized campaign of mass political action. More importantly, the NIYC distinguished itself from other organizations by making a more visible shift toward activism. It called for the end to racism, ethnocentrism, and paternalism characteristic of many federal policies. They demanded a new role for Native Americans in determining policies that affected their lives--one that would not be given to them but one that they would create (Josephy 1971 ). The NIYC thus distinguished itself from the strict definition of interest groups and began to use tactics that would later define them as a movement. From 1961 through 1968 the NIYC and various tribes initiated many events directed at the federal government in an effort to alert the administration that a new Native American had arrived. Some events were initiated to bring tribes together such as the meeting in September of 1962 in North Carolina, where 75 tribal leaders met to unify their grievances; and in April of 1966 when the National Congress called for an emergency meeting of 80 representatives to reshape Indian policy. Other events were staged to increase Indian land base. The Sioux in Wisconsin sought to regain 800,000 acres of land ceded in 1837; the Seminoles in Florida and Oklahoma sought to regain 32 million acres; the Ottawa Tribe in Michigan demanded $938,291 for land sold to the government; and 40 Indians stopped logging operations as part of a long standing dispute over rights to 19,000 acres. Tribal jurisdiction was challenged in other events. In South Dakota tribes and various church groups opposed a referendum to bring dual federal/tribal law system under the state jurisdiction. And the American Indian National Congress supported the end of federal control of Indians in the state of 89

PAGE 91

90 Washington. Many groups and individuals Indians called for an increase in cultural and civil rights. The Iroquois in New York demanded the return of wampum belts from a New York museum; in San Francisco Native Americans declared textbooks slanderous to Indians; Mohawks boycotted school board elections in an effort to seek their right to vote; and, after protesting their right to travel freely on US/Canadian border and blocking a bridge 41 Indians were held by Canadian police. These types of events illustrate a change in the direction of Native Americans They signified a new nationalism and an awareness that was promoted particularly by the NIYC. No longer were Indians willing to sit passively while government orchestrated their destiny. There continued to be small protests to stock reduction, methods of education and other programs. However, these protests occurred in individual tribes and had very little support from other tribes or from non-indigenous groups. Consequently, a resurgent nationalism did not develop at this time Indians were still in a position of making very little progress towards changing the federal policies they individually or tribally opposed. Within a few years all of this was to change. The single greatest change in the structure of the Native American community in the '60s was the mass migration to urban centers. This migration had enormous political ramifications Either under the relocation programs or on their own volition, migration provided Indian organizations with thousands of Indians who if mobilized, could mount an effective insurgency. In this respect urbanization benefited Indian organizations. Yet, in another

PAGE 92

respect organizations were confronted with how the interests of those Indians living in the cities could be joined with the interests of those living on reservations. Indians living on the reservation were isolated from the urban events of the sixties and additionally held rather narrow political interests. Motivating them to challenge federal policies would be a difficult but necessary task. This task was undertaken by the American Indian Movement (AIM), an opposition group that was organized by a small group of Indians who began to observe the rising activism of African and Hispanic Americans. These urban Indians saw that their conditions were much worse than the general population, and moreover, worse than those minorities seeking change. Russell Means, an AIM activist and an urbanite at the time, said his involvement was generated by the realization of funds going to Blacks while Indians were virtually being overlooked. According to Means, the key to mobilizing Indians living on the reservation was to encourage them to continue resisting the BIA (a long-standing target of resistance) in conjunction with instilling a desire to return to their traditional customs. During the early stages of organizing, the newly developed groups were not completely clear as to the potential effects of motivating both sectors of the Indian population. "We just knew they had to be united," Means said. Getting the reservation Indians to recognize the need for change would come to be a major focus of the American Indian Movement. Migration made it possible to organize meetings and demonstrations easily. Combine these individuals with a portion of the reservation population willing to resist poor policy-making, and Americans began to see the creation of a social 91

PAGE 93

92 movement. Subsequently, the organization could not build their goals solely on the concern of either urban or reservation Indians. AIM organizers clearly defined their grievances as ones that affected both groups: self-determination. Broadly defined, self-determination served as the fundamental goal of the movement. AIM suggested that the problem facing all Indians was their lack of power to direct their destiny and change their conditions. Moreover this issue provided AIM leaders with the ability to easily mobilize various segments of the Indian population. No Indian or non-Indian could deny the historical realities of Indians. Government had already generated leanings toward self-determination it was just a matter of defining the term and forcing its implementation. Additionally, AIM did not demand the dissolution of other organizations. Using the courts and other less militant tactics such as monitoring legislative activities and other institutional activities were never fully relinquished nor discouraged by the movement. Unforeseen by the federal government as a stimulus of native activism was a policy developed in the 1960s. This policy allowed for land once used by the military to revert to its original owners if it was not in use. Many Indians saw this policy as an opportunity to announce their stance for Indian self-determination and rightfully claim much of the land defined by this policy. Out of response to the above policy, AIM initiated its first action in 1969, the occupation of Alcatraz Island .. We want all Indians people to join with us ... We are issuing this call in an attempt to unify all our Indian Brothers behind a common

PAGE 94

cause ... We realize ... that we are not getting anywhere fast by working alone as individual tribes. If we can gather together as brothers and come to a common agreement we feel that we can be much more effective doing things for ourselves instead of having someone else doing it telling us what is good for us (Josephey 1971: 187). The objective of the occupation was twofold: first to acquire Alcatraz and build a cultural center for Native Americans ; second to use the occupation as a basis for launching a pan-Indian movement. The first objective was never realized the second was This dramatic opportunity captured national press coverage and brought to the attention of Indians as well as non-Indians that an insurgency was in the making. More importantly it signaled the United States as to the arrival of AIM The main objectives of the militant activists in AIM were to stop their land base from shrinking re-familiarize themselves with their cul ture and preserve the earth. And in order to achieve these object i ves AIM did not reject the probability of using violence. If violence was necessary to achieve its goal, then violence became an acceptable strategy of AIM After occupying the Island for 18 months the leadership returned the land, but not without some loss One of the principal Indian leaders was shot and killed by the federal government. As a result of Alcatraz other occupations of land and buildings occurred some resulted in violence and arrests. The following events reported in newspapers are a few of the activities that took place in cities across the United States: --Jane Fonda and over 100 Indians occupied Fort Lauten in Seattle in an attempt to make it into a cultural center, 72 people were arrested. 93

PAGE 95

94 --Eight Indians in New York City were arrested when they occupied Ellis Island and demanded that the island be made into a living center of Indian culture. --In Davis, California an unused army base was seized and occupied by 75 Indians who wanted to use it as a cultural center. --In Los Angeles, 12 Indians locked themselves in a museum to protest an exhibition of their ancestral bones. --In Minnesota, 35 Indians occupied an unused federal building stating that it be used as a cultural center. --In North Dakota, the Sioux occupied a portion of the Black Hills, held a prayer vigil and planned to fast until the land was returned to them. --And in Chicago over 80 Indians occupied the Nike Missile site in Chicago for 7 months to protest Indian housing in Chicago, 12 were arrested Numerous sit-ins were also a method used to bring attention to Indian causes. In Colorado a four-day sit-in was held demanding the commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs resign, nine protestors were jailed. In Cleveland, eight Indians were held by the police for demonstrating against the BIA in a eight-city campaign. In Ft. Totten over 40 Indians took over the jail and staged a peaceful sit-in to protest of police brutality. And in North Carolina, the Lumbee staged a classroom sit-in to oppose the integration of schools. Most of the events in the early part of the '60s began with few participants and less violence. As the end of the '60s neared events became larger and violence appeared with more frequency. At the same time, the use of courts as a form of strategy was used less but not

PAGE 96

completely abandoned. Indians were becoming increasingly disenchanted with the outcomes of the court hearings. In almost all court claims during this and prior periods, government responded to land claims and other claims with money. Money no longer would suffice The goals of the militant Indians shifted: large sums of money were now rejected and land was demanded instead (Means 1988). Occupations, sit-ins, and large demonstrations thus signaled to the government that the political current had begun to change. Grievances were taken from the courts and into the streets with much rapidity, further suggesting that to defy institutions from which they are excluded made little sense. To demand sovereignty by using non-conventional tactics was increasingly being embraced. THE PEAK In the 1970s, well past the peak of other protesting groups the shape of the Native American Movement began to change significantly; it became much more militant. How Indians in general viewed life, land and resources not only shaped the movement but also added to the epic confrontation between whites and Indians. Johansen and Maestas suggest that the rationalization of the accumulation of profits masks a clash between two fundamentally different world views: The Judea-Christian view i s anthropocentric: the human race is charged (as reflected in the Biblical book Genesis) with dominating the natural world. The Native Americans view, on the other hand, meshes humankind with nature as part of its dominant ways. The European immigrants had a well-defined concept of wealth and private property, which fueled their ambitions for accumulation; 95

PAGE 97

96 native cultures, with a few exceptions, had no such concept (1979:25-26). Furthermore, Judea-Christian (protestant) beliefs centers on the individual, while the ideas of Native Americans centers on the communal values of the nation or clan. Again the trait of individuality was strongly connected to ownership of property. Following the Lockeian view, private property was a natural right, but also the basis of civilized society. AIM organized several events that revealed differences in values between whites and Indians. For example, AIM asked the Cleveland Indian Baseball team and Pocatello Idaho University to drop its Indian mascot. Both institutions refused. Unlike Cleveland and Pocatello, Stanford students called for a change in the University mascot and Stanford complied. And in a different case the governor of Iowa ordered the remains of five graves taken off public display after a protest. These types of events were ones with which most non-Indians could empathize. Subsequently, these symbolic actions helped AIM in its effort to make Native Americans more conscious of the way non-Indians displayed Indians and their heritage. It was hoped that this consciousness would encourage Indians to change their place in American society while not alienating non-Indians. Consequently, during the '70s numerous suits were filed against the federal government. Most of these suits had to do with the return of land In 1972 a major suit was filed by 300 Indians demanded that the land claims reopen so that claims regarding leasing and gambling by tribes could be pursued. In few cases government responded positively.

PAGE 98

In most of these cases money continued to be given instead of land. For example the Acoma Pueblo in New Mexico was awarded $6.1 million out of court settlement when they originally sought $2.5 million ; the Osage in Oklahoma received $13.2 million for 28 million acres; and the Nez Perce in Idaho won $2,119,071 for land they sought to reclaim Also, in very few instances land was awarded. The Taos Pueblo i n New Mexico won a suit to regain use of Blue Lake The Yakima tribe received 21, 000 acres in central Washington (New York Times Index) Even though there appeared to be some initiatives on the part of the federal government to reform itself AIM continued to encourage the escalation of protests. A major march, the "Trail of Broken Treaties" was formed in the summer of 1972 by AIM activists This demonstration started in California and ended in Washington, D C Five hundred people part i cipated. For six days the activists occupied the BIA building, demanding amnesty and a return to tribal sovereignty One week later federal authorities gave the protesters immunity from prosecution and funds to help the marchers return home, but little else (Weyler 1982). This event, unfortunately did little to increase tribal sovereignty. I t did, however, get the attention of the media and as a result sparked other protests. In support of the BIA occupation 50 Indians invaded the BIA office in Custer S.D. and initiated a sit-in In another event, AIM organized a protest in Nebraska, where 200 Indians clashed with police seeking a stiffer sentence for a white man who had killed an Indian. The courthouse was burned, 8 Indians injured and 36 AIM members arrested. Another incident in Rapid City S.D. was held in support of those demonstrating against the light sentence. Twenty Indians were injured 97

PAGE 99

98 and 40 arrested. From February 27, 1973 through May 8, 1973, under the leadership of AIM, the town of Wounded Knee on Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota was occupied. This action made it inevitable that a qualitatively higher stage of resistance had developed. The site of this large occupation was symbolic to many Native Americans. This is the site where the infamous December 29, 1890, Wounded Knee massacre occurred. After the army disarmed Sioux warriors, the soldiers opened fire, killing an estimated 300 Indians, mostly women and children. In the occupation of February 1973, AIM demanded that the government investigate BIA practices on all Sioux Reservations in South Dakota, that government recognize the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty which formally gave Sioux sovereignty over much of what is now the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, and Nebraska, and eliminate federal control over Indians. An AIM founder and chair, Clyde Bellecourt said "the group organized the 1973 Wounded Knee occupation to draw maximum attention to the plight of American Indians" (Guardian 1990). The occupiers were surrounded by law enforcement officials, the military, and the FBI. The confrontation ended in a negotiated settlement. In the end more than 100 Indians were arrested, two were killed and 15 injured. Wounded Knee clearly illustrates the repressive nature of the government. The Nixon Administration responded as if it was a war rather than a peaceful occupation. Nixon ordered that "troops, tanks, planes and helicopters" go to Wounded Knee, "to teach the Indian militants a lesson" (Ortiz 1984a: 160).

PAGE 100

The effect Wounded Knee had on the movement and on society in general was enormous. This event sparked a number of events across the nation. Many events were staged by Indians and non-Indians in support of Indian grievances and were in support of the occupiers of Wounded Knee. However the federal government attempted to suppress this support as well. For example, the caravan representing "people of all races" was intercepted by federal authorities when they attempted to bring food for the militants at Wounded Knee A group of Chippewa and Iroquois were charged with intent to incite a riot when they crossed the state line in support of the Wounded Knee occupiers. And 13 supporters were arrested while transporting supplies to Wounded Knee on charges of violating federal anti-riot laws. Although the Occupation of Alcatraz in 1969 the Trail of Broken Treaties caravan in 1972, and the Occupation of Wounded Knee in 1973 were the most dramatic and most publicized events of Native Americans many other events occurred. A 1 00-mile march took place in Raleigh North Carolina in support of Indians controlling Indian schools Twenty Indians and Black supporters were arrested for protesting on the steps of the North Carolina State Indian Commission building when they sought to gain recognition as members of Tuscarora Tribe. In Sacramento, California six armed Indians were arrested after they occupied the site of a proposed governor's mansion which occupiers claim was ancient burial ground. In the Black Hills in South Dakota, over 500 Indians occupied the area stating the land is Indian land. And in February of 1978, AIM member Clyde Bellecourt led more than 200 Native Americans on the "Longest Walk" from Alcatraz to Washington, D C to protest a rash of 99

PAGE 101

100 anti-Indian legislation. With AIM still at the organizational helm conventional tactics were seen as basically ineffective. Courts were still being used, but not as widely. The number of positive responses by government to the demands of Indians began to decline significantly, and they were still ones that dealt with less volatile issues. They dealt mainly with civil rights--the right to segregated schools, the use of peyote in religious rites--and less with land and money matters. Furthermore, for the first time in contemporary society land was taken away under the guise of serving the larger society. More importantly, this period reflects heavy government repression in almost all of the protests that followed Many arrests, injuries and some deaths occurred. During the year following Wounded Knee, over 300 Indian deaths occurred at the hands of police and federal authorities. Between 1970 and 1976, hundreds perhaps thousands of Black and Indian activists particularly the leadership were murdered or imprisoned While many activists of all protesting groups felt heavy repression, "the attacks on Indian demonstrators and organizers and especially AIM activists were particularly brutal, with a far greater ration of deaths and imprisonments than any other sector" (Ortiz 1984a : 167). AFTER THE PEAK After the Occupation of Wounded Knee and through 1978 the number of protests declined significantly. Moreover, while the number of protesters at a single event did not drastically change the length of the protest declined. It became obvious that government would not tolerate another

PAGE 102

lengthy occupation. Furthermore, many of these events resulted in the deaths or incarceration of AIM leaders and/or protesters (Means 1 988). One of the reasons speculated for the increased government suppression is that government had already experienced the tumultuous '60s During this period local and federal troops had been mobilized to suppress Blacks, Chicanos, students and whites. The response of the government to Native protest may have been a response to societal upheaval in general. A speedy roundup of the "trouble makers" may have been a signal from the U S Government that protest of any kind would not be tolerated. Activists not involved in violence were left alone by the federal government. Organizations such as the National Congress of American Indians that provided funds for voting rights, and the Native American Rights Funds, a national Indian interest law firm were not suppressed by government (Echohawk 1 988). Marches and other forms of civil disobedience became more acceptable strategies for native activists. Subsequently the basic complexion of the Native American movement changed markedly ; partially because of the increased suppression of Indians, and partially because non-Indian supporters saw Wounded Knee as a government fiasco As a result, membership in AIM and other Indian organizations changed The movement began to attract an increase in non-Indian supporters, including environmentalists and those individuals concerned with religious and cultural rights (Gurwitz 1 987). Furthermore, since AIM's hegemony over the movement's formal organizational structure was decreasing, other less militant groups 101

PAGE 103

102 developed. None of these organizations, however, succeeded in dominating the movement's formal structure, as AIM had been able to do earlier. The relative calm prevailing on most reservations since the late 1970s does not necessarily suggest that Native Americans are less actively committed to the goals they once held so fervently. On the contrary, the movement changed in order to accommodate the political climate of the time. Purged of many of its more radical leaders after Wounded Knee, and thus leaving few Indians who were able to generate enthusiasm, and fewer who were willing to take risks, the movement had no choice but to change. In addition, the movement was infiltrated heavily by the FBI to the point that FBI agents were investigated by a United Nations committee. While this did little to curtail government actions it did contribute heavily to the reluctance of protesters to challenge the government in the same militant way. Consequently, many activists began to work are local issues which pertained to their particular environment, and less with national issues In addition, a number of Indians joined the efforts of non-Indian organizations, specifically those that focused on environmental issues and religious freedom Many Indians began to view these organizations as the vehicle for change. However, activism within the United States did not completely disappear. Such events as the fight against the relocation of Navajos in Arizona, and the dispute between the Mohawks and the governments of Canada and the United States support this statement. It also illustrates that activism in the domestic arena changed markedly in the absence of

PAGE 104

a centralized organizational structure such as AIM. As a result of Wounded Knee and the subsequent actions of government many activists realized how instrumental the federal government was in blocking their progress towards self-determination. New methods of achieving their goals had to be initiated. A NEW KIND OF ACTIVISM Marginalized groups, like American Indians, have historically used social movement activity as a strategy to generate power and social change In the late 1950s and '60s, litigation was used by a number of protesting groups with some success. The most notable of these was the work of the litigation activities of the early Civil Rights Movement regarding issues of school desegregation. Federal courts were more willing to open their doors to the claims of the disenfranchised and certain minority groups in American society. The Warren Court, particularly, provided a period of judicial activism unforeseen in earlier periods. The apparent success in civil rights litigation and the receptivity of courts encouraged other groups to adopt litigation as a strategy. Similar to activists in the Civil Rights Movement, American Indian activists advocated law reform in their efforts to seek greater tribal self determination. Given Indians relationship with federal and state governments and the administrative machinery created to control them, it has been difficult to increase the rights of Indians within typical mainstream politics such as strictly institutional methods. Indian activists resurfaced in the early '90s with new leaders and new ideas on how to generate social change. During this time Indian activism shifted from the cities and more directly to federally recognized 103

PAGE 105

104 reservations, from the streets into the courtrooms, and once again began demanding a level of tribal sovereignty. Land, and culture continued to be key issues, but sovereignty in economic development became major goals. For most movements as long as the tactics are nonviolent they are accorded greater legality and legitimacy by society and public officials. Therefore, the use of courts for Indians has made their issues more salient and led to greater responses by the federal government than have other forms of collective behavior, certainly more than those tactics which encompassed the use of violence. In the 1990s the stage had been set for increased Indian judicial activism. In 1986 Congressional leaders initiated the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) that essentially stated tribal governments could initiate gaming but were encouraged to go into a compact (agreement of some sort) with states contributing to less conflict. States are now interpreting the IGRA as unfair to states and suggest it gives tribes too much power. Powerful corporate casino owners continue to fuel the animosity towards Indians by suggesting Indians receive preferential treatment. High-powered constituents voice their fear of organized crime that often follows gambling. States assert the IGRA violates the 1Oth and 11th Amendments. Indians confront and debate each other as to the consequences of this relatively new form of economic development. And among all of these various actors and diverse interests, tribes push ahead with their inherent rights of tribal sovereignty, historically limited but certainly not given to them by the federal government. Herein lies the conditions for increased Indian political activity and the increased use

PAGE 106

of litigation as a tool for social reform. It is within this context that Indians are increasingly becoming political actors. For the first time, the battle over Indian gaming forced tribal governments to hire high-priced Washington lobbying firms to appeal to Congress in attempt to make the system Indians confront less adversary. For example, the Viejas Tribe of Alpine, California and the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians of Indio, California hired the Jefferson Group, a major Washington public affairs group that represent the tribes on a number of issues besides gaming. The use of lobbying as a strategy points to the realization on the part of tribal governments that politics have clearly taken a major shift from protest in the streets to the hall-ways of Congress and eventually to the Courts. As the resources of tribal governments increase and as they get familiar with how American politics is played, the level of tribal sovereignty has increased. The second largest casino in the world, the Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut, ran by the tiny Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, grossed approximately $600 million dollars in 1993. Tribes have been able to build schools, community centers, child-development centers, new housing, provide college tuition and health care as a result of this new political resource. Consequently, the type of activities Indians use has been and will continue to be a strange mixture of institutional and non-institutional strategies. Various tribal rights are at the heart of Indian sovereignty and continue to play a role in Indian activism If we mix in with sovereignty levels of self-determination, tribal federal recognition, state jurisdiction, inter-tribal conflict, and stir in the free-market, notably corporate 105

PAGE 107

106 interests, and states seeking to increase their jurisdiction and protect their citizens, we have an arena of increased conflict ready to explode. Indian mobilization to a great extent is shaped by the political and economic context within which Indians live. The formation of Indian activists is a response to a structure largely determined by federal Indian policies, i.e. Congress. Indian activism is a tactical reaction to policies that Indians believe to be unfair. The diverse interests, therefore, will generate a new kind of Indian activism; one which will continue to be fought in the courtroom. The shift to the courtroom does not suggest that the protest on reservations will cease, however Like the'?Os, the activists of the '90s realize that pressure must be maintained against certain interests within the reservation, while their lawyers battle it out in the halls of justice. Given the confusion, ambiguity and self-interest of congress, litigation will undoubtedly be the preferred strategy in issues regarding tribal sovereignty. The very issues that led to the Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890 and the 1973 Wounded Knee Uprising have not gone away. Even though self-determination of Indians has increased as a result of Indian activism, it has not reversed the general plight of Indians. What does have the capacity to reverse some of the poor conditions on reservations is tribal independence, most notably the ability of tribes to select the type of economic development they believe would best change these conditions. More important, what we see by the 1990s, then, is a shift in political factors that have the potential to contribute to the use of litigation as a form of rebellion and thus provide

PAGE 108

tribal governments with a much-needed resource. Since more than 400 treaties and 5,000 statutes, a number of Supreme Court rulings, and hundreds of federal regulations define in one way or another Indians' special relationship to the United States, there is no doubt that litigat i on will continue to be used to unravel the confusion brought on with the numerous policies initiated by congress. The revenue generated, by gaming for example provides tribes with the much-needed political clout to play mainstream politics as never before In 1993-94, for example, the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, which runs a successful casino in Connecticut, gave $365,000 to Democrats and $100,000 to Republicans. Similar to American politics, the political and economic link between Congress and corporate interests aggravates the historical tension between larger society and American Indians. Political scientists normally refer to the creation of this tension in American Politics as iron triangles. An iron triangle is the alliance formed among a private interest group, most often a business or corporation, an agency in the executive branch, and the committees or subcommittees in Congress. The goal of this alliance is to advance and protect government progress that benefits the various parts of the triangle A commonly cited (and natural) alliance that exists is the Senate and House agriculture committees the Department of Agriculture and the American Dairy Association. Another example is an alliance among the Pentagon, defense contractors and the armed services committees of Congress. This alliance appears to g i ve powerful interest groups instant access to decision makers, while shutting out those interests that might oppose them. A very common alliance within American politics is among 1 07

PAGE 109

108 congressional members, corporations, and bureaucratic agencies that deal with economic development. The alliance between Congress and corporate interest on the issue of gaming did in fact evolve. In May 1993 Representative Robert Torricelli from New Jersey and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada introduced a bill that would amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The act stipulated that those states that offer one form of gaming, such as lottery, would not have to negotiate with tribes to set up full-scale casino gaming. Furthermore, the bill also would make state gabling laws applicable on Indian Territory. It shouldn't surprise us that these representatives come from Nevada, home of the largest corporate casinos, and Atlantic City and New Jersey, where Donald Trump owns three gabling establishments. These types of legislation have surfaced in the recent past, specifically since Indian gabling has turned into a billion-dollar industry. This example clearly demonstrates that when it comes to Indian gaming Congress is more supportive of corporations and states than Indian economic development, particularly since tribal governments wield very little comparative political power. This link, however, is not new in American Indian politics. Congress has set numerous policies that restricted the power of tribal governments and essentially allocated power to corporations. A case in point was the congressional action in passing the Navajo Relocation Act in 1976. While the passage of this policy was touted by the media and decision makers as a necessary step to protect Navajo and Hopi tribes from each other, it has been well documented that the interests of Peabody Coal, and other corporations and states, were met with the relocation of Indians. The same could be said for the Indian Relocation Act, enacted

PAGE 110

146 years prior to the Navajo act. Congress passed the act in 1830 under the guise of protecting Indians while working to secure the interests of the state of Georgia, specifically gold on Cherokee land. There are numerous examples that clearly link the actions of Congress to the interests of corporations and states. As one part of the iron triangle, it is clear that Congress can ensure to a large degree tribal interest can be easily sidestepped particularly when they conflict with the interests of corporations and states. Congressional representative behavior is not likely to change unless they have something to lose. Anti-Indian efforts of political leaders have had the potential of backfiring on them. For example, the popularity of Government Symington of New Mexico dropped 15 points partially attributed to his anti-gaming stand. Symington eventually lost in his bid for re-election. Added revenue of tribal governments has the potential of shifting the playing field in the direction of Indians. 109 No doubt, from the top, the failure of federal government to protect its "wards" will contribute to an arena of conflict. From the bottom, the continued use of non-institutional strategies such as protests, blockades, and large demonstrations, plus the use of various institutional means such as lobbying, campaign contributions, and litigation will continue to keep the activism alive. All of this discussion on interests clearly supports the statement that the more political resources interest groups have, the better equipped they are in getting their interests met. Tribes are no different.

PAGE 111

110 INTEREST GROUPS WITHIN TRIBAL GOVENRMENTS The unique status of tribal governments no doubt makes them more vulnerable not only to interests outside of their territory but also interests within their territory by their respective members. Two examples provided earlier, Martinez v. Santa Clara Pueblo Nation and Native American Church v. Navajo Tribal Council, demonstrate the type of pressure members can apply on tribal governments. When tribal sovereignty is challenged by its members, as in the above cases, the highest courts often uphold the doctrine of tribal sovereignty. In other situations, Indians may have to organize and challenge tribal and federal power. For example, American Indian women must fight not only racial and cultural oppression off the reservations, but also face the realities of sex discrimination on the reservation, described in the following chapter. Like other disenfranchised, excluded and disillusioned Americans, Indians designed an explosive movement, one that to many Indians, generated pride in their heritage if nothing more. Nevertheless, government could not allow disruptive politics to become the norm as it seemed it had as a result of the tumultuous 60s. Consequently the U.S. Government stopped the movement quickly land funneled that disruptive anger into more institutional means. Interestingly enough, the very structure created by Chief Justice Marshall in 1830, dependent domestic nation, provides tribal governments with a powerful legal tool other protesting groups do not have. This is a political relationship, not a racial one, and is based on the inherent sovereignty of tribal governments. What the future holds for

PAGE 112

American Indians will be largely determined by the federal government to uphold its promise of being the good guardian, and upon the power attained by its wards to maintain the rights and culture of its members. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION: 1) Why don't Indians use interest group politics to get their demands met? 2) How are tribal government able to use the courts to get their needs met? 3) Explain the iron triangle as it pertains to Indian interests? 4) To what extent can one say the activities of AIM were successful? 5) Identify the main characteristics of institutional and non institutional tactics? 111

PAGE 113

112 CHAPTER SIX (Portions of this chapter were originally published in The New Political Science Volume 21 No 3 September 2001) INDIGENOUS WOMEN We got those changes for them, and that's what the chiefs never realized-we're on their side. We've always been for Native rights and the good of all Native people, the First Nations. The time has come for men to stop fighting against the women and start listening to us and working with us. {Silman, 1987: 15) In Martinez v. Santa Clara Pueblo Nation (1978) the Supreme Court agreed with the tribe's argument that tribal membership is a matter for the tribe to determine, not the federal government. Consequently the child of Julia Martinez could not be tribally enrolled in either tribe of the parent even though she is a full-blooded Indian. Martinez, a member of the Santa Clara Pueblo Nation, brought a suit against her tribe because it did not recognize her daughter as a member. Santa Clara Pueblo consider children of male tribal members eligible for membership, but children of female members who marry nonmembers, as Ms. Martinez did, were ineligible. Unlike many other Indian nations, the Santa Clara Pueblo is a patrilineal society where membership is defined through the father Since the father is not a member of the Santa Clara Pueblo, the child could not be tribally enrolled. When tribal sovereignty is challenged by its members similar to the above case, the Supreme Court often upholds the doctrine of tribal sovereignty while denying interests of tribal members. Forcing tribal

PAGE 114

members to organize and challenge tribal and/or federal power, as was necessary for Canadian Native women to do in order to stop over one hundred years of legislated sexual discrimination Native women. In June of 1985 the Canadian Parliament passed a bill that would allow the Tobique Reserve women in New Brunswick, Canada the right to be defined as members of their tribe. The new bill amended the original Indian Act that deprived women of receiving assistance to which they normally were entitled. Similar to the Santa Clara Pueblo Nation, the Indian Act was based on a patrilineal system, a system where a person's tribal status is determined by a person's relationship to a male, who is a direct descendent in the male line of another male. Subsequently, when a Canadian Indian woman marries a non-status man, known as "marrying out", she loses her Indian status, and is unable to regain it. In contrast, the wife and children of an Indian man receive his status, even if they are non-native. This makes an Indian woman virtually dependent upon father and husband for her identity, rights, and status. Whether or not the Pueblo Nation and the Maliseets (Tobique) are traditionally patrilineal (of which they are not) is irrelevant. Native women in matrilineal nations share similar experiences. Imposed patriarchal structures have the wherewithal to withstand any number of events, situations, and desire for change, demonstrating that the consequences of colonization run deep. Furthermore any attempts by women to change gender bias laws are rarely supported by tribal leaders. Many of the Canadian Native women who supported the amendment process of the Indian Act were attacked by Indian leaders, labeled as white-washed 113

PAGE 115

114 women's libbers" undermining their Indian heritage. And any efforts by Martinez to appeal the court's decision would have been defined by tribal members as challenging tribal sovereignty, making it difficult if not impossible, for her to pursue her self-interest. Moreover, Native women in both countries who challenge tribal sovereignty are often accused of tampering with the special legal status held by both Native populations. Fear of a return to the Termination Era of the 1950s is often cited as a reason not to support women's rights. No doubt all Native people remain cognizant of termination,. However, within larger society and in Indian society, women's issues are often viewed as "women's work", not the work of the tribe. So what does the tribe have to do with these special rights ask tribal leaders naturally dominated by men? We know all too well that women's issues tend to go largely ignored specifically in racial or ethnic groups where racism or in the case or Native people, colonization, is viewed as the more cogent issue. In fact, women who work on women's issues rather than the defined interest of the group are often viewed as selfish, self-centered and identified by members of the group as not being of that group. In other cases these women are identified as "too European." In the liberation struggles of the American indigenous peoples it is no different. Women of color, states Jaimes-Guerrero, "generally tend not to favor the notion of a "politics" which would divide and weaken their communities by defining "male energy as the enemy." Narrow interpretations of Feminism, Marxism and other "isms" are often rejected purely on the notion that they are Eurocentric, that they come from progressive non-Indian nations and the United States Government where

PAGE 116

"divide and conquer" tactics have been practiced. Therefore, it is not surprising that Indians would be heavily suspicious of anything with a tinge of whiteness to it and interpret these doctrines as continuing colonization in the name of "gender equity". "We are American Indian women, in that order," stated Lorelei Deora Means one of the founders of Women of All Red Nations (WARN) (Jaimes, et al 1992:331-336). While WARN was an indigenous women's organization it was oppression first and foremost, specifically colonization, that they were fighting, not gender inequality. History suggests that the disempowerment of Indian women corresponds with colonial domination. However, there is little to suggest that with decolonization, native women would once again become empowered. The imposed tribal governments transformed indigenous male attitudes toward women, and continued the process imperialism began by consolidating patriarchal and racist gender values into tribal structure. Even in those tribal governments where women have become tribal leaders, American Indian men continue to the chief beneficiary, not women. Incidents of inequality of Indian women have a history and a chronology to them that can be traced. Colonization occurred within a people that has not been completely conquered nor completely assimilated. Had assimilation of American Indian women been complete we would have to examine racism and sexism as it applies in American society and institutions, possible thus giving the typical feminist approach more usefulness and increased validity. As it is, most of the inequality of Indian women is rooted in federal government policies and events. 115

PAGE 117

116 Removal and relocation polices thrust various and culturally different tribes together forcing new and sometimes different divisions among men and women. Failed assimilation policies like the General Allotment Act and Urban relocation attempted to change the historical power Indian women possessed and their control over land. Euro-Americans imposed racial hierarchy and its gender politics on tribal government through the Indian Reorganization Act that further disempowered women from politics. The indoctrination of Indian men into the all-male administrative machinery, specifically the BIA, secured economic rights for men while eroding rights for women. Insidious paternalistic Christian religions and white educational systems that focused on domesticating women diminished the right of women. And more recently contemporary legislation created to provide self-determination for the tribe and increased rights for women, in reality may be more illusionary than establishing any meaningful level of self-determination. These structural entities combined with gender socialization and situational constraints have firmly set the stage for the increased inequality of women on and off the reservation. However, the process of gender related inequality and violence began during the high level of colonial penetration by Europeans. This process was continued and maintained by the creation of Federal Indian Legislation developed to meet the needs of the new Americans, not the first Americans. In order for this process to take hold, Indigenous men were forced to perpetuate the same type of gender inequality that was practiced by the new Americans. Consequently, indigenous women were displaced from their indigenous purpose and relegated to an unfamiliar, inferior and often

PAGE 118

subjugated position to Indian men and to whites. While some colonizers, specifically the French and Spanish, may have had less aversion to interracial unions and may have treated Indian women somewhat differently than the English, there is little to suggest they were more equal or less oppressive All colonizers drew upon their own histories and experiences in their treatment of American Indian women. What can be gleaned from these histories is that women within Europe were often viewed as being "no worse than domesticated animals" (Mama 1997). Bringing these ideas with them, the English arrived eager to create a new and free nation full of liberties and equality, albeit with the exclusion and participation of women. For sure, it would have been impossible to create the kind of nation the English envisioned had Native women participated in politics at the same level they had prior to the arrival of the Europeans, largely because at this time the new American government was giving shape to developing its racist ideologies and practices. The new Americans believed the economic and political development of the United States was dependent upon the transformation of both Indian men and women in the way they organized, socialized and politicized. Consequently in their pursuit of capitalist models of development, the new Americans created a system of gender inequality within larger society and within Indian communities. In no other period was this transformation so apparent as in the fur trade of the eastern interior of North America During this early period Indians were incorporated into a mercantile economy dominated by a few European states. The purpose of this relationship was to make 117

PAGE 119

118 Indians producers of fur and consumers of European products. Incorporation into the labor force, the first and last of its type, significantly transformed the gender division of labor that had for many years sustained the livelihood of Indians. Indian men were forced to hunt for more and more furs while Indian women tended to fiercely defend and maintain their traditions, culture, lifestyle and equality, an equality that would prove to be an impediment to the envisioned economic development of the Europeans. Since women were seen as wielding power over Indian men, it was important to transform the Indian man to take charge of "his women," similarly to European men. Confining women to the home, defined as domesticating women, was a precondition for the transfer of power from women to men, and in the end made it easier for Europeans to create male-dominated structures and systems. Not much changed with the decline of the fur trade. Europeans continued in their attempts to solve their dilemma of acquiring Indian land, land that traditionally was in the hands of Indian women. The "Indian problem" as seen by Euro-Americans and defined by Stephen Cornell in his book The Return of the Native, was an economic problem, that is how best to get the Indian's land without Indians knowing and reacting to it. For the first three centuries from 1600 to 1800 Europeans, and subsequently the United States Government, developed treaties and then policy after policy in their attempt to solve this problem. Naturally, the focus on domesticating Indian women became primary, specifically since women were the caretakers and holders of the land. And certainly by the removal period in the 1830s male tribal leaders began to adopt

PAGE 120

non-tribal ideas as they related to the role of women. Obviously men experienced increased benefits by conforming and participating in these ideas. Cornell states that although Indian communities were severely transformed the new American still needed to culturally transform Indian women, because as land changed from the hands of Indians to whites, Indian women experienced less equality. Furthermore, the women were socialized to become subservient not only to whites but to Indian men as well. By all accounts this did not occur at any high rate. If anything the displacement of women from the land through the Indian Removal Act and the General Allotment Act contributed to high levels of hunger among Indians Women were no longer able to cultivate the land as they traditionally had done. This period was the initially beginning of converting the role of Indian women from the land to the home. Americans had hoped that with the transfer of land from women to men, the transfer of power out of the hands of women and into the hands of men would follow. This would alter the way tribes organized and interacted with the federal government and hopefully begin to solve the second Indian problem: Cultural transformation, attempts to transform Indians ranging from total exclusion to annihilation. Given the historical consequences of dominant society on the various Indian cultures, how then was gender inequality to be reversed? Efforts by women and men to reverse many of the consequences of colonization had to be developed by Indian men and women for colonizers are not known for liberating the colonized. Some Indian women suggest American Indian women do not need liberation They 119

PAGE 121

120 suggest that they have always been liberated within their tribal structure. This is somewhat correct. The previous historical account supports this. However, to suggest that liberation is not needed is to maintain tribal structures were not manipulated, transformed and controlled by the American federal government. It is also to suggest that the campaign to remove, relocate, (adopt, board-out, foster-out, farm-out) and assimilate many Indians had little to no consequences. On the contrary, Indian women will need to liberate themselves from the consequences of capitalism, civilization and Christianization. This liberation would in essence require a separate process of decolonization, one that will challenge the sexism created on tribal grounds. It is unfair and incorrect to suggest that American Indian communities and nations are free of gender abuse and inequality merely because they are geographically separated from large society or because of cultural traditions closely tied to matrilineal and matriarchy, two explanations often provided. These explanations tend to suggest that American Indian cultures are stagnant, thereby overlooking the impact of patriarchal civilization. History has taken its toll on Indians and disproportionately on Indian women and their land. The transfer of land out of the hand of Indian women contributed to the pollution of water and land, the destruction of land, disruption of the ecosystems, and inappropriate land-use patterns. Since many problems faced by the global arena today can be traced to the treatment and use of land, traditional Indians believe that had women been left as the caretakers of the land fewer of these problems would exist. More specifically, without the subjugation of American Indian women and men, it is unlikely that the

PAGE 122

United States would have developed such a strong economic, social and political base. To be sure, economic growth was dependent upon acquisition of Indian land. Additional, the acquisition of liberty and equality and property for the new Americans was dependent upon stripping Indians of theirs. This raises the question as to whether American Indian women experienced greater liberation with the demise of colonial rule and the creation of tribal governments governed by Indians. Would Indian nationalists, largely men, merely continue the trajectories of contempt and disempowerment, as has been shown to be the case in other nationalist movements? Given the time and effort put into changing the relations between Indian men and women plus the natural tendency of nationalist movements, it is unlikely that men would further work to restore gender equality. There is also little evidence to suggest that indigenous elites, historically men, would revert to more traditional ways regarding women. On the contrary, there is much evidence to suggest the opposite. Given this reality, what are the options of Indian women? A major criticism of Marxism and/or feminism is that they are Eurocentric paradigms. Does this then mean that we should automatically disregard their validity in providing some usefulness in the struggle of Native women for equality? To suggest that these paradigms are "being perpetuated at the expense of the indigenous world view" is narrow and misleading. In reality, the campaign against feminism and Marxism has been done at the expense of forming any critical analysis of gender socialization within Indian communities. That is to say, it is easier to 121

PAGE 123

122 criticize the federal government, Marxism, and white women, good straw men and easy targets, than it is to develop a critical analysis about native men and women. We now know that many of the women in the civil rights movements did not examine the dichotomies at play between men and women within that movement until the movement was well over Indian women, largely Indian activists, have not developed a critical analysis of men in the American Indian Movement either. Consequently, the power and abuse of power by men in powerful positions within the tribal structure, the community or the movement, has largely gone unchallenged. In many cases what holds Indian women back from examining their situation is an assumption held by many minority women. This assumption is that somehow women of color are exempt from patriarchy, that somehow Indian cultures are free of domination, and that Indian men are not dominating. To hold colonization solely responsible without forming a more contemporary explanation tied to colonization, does little to change the pattern of abuse and inequality, or reverse its tendencies. Until American Indian women and men can face the reality that sexism empowers men despite the overall impact of colonialism it will be difficult to engage in any meaningful dialogue about gender. And until all women can face the reality that women cannot achieve real equality under the strategies and tactics of nee-liberal, patriarchal politics, little will change. Therefore, what might be useful is realizing that the sense of priorities of Indian women are radically, and irrevocably different from those espoused by the mainstream women's movement. First of all, Indian women were not integrated into the economic structure portraying

PAGE 124

different types and levels of subjugation and oppression as African, Asian and Latin women. The gender division of labor for Indian women was not illuminated through sexual work, factory work, domestic work, or informal work. Consequently the limited integration of Indians into the economic structure, the level of wage inequality experienced by native women, is significantly smaller and different when compared to other women. This may be one reason why liberal feminist ideas geared toward pay equity and equality do not resonate well among Indian women. As Piven and Cloward (1979) suggest "people cannot defy institutions to which they have not access, and to which they make no contribution." Still, it was the incorporation of men into the fur trade, and subsequently into other forms of economic development that changed the lives Indian women. Within the economy there is no direct consequence to Indian women, but since one of the traits of traditional societies is collective, any efforts to move towards an individual lifestyle, significantly disrupts the collective as a whole. The search for an understanding of the sources and nature of Native women's oppression and for an appropriate remedy for it, may well serve as the basis for analyzing the usefulness of any one of the strands of feminism. Whether we examine and integrate portions of the liberal equal rights version of feminism, radical feminism that is deeply rooted in male dominance, or socialist feminism which views the oppression of women as a part of the workings of capitalism is irrelevant. To have a narrow interpretation of feminist theories or disregard their importance may not increase the equality of Native women. Clearly, Indian women must fight not only gender oppression but 123

PAGE 125

1 2 4 also racial and cultural oppression. Indian women who live off reservations, consisting of about two-thirds of the native population, and on the reservation must face the realities of sexism, racism and colonization off reservation, and when they return to the reservation they face sexism and colonization. Therefore, the different manifestations of sexism and violence on the reservations should not, nonetheless, be trivialized, ignored or not recognized as gender related even though the large issue of tribal sovereignty reigns. There are also variant strands of Marxism One identify ing characteristic and strength of Marxism is its emphasis on a theory of change. This theory is generated by Marx's dialectical method that carries several implications. Similar to Indigenous societies is Marx's focus on the whole. This parts-and-whole is in Motion changing, creating something it was not before. Change is thus the natural mode of existence. New forms of Marxism do not prescribe how change is to be accomplished, for there is a fairly broad spectrum of positions on the issue but again, to obscure the fact that much can be used in any one of the strands of Marxism is to ignore it potency. Portions of feminism and Marxism emphasize the needs for self-confrontation and the rejection of capitalist consciousness. Both connect their personal everyday lives with the large struggle for reconstruction of society. Both paradigms stress social change. The question of how change is accomplished is where the discussions diverge. One thing is certain for both feminists and Marxists the process of change is definitely a bottom-up one and often may entail direct confrontation with elites structures, and/or

PAGE 126

systems By focusing on change from the bottom-up and attacking elitesindigenous and non-indigenous--structures and systems the Tobique women in Canada were able to expand their rights. The Canadian women first accepted the realities and consequences of their history and organized a movement where that history did not overshadow their main goal of gender equality. This is a classic case where tribal sovereignty was working against the interests of women. The organizers of this movement first realized and identified the patterns of subjugation, i.e., sexual discrimination and shaped their resistance accordingly, moving from hopeless submission to hopeful noncompliance. The Tobique women shared their testimony about their conditions but not without high risks. The Indian Act that governed the life of Indian and defined who is and who is not legally Indian was finally amended. A portion of the Act, mainly the part that stripped women of their rights if they married non-status men, was earmarked for change. As early as 1970 Native women began to organize across Canada. "We Mohawk women were the first to complain about Indian women losing our birthright. When the Tobique women came along and joined the fight, we were delighted. I was honored to be with them when they started the march to Ottawa that triggered publicity about Indian women fights for rights. With their continued help we hope all our Native sisters will be able to go home to the i r people in peace." (Silman:1987) By 1977 the United Nations had agreed to hear their case, on the grounds that Native women had no legal recourse left in Canada. From 1 25

PAGE 127

126 1977 until 1981 when the U.N. Human Rights Committee ruled in favor of finding Canada in breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Tobique women held long walks and numerous events all in a effort to bring attention to their cause. In the end, the efforts of the Tobique women changed the Act and increased Indian sovereignty even though the men did not see it that way. Structurally Indian men had acquired all of the political resources and lobbying power to obstruct the women's efforts and certainly did not view it as furthering tribal sovereignty. To the contrary they viewed this change as they should have, they were losing power. As a result of the women's work, Indian Affairs of Canada allowed Indian people to decide their membership rather than that decision being made from the top down as it historically had been done. As the Tobique women demonstrated, working outside of the tribal structure for change had more potential of furthering Indian sovereignty than did working within the confines of the existing sexist tribal structure. That is to say, that in their efforts to achieve gender equality, the consciousness of male tribal leaders and of all Indians was heavily affected, leading to an increase of tribal sovereignty rather than a decrease as presupposed. American Indian women have a similar historical experience of other indigenous women and those women of color who came before Indians in examining gender roles in their communities. Therefore, we should not suggest that the so-called "white (privileged-class )-feminists" contribute nothing to the plight of women of color. To the contrary, American Indian women will eventually develop a feminist theory that

PAGE 128

specifically addresses sexism racism and colonization, a theory that is able to fight on many fronts while maintaining a set of principles built on politics of self-determination rather than politics of inclusion That is to say, women of all colors must pay special attention to their particular patterns of subjugation, for it is within these patterns that lay the various shapes of their resistance. 1 2 7 Historically Indian women have demonstrated a willingness to defer rather than forgo the i r personal interest, suggesting their focus continues to remain on the interest of the whole. However, it is the cumulative impact of deferring that has the potential of leading to a loss of collective interest. Tobique women did not allow this to happen They organized and worked on their interests that proved to be in the interests of the collective While tactics are prone to create change--whether targeting sexist federal legislation, corrupt tribal government or abusive Indian men--the goal remains the same: gender equality translates into greater tribal sovereignty. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION: 1) Explain how the transformation of Indian women corresponds with colonial domination. 2) What are some of the reasons American Indian women do not work for equal rights? 3) How d i d the women in Canada reverse the Indian Act? 4) Define matrilineal and patrilineal. How do these terms explain and shape the behavior of traditional Indians?

PAGE 129

128 5) To what extent does greater gender equality mean greater tribal sovereignty? CHAPTER SEVEN SURVIVAL OF TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS Before too many more years have passed, tribal governments of the United States will have gained the political mastery necessary to maintain a place at the negotiating table with other governments As complicated as tribal governments have shown to be, there are important changes that time, governmental interactions, and tribal governments themselves have brought about. Some of these governments have created a system that complements the old and the new, the traditional and the modern, while staying cognizant of the federal government and its administrative machinery. The age of self determination did provide tribes with some opportunities to undertake activities more to their interests. Still the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the federal government continue to be an irritant to most tribes. Traditionally a nation's power is determined by the size of its territory, its population, its level of autonomy, national resources, and among other things, its level of economic power. To measure the power of Indian nations, however, we must pay special attention to its leadership and what capacity this leadership is able to meet the needs of its citizenship. In most tribal nations, the population (citizens) to political elites (governance), similar to how U.S. cities are governed, has not

PAGE 130

occurred to any large degree within tribes. However, tribal governments are slowly becoming the tool of its members rather than a tool of the federal government. This shift is occurring as Indians assert themselves into tribal politics, rather than shunning it, thus minimizing the control of federally appointed indigenous elites who governed with little legitimate authority. In order to maintain and then sustain their legitimacy, tribal managers are forced to share the rewards of tribal policies. Regardless of the issue, whether human rights, water rights, fishing rights, land claim rights or treaty violations, tribal sovereignty continues to be a key principal. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, tribal governments are still confronted with a federal government intent on limiting tribal power. The only difference is that tribal governments are demanding that the federal relax if not relinquish its paternalistic power over them. The survival of tribal governments, therefore, is highly dependent upon what they know about the historical dance that unfolded between Indians, whites, and the federal government, and to what extent they are willing to demand that they be the ones to create Indian legislation. Historically, federal Indian legislation has been made with little to no Indian participation. These policies naturally were created to benefit whites, not Indians. Recently, however, tribal governments have been able to sway Indian legislation in their favor, largely as a result of their assertiveness, even though these policies often run counter to the general interests of Americans. Take for example, the Native American Grave Protection arid Repatriation Act (1990). In a local newspaper, writer Philip Terzian states 129

PAGE 131

130 that this Act was an example of "the lunacy of federal Indian policy." Terzian wrote that to not allow scientists access to a 1 0,000-year-old site to analyze human remains, was a pattern of "scientific vandalism repeated many times since enactment of the (act), threatening research and museum acquisitions." Exactly. The act was implemented to stop the vandalism of sacred sites that have been repeated many times since the arrival of Europeans. Today it is Indians who have attained the right to define a site as sacred, not whites, much to the chagrin of Terzian and other non-natives In another example, it was the politicization of Indians and the tactical responses of tribal government to the federal government and all of the various actors shaped Indian politics while opening up a new relationship with Indian gaming. To what extent the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), furthers the survival or elimination of tribal nations is still unknown. However, no one could have predicted the magnitude of the events that unfolded after the passage of the IGRA. In 1988 when the IGRA became law, revenues from Indian gaming, mostly from bingo, was only $100 million. Within fifteen years tribal revenue has increased to $16.7 billion, 60 percent of which is generated by 20 tribal casinos. While most of the tribes have used their gaming revenues wisely some have also used this resource to play "dirty politics as it did was done in two tribes in Louisiana. In the summer of2005, the U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee began investigating the $82 million that Indian tribes paid to lobbyist Jack Abramoff and public affairs executive Michael Scanlon. One of Abramoffs clients was the Louisiana Coushatta tribe, which gave the

PAGE 132

money to Abramoff in hopes of blocking approval of a competing casino project in Louisiana by the Jena Band of Choctaws. According to published report, in their efforts to stop the Jena Band from having gaming on their reservation, the Coushatta contributed $50,000 to a conservative interest group in 2001 and $100,000 in 2002. The above example demonstrates that as the revenues of tribes increase so does their capacity to infringe upon the level of sovereignty of other tribes. These types of tactics have been very disconcerting to many Indian Nations. This is one of the reasons many tribes are against Indian gaming on their reservations. There is this belief among many traditional Indians that money not only provides the much needed revenue for the tribe but indeed has the capacity to corrupt. Tribal governments, by choice or by circumstance, are often not included in the constitutional order of the United States. The fact that tribal governments are rooted in the status of domestic dependent nations ensures that a high level of complexity and ambiguity will continue when creating Indian legislation Whether a consequence of time, increased negotiating skills of tribes, a more flexible federal government, or Indian activism, tribes have created systems that systems that work to a very large degree. It is doubtful that the survival of tribal governments would have occurred as easily had it not created a strong tribal identity. Identity politics is not a new phenomenon. In it most simple form, identity politics is how a person or in this case a tribe sees politics, with what lens are politics being viewed. To several Americans to identify oneself through heritage, language, customs, rituals, similar to how tribal nationalists do 131

PAGE 133

132 is un-American. It is seen as transferring allegiance from a political identity (American) to a cultural identity (Lakota and so forth). Traditional tribal governments and other less Americanized groups contribute to a tenuous political identity and thus pay less tribute to the accepted national political identity created by the federal government. We know the sole purpose of Indian legislation was change the cultural identity of Indians from being a collective with a special relationship to land to an American where property is owned privately and exploited. Through the Reorganizational Act of 1930 tribal governments were supposed to impose identities and downplay any cultural relevancy and what it may have meant to be Native within the context of being American. It was hoped that American Indians, Indigenous Peoples, and so forth, would shed any cultural identity that had bond them for centuries and willingly accept what it means to be American. To traditional Indians and/or tribal Indians, to be Indian is a cultural identity not necessarily separate from but inclusive of politics and religion. With the introduction of ownership of land, and the refusal of allowing Indians to practice their religion, the first of many identity crises for Indians began to form. Therefore, what it means to be Indian for tribally enrolled and politically active members has greater capacity to form a political lens that skews American Indian history in favor of Indigenous peoples in the same way American history is skewed to favor the immigrants Therefore it is quite fair to say that tribal government worked not only to discard previous images of Indians, but in the process exposed

PAGE 134

the true nature of government, eventually facilitating the creation of a new identity, one that was more relative to the experience of Indians. They realized it was important to construct an image of their collectiveness than what was being portrayed. These images would need to be shattered and replaced by a more respectful and historically correct image. It is the relationship between images, situations, and policies that is of importance here. The political identity of what it means to be (American) Indian has on many Indian nations been replaced with an identity based on tribal nationalism. And while tribal governments continue to sustain a government that is more just and kinder than the one they were forced to emulate, the U.S Government continues to create Indian legislation that is rooted in the domestic dependent nation status that is purposely ambiguous. Consequently when examining the transition of the other American governments from dependency to sovereignty we must be prepared to be consistently confused. The diverse actors, coupled with diverse interests continue to make The Other American Governments a provocative, necessary, and stimulating area of research. 133

PAGE 135

BIBLIOGRAPHY Cohen, Felix. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1942. Cornell, Stephen. The Return of the Native. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Deloria, Vine, Jr. and Clifford Lyttle. American Indians. American Justice. Texas: University of Texas Press, 1983. Dorsen, Norman, President ACLU, ed. The Rights of Indians and Tribes. Carbondale Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992. Forbes, Jack D. Native Americans and Nixon. Los Angeles: University of California, 1981. Foreman, Grant. Indian Removal: The Emigration of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1953. Gates, Paul W. The Rape of Indian Land. New York: Arno Press, 1979. Grinde, Donald A., Jr. and Bruce Johansen. Exemplar of Liberty. Los Angeles: American Indian Studies Center, University of California, 1991. Grinde, Donald A. Jr. The Iroquois and the Founding of the America. San Francisco: Indian Historian Press, 1977. Hassig, Ross. War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. Jaimes, M. Annette."Federallndian Identification Policy". The State of Native America. Ed. M. Annette Jaimes. Boston: South End Press, 1993.

PAGE 136

Johansen, Bruce and Roberto Maestas. Wasi'chu. The Continuing Indian Wars. New York: Monthly Review Press. 1907. Kelly, Lawrence C. The Navajo Indians and Federal Policy. Arizona: University of Arizona Press, 1968. Levitan, SarA. and Barbara Hetrick. Big Brother's Indian Programs. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. Lipsett, Seymore, American Exceptionalism: A Double-edged Sword. New York: Norton, 1996. Lokken Ray Jr. ed. Meet Dr. Franklin. Philadelphia: Franklins Institute, 1981. Mama Amina. "Sheroes and Villains: Conceptualizing Colonial and Contemporary Violence Against Women in Africa," in J. Jacqui Alexancer and Chandra Talpade Mohanty (eds). Feminist Genealolgies. Colonial Legacies. Democratic Future. New York: Routledge Press, 1997. Meranto Oneida. "Toward an Indigenous Political Thought," Robert Hazan (ed). Readings in Politics: Issues and Polemics. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt, 1997. Meranto Oneida. "From Buckskin to Calico and Back Again: An Historical lnterpreation of American Indian Feminism." In New Political Science, Volume 23, Number 3, 2001. Mohawk, John ed. Exiled in the Land of the Free. Clear Light Publication, 1991. O'Brien, Sharon. American Indian Tribal Governments. Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989. Olson, James and Raymond Wilson. Native Americans in the Twentieth Century. Chicago: University of Illinois, 1984. Parker, Arthus C. The Constitution of the Five Nations. Albany: State Museum, 1916.

PAGE 137

Parker Arthur C. Parker on the Iroquois, (ed) William N. Fenton. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1968. Petoskey, John. "Indians and the First Amendment". American Indian Policy in the Twentieth Century Ed Vine Deloria, Jr. Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1985. Popkins, Samuel L. The Rational Peasant. Berkely: University of California, 1979. Rostow, W. W. The Stages of Economic Growth, A NonCommunist Manifesto Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962. Scott, James C. The Moral Economy of the Peasant. New Haven: Yale University, 1976. Silman, Janet. Enough is Enough: Aboriginal Women Speak Out Ontario: The Women's Press, 1987. Thompson J. Eric S. The Rise and Fall of Maya Civilization. Norman: Oklahoma Press, 1 963. Tucker, Robert C. The Marx-Engels Reader. New York: W.W. Norton Co., Inc. 1978. Wallace, Paul. The White Roots of Peace. Long Island: IRa J. Friedman, Inc. 1946. Wax, Murray L. and Robert W. Buchanan, eds. Solving "The Indian Problem:" The White Man's Burdensome Business. New York: New York Times Book. 1975. Wax, Murray L. Indian-Americans: Unity & Diversity. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1971. Weatherford, Jack Indian Givers. New York: Ballantine Books, 1988. Weyler, Rex, Blood of the Land. New York: Vintage Books. 1984.

PAGE 138

Wilkinson, Charles and Eric Biggs. "The Evolution of the Termination Policy", American Indian Law Review, vol. 5, No. 1, 1977. Witt, Shirley and Stan Steiner. The Way: An Anthology of American Indian Literature. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972

PAGE 139

... =?. Map 1: Indian Land Cessions* 1660-1776 Beginning Colonial Period 1780-1830 TheBeginning ofU.S. Territory Expansion 1830-1887 Foliowing_the Indian Removal Act 1887-1950 Following the Dawes Allottment Act of 1887 1950-Present Minor additions to Indian lands ns a result of addressing past treaty violations : American Indian Tribal Governments Sharon O "Brien, 1989

PAGE 140

l: .--Mao 2: Pre-Colonial Distribution of Indian Land* AlA IOU I.IIWQI( COS lUTE UTE PAIUTE OJIBWA. J,:;..tiOMI PAV1NEE OI.IAIIA CHEYEI\NE 'NINTUH YOKUTS NAVAJO AnAPAHO MOHAVE MOllO YAVASUPJ KIOWA 'NICIIIT A IIOPI .ncAJliLLA. APACHE COMAHCiiE SHAWfiEE OTO MISSOURI OSAGE QUAPAW fAWA.KOHI ILLJIIOIS 'flEA MIAMI PEORIA c:liEROKEE yt)CIII CHICKASAW TUSCARORA J.IUSCOGEE ZUNI PUEBLO LIP.MI APACHE HATCHEl: ALABAMA INUrf YUP)K -'LEUT .. PIMA KICl W. TOIIKAWA CHOCTAW AP .AUCIIEE BILOXI MOBILE *(Adapted from O'Brien, S 1989) P .a.ss .. u .a.auoc Cl!ICKAIIOI.Iltl'f

PAGE 141

Shoshone Tr:.ary of Ruby Val!:.y UNITED STATES TREATY WITH THE WESTERN SHOSHONI, 1863 Octobe r 1 186 3, 18 Statutes a t L a r ge 689 Treaty of Peace and Friendship made at Ruby Valley, in the Territory of Nevada, this first day of OctobeJ A.D. one thousand eight hundred and between the United States of America, represented by the undersigned commissioners, and the Western Bands of the Shoshonee Nation of Indians, represented by their Chiefs and Principal Men and w arri ors, as follows: ARTICLE 1 Peace and friendship shall be hereafter established and maintained between the Western Bands of the Shoshonee nation and the people and government of the United States; and the said bands Stipulate and agree that hostilities and all depredations upon the emigrant trains, the mail and telegraph lines, and upon the citizens of the United States within their country, shall cease: ARTIC LE2 The several routes of travel t:bi'ough the S hoshonee country, now or hereafter used by white men, shall be. forever free, and unobstructed by the said b ands, for the use of the government of the United States, and c all emigrants and travellers under its authority and protection, without molestation or injury from them .A1 if depredations are at any time committed by bad men of their nation, the offenders shill be immediately taken and delivered up to the proper officers of the United States, to be pUoished as their offences shall deserve; and the safety of all travellers passing peaceably over either of said routes is hereby guarantied .said bands. Military posts may be es tablished by the President of the United states along said routes or elsewhere.in their country; and station houses may be erected and occupied at such points as may be necessqry for the cor;rifort and convenience of trayellers or for mail or telegraph companies. ARTICLE 3 The telegraph and overland stage lines having been established and operated by companies wider the authority of the United States through a part of the Shoshonee country, it is expressly agreed that the same may be continued without hindrance, molestation, or injury from the people of said bands, and that their property and the -lives and property of passengers in the stages and of the employes of the respective companies, shall be protected by them. And further, 'it understood that provision has been made by the government of the United States for the construction of a railway from the plains west to tbe Paci:fic ocean, it is stipulated by the said bands that the said railway, or its branches may be located, constructed, and operated, and without molestation from them, through any portion of coU.ntry ciaimed or occupied by them. A RTICLE4 It is fu .... by the hereto, that the shoshonee country may be explored and prospected for p :1/www .nati v:.web.org/pages/leg al/shoshonc/ruby _valley .html Page

PAGE 142

sues -Taxation Do tribal governments pay federal taxes? Tribal govetnment revenues are not taxed, just like state and local goyernme:o.t r;tot TJle government has never taxed governmental revenue of state, tribal or local gove:rlli:D.ents: This 1s a long-standing federal policy with Constitutional support that prevents :interference with the ability to raise revenue for government functions. Like state and local govemr:o.ents, tribal governments use their revenues to provide essential services for. their citizens. Unlike state governments, tribal governments are not :in a position to levy property or income taxes. Income from tribal is the only non-federal revenue soirrce. Do trib_al governments pay state taxes? States cannot directly tax a tribal government. The Supreme Court has held that state governments can collect excise taxes on sales to non-members that occur on tribal -lands, so long as the tax does not fall djrectly on the tribal government States and tribes have developed a variety ofmethods for collecting these taxes, which most often take the form of intergovernmental agreements or pre-taxing at the wholesale level. Do Indian people pay taxes? Individual American Indians and Alaska Natives and their businesses pay federal income tax just like every other American. The one exception is when an Indian person receives income directly from a treaty or trust resource such as fish or timber, that income it not federally taxed. States also cannot tax tribal members who live and derive their income on tribal -lands. Documents Rep. Young Introduced Bill to Assist Collection of State Taxes on ReseNation Sales, Legislative Update #375, 08/13/01 9 P:DF NCAI TeStimony, House Resources Committee Hearing on the Collection of State Transactions Taxes by Tribal Retail Enterprises, 10/12/9 Links Internal Revenue Service Tribal Issues Page 6 /23/2003 2 : 1

PAGE 143

Shoshone Tr.:aty_ of Ruby Vall:oy and or other minerals; and when mines_ discovered, they may be worJ::ed, mining. agncultural settlements formed, andranches established whenever they may be requrred. Mills may 1:: erected and timber taken for their use, as also for building and other purposes in any part of the countf) claimed by said bands. ARTICLE 5 It is understood that the boundaries of the country claimed and occupied by said bands are defined ar described by them as follows : On W."'J.e north by \XI ong-goga-da and Shoshonee River Valley; on the west by Su-non-to-y' Mountains r:oith Creek ount?ID_ s; on tp._ e s _outh by Wi-c<;>-:-1Jah and the Colorado eas1 Po-ho-no-be Valley or Steptoe Valley and Great Salt Lake Valley. ARTICLE 6 The said bands agree that whenever the President of the United states shall deem it expedient for abandon the roaming life,which, they now lead, and become herdsmen or agriculturalists, -heis hereby authorized to make such reservations for their use as he may deem necessary within the country abov described; and they do also hereby agree to remove their camps to such reservations as he may indica and to reside and remain therein. ARTICLE 7 The United States, being aware of the inconvenience resulting to the Indians in consequence of the dri away and destruction of game along the routes travelled by white men, and by the formation of agricul .... u and mining settlements, are willing to fairly compensate them for the same; therefore, and in consideratic of the preceding stipulations, and of their faithful observance by the said bands, the United States prorr 1 and agree to pay to the said bands of the Shoshonee nation parties hereto, annually for the term of years,the sum of :five thousand dollars in such articles, including cattle for herding or other purposes, as t President of the United States shall deem suitable for their wants and. condition, either as hunters or herdsmen_ And the said bands hereby aclmowledge the reception of the said stipulated annuities as a f comper_:sation and equivalent for the loss of game and the rights and privileges hereby conceded.. ARTICLE 8 The said bands hereby acknowledge that they have received from said commissioners provisions and. clothing amounting to five thousand dollars as presents at the conclusion of this treaty. Done at Ruby Valley the day and year above written. James W. Nye I ames Duane Doty Te-moak, his x mark Mo-ho-a Kirk-weedgwa,_,bis x mark To-nag, his x mark To-so-wee-so-op, his x mark Sow-er-e-crab. his x mark C> Po-on-o-o-sah his x mark 0 Par-a-woat-ze; his x mark .ttp://www .nativcweb.o rg/pagcs/legal/shoshont::lruby _valley .html p

PAGE 144

I Issues http://www .ncai. org/r;:;.ain/pages/issues/ community_ developme: --r Aren't all Indian tribes getting rich from casinos? A small number of Indian tribes have found economic success through gaming, but ga.miD,g has done lit'"Je to change the crippling economic conditions found on most reservations. There has, however, been a great deal of media coverage of tribal gaming. The media hype has left the impression. that all tribes have grown rich on casino money and that poverty has been eradicated in Indian communities. This hype has far outrun the reality and creates a great danger of cutting off much needed assistance to the most some of impoverished communities in the country. How did Indian gaming get started? Large-scale gaming sponsored by tribal governments started in the early 1980's at the same time that state lotteries began to proliferate. Relying on fundamental federal Indian law, the Supreme Court ruled that if state law criminally prohibits a form of gambling, then the tribes within the state may not engage in that activity. However, if state law civilly regulates a form of gambling, then tribes within the state may engage in that gaming free of state control. D oes the federal government regulate Indian gaming? In-1988, Congress formally recognized but limited the right of Indians to condnct gaming with the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The IGRA created the National Indian Gaming Commission to regulate Indian gaming. The IGRA generally allows tribes to use Class II games such as bingo, so long as not criminally prohibited by the state. However, for Class ill casino-style gaming, the tribes must :first negotiate compacts with states concerning games to be played and regulation. How do Indian Nations use the revenues from Indian gaming? Like state and local governments, the revenues accruing to tribal governments from any source are used as a tax base t o fund essential services, such as education, law enforcement, tribal courts, economic development, and infrastructure improvement. In fact, Indian tribes are required by IGR_A.. to use their ga.rning revenues for such purposes. Much like the revenues from state lotteries, tribal governments also use gaming reven11es to fund social service programs, scholarships, health care clinics, new road.s, new sewer and water systems, adequate ho11sing and chemical_ dependency treatment programs, among otherS. The major point is that tribal government gaming is much more akin. to state lotteries than !o commercial for-profit businesses. The key distinction is that the gaming is rein by a gove:m .. inental entity to raise revenues for essential .....

PAGE 145

:AI Issues http J/www ncai org / ma:inipagesilssueS/ COII!Illl!!llcy uc v ;:;iu government functions. How many Indian Nations are involved in gaming? Overall, only 184 of the 557 Indian tribes in the U.S. are engaged in gaming of any kind, and many of these operations are very small with great limitations on the types of games, A number of factors have signjficantly restricted the growth of tribal gaming. The first, of course, is the values of each Indian community. Like other communities in the U .S., many tribes have chosen not to engage in gaming no matter how lucrative it may be. Location C)..Ild demographics are also a severe limiting factor on :tribal gaming. Most Indian reservations are located in remote areas with little access to gaming customers. State laws and state failure to negotiate compacts have alEio severely l:imited the development of tribal gaming. Jn states such as Utah where gaming is criminally prohibited, no tribal gaming has developed. States such as Oklahoma have criminal laws that limit many tribes to moderate bingo gaming. A small ;number of states have also used the compacting requirement in a divisive way to veto Indian gaming, limit the scope of tribal gaming and increase state control. Under IGRA, the federal government has an obligation to mediate these disputes and resolve the appropriate scope ofindian gaming where necessary, but so far has failed to fulfill this obligation. What is the overall impact of Indian gaming? Where Indian gaming has been successful, it has had a huge beneficial economic impact on some of the most impoverished communities in the U .S. It has provided thousands of jobs for Indian and ;non-Indians, and paid millions of dollars in payroll taxes and other direct benefits to state and local gover:D:IDents. Many tnoes engaged in gaming have not found this great success, but have been able to create successful small businesses that provide a moderate am.ount of much needed revenue to the tribe. Howev_ er, for most tribes Indian gaming has not been an answer to their overwhelming needs. Even after the advent of gaming, Indian reservations continue to have a 31% poverty rate, a 46% unemployment rate and similarly Indian health, education and statistics are the worst in the country. Documents NCAI Letter to the editors of Time Magazine regarding their feature on lndiar, Casinos (12/13/02) Wolf-Shays Legislation Introduced To Restrict Tribal Gaming, Legislative Update #366, 06/29/01 NCAI Testimony, Senate Committee on Indian Affair s Hearing on S. 399, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Improvement Ac;t, 03/24/99 "American Indian Gaming Policy and Its Socio-Economic Effects," Economic Resources Group Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, 07/31/98 FOF 6/23/2003

PAGE 146

TRE_4.TY OF DO_A..K'S ST..4.ND TREATY WITH THE CHOCT4.lV 1820 78 7870 (.... -"} -' > 7 Stu.L) 21 o_ Proclama.ti.on) Jan_ 8, 1821. A tre..aty of friendship, limits, and accommodation, between the United_ States of A.1nerica and the Choctaw na_tion of Indians, begun aiJ.d at the Treaty Ground, in said nation, near Stand, on t..he Natchez Road.. Preamble-Objects of the treaty_ Whereas it is an important object the President of the United States, to promote the Q[ Choctaw Indians_, by the of schools amongst them; and to perpetuate_.them...a.s a.nation br a a COU9-trY beyond the Mississippi River, where all, who. live by hunting ancr'"will-not wo-rk; -maybe col lected and settled together--And whereas it is desirable to the state of Mississippi, to obtain a small part of the land belonging to said nation; for the mutual accommodation of the parties, and for securing the happiness and protection of the whole Choctaw nation; as well as pre serving that harmony and friendship which so happily S1.ibsists between them and the United States, James Monroe, President of the United States of America, by Andrew Jackson, of the State of Tennessee, Major General in the Army of the United States, and the General Thomas Hinds, of the State of Mississippi, Cor:pm.issioners Plenip<>tentiary of .the United States7 on the one part, and the Mingoes, He..ad Men, and W _arriors, of the _Choctaw nation, .in full Council on the other have freely and voluntarily entered into the following articles, --viz: Cession of by the Choctaws_ Bounds of the cessi-on_ ARTICLE 1To enable the President of the United States to carry into effect the above grand and humane objects, the 11ingoes, He..aaMen, and Warriors, of the Choctaw nation, in full council assembled, in behalf of themselves and the said nation, do, by these presents, cede to the United States of America, ;a.ll the land Iying and being within the boundaries following, to wit.:-Beginning on the Choctaw boundary) East ofPeari River, at a point due South of the wrute Oak spring, on the old Indian path; thence north to said s-pring; thence northwards to a black oak, standing on the Natchez road, about forty poles eastwards from Doak's fence, marked=AJ_ and blazed, vvith two large pines and a black oak standing near thereto, and marked as pointers; thence a straight line to the bead of Black Creek, or Bouge Loosa; thence down Bl.ack Creek or Bouge Loosa to a small Lake; thence a direct course, so as to strike the Mississippi one mile belo'v the mouth of the Arkar.sas River; thence doVYn the Iv1ississ.ip pi to our boundary; thence around and along same to the beginning. United SLates cede a tract of country west of the Mississippi_ Bound.:aries_ ARTICLE L Forand in consideration of the for-egoi0g cession, on the part of the Choctaw nation, and -in part satisfaction forthe same, the Co-mmissioners of the. United States, in behalf

PAGE 147

----of said St..a tes, do her-eby cede to said nation, a tract of country >yest of the Mississippi River, situate between the Arkansas and Red River, and bouncied.as follows:--Beginning on Arkansas River-, vvhere the low'er boundary line of the Cherokees strikes the same; thence up the Arkansas to the Canadian Fork. and uo the same to its Source: thence due South to the Red River; thence do1-'"n Red River, three below .u'
PAGE 148

--both sides of the tv1ississippi ri>er. Three-fourths of said fund shall be appropr-iated for the beri.e:fi.t of the schools her-e; and L"1e remaining fourth for the est..2.biishment of one ormore beyond the 1Y1ississippi; the to be pl:a.ced in the hands of the President of the United State.s, and to be applied by him, expressly and to this vaiu.able object_ An additional tract of land for raising a fund for the nation, etc.. ARTICLE 8 To r-emove any discontent\\'hich may have arisen in the Choctaw Nation, in conse.quence of six thousand doiiars of their annuity having b-een appropriated annually, for sixteen years, by some of the chiefs, for the support of their schools, the Commissioners of the United States oblige themselves, on the part of said St..ates7 to set apart an .additional tract of good land, for raising a fund equal that -giveri by the said chiefs, so that the whole of the annuity may remain in the nation, and be divided amongst them_ And in order that exact justice may be done to the po-or and distressed of said nation, it shall be the duty of the agent to see that the wants of every deaf, dumb, blind, and distressed, Indian, shall be first supplied out ofsaid annuity, and the balance equally distributed amongst every individual of said nation. Pr-ovi51on'for Indians who remain, etc.. :...::...:.:..:A...-:Rf'tCLE9. wno-n-a:Ve-=sep>;'ho have not received compen sation for their services during the campaign to Pensacola, in the !ate war, shall be paid whatever is due them civer and above the value of the blanket, shirt,.f1ap, and leggins, which have been delivered to them. Agent rna}; seize and confiscate whiskey, unless, etc. ARTICLE 12. In order to promote industry and sobriety amongst all classes of the Red people, in this nation, but particularly the poor, it is fur-ther provided by the parti es, th2t the agent appointed to reside here, shall be, and he i.s vested '"'ith full power to 5eize and confiscate all the whiskey -...>-hich may be introduced into said nation, except that used at public st.ands, or brought in by the permit of the agent., or the pTincipal Chiefs of the three D istricts

PAGE 149

Pro:..-ision for raising a corps of Irght-horse, etc... S. Doc... 319, 58-2, vol 2--13 ARTICLE 13. To enable the Ivfingoes, Chiefs, ?nd He..ad Men of the Choct..aw nation, to raise and organize a corps of Light -Horse.; consisting of ten tn each District, so that good order may be maintained, and that .ail men, botc.1. white and .red, may be compe[Jed to pay their just debts, it is stipulated and agreed, that the surp of two hundred dollars shall_be appr-opriated by Ll.e Untted States, for each district, annually, and placed in the hands of the agent, to pay the expenses incurred in raising and establishing said corps; which is to act as executive officers, in maintaining good order, and compellli""lg bad men to remove from the nation, who are not I author-ized to liv:e in it by a regular permit from the agent._ AnnUity to Mu5huiatubbee... ARTICLE 14_ Whereas the father oftb.e beloved Chief.i\rfushulatubbee, of the Lower ToWTl.s, -for and during his life., did receive from the United States the sum of one hundred and rrfty dollars, annually; it is hereby stipulated, that son and successor Mushuiatubbee, shall annually.:_ aicLthe..sa.m.e.A.I:ri.o unLdu.r:i.n.g _his natural life, to __ co rn.m ence. fro in the ratification ...:::.:.:..-::..__:_;;___of this v -----------________ Peace and harmony perpetuaL ARTICLE 15-The peace and harmony subsisting betWeen the C:q.octaw Nation of Indians and the United States, are hereby renewed, and declared to be perpetuaL Treaty binding when ratified_ ARTICLE 16. These articles shall take effect, and become obligatory on the contracting parties7 so soon as the same shall be ratified by the President, by and with the advice and cons-ent of the Senate of the United States_ In testimony whereof, the c;ommissioners plenipotentiary of the United States and the Mingoes, Head Men, and Warriors, of the Choctaw nation, have hereunto subscribed their names and a.ffi.Xed their seals, at the place above written, this eighte-enth day of October, in the year oi our Lord one thousand eight and twenty, and of the independence of the United States the fortyfifth_ Andrew Jackson .0.-1edai Mingoes: Puc.kshenubbe, his x mark, .0.-1ushu1atubbee, his x mark, Chi:efs and warrior-s: General Humming Bird, his x mark, Talking \Varrior, qis x mark, Captain Bob Cole, his x mark, Chaeta wistonocka, his x mark, Chuleta, his x mark, Oakchummia, his x mark, Chapahooma, his X mark, Copatanathoco, his x mark, Opehoola; his x mark, Captain Lapala, his x mark, Chuckahicka, his x mark, Thomas Hinds, Commissioners P oosha wa tt.aha, his x mark, James Hanizon, his x mark, Little I;:e-ader, his x mark, Red Fort, or Oobtahooma, his x mark, Ogiano, his x mar-k, John Frazier, .his x Nockestona, his x mark, Onanchahabee, his x mar-k, A taho b i.a, his x mark, Chetantanchahubbee, his x mark, Panchahabbee, his x mark, Tallahomia, his x mark,

PAGE 150

---, I''-' I f lo"I\.../W\ ... H'"""; .-tl;::, Introduction mo:rlline2l sociel-r. \.'/omen nor.'iir.oled c.s ootltrca! and reiig!ous leaders_ len S:-!OWEQ T.'-1E IROQUOI S CONF AS iT TRULY EXISTEC THANK YOU. illh of F ;onlie; fror.. a n d ina a materr.a! lnsichi lnlo oood Ea:Jies t:ye Vrew: ova-lilies. Their s:and;;rds wer e sel-very h igh. While TO?.IWAWAKON, FOR YOL_ The Greal L?.w or Pe<'ce lo ; under lhe U S Conslilullon. q uallllq;llons o: Con ... lrlion nl !he United Slates of America oressmen wer e limited to age. citizenship a01d 1NORK_ TOrlwawak.on lt ierally mea;;s ... H M ailers .. wltlch thai he helc maiiars refat3d lc lhe core or !roque!; by Gregory Schaaf. Ph. D ;esldehcy. troquoiar. women moreover requir e d : lime cl the s igning ol i11e Oe ::ia:allon of AH royaneh (Chief Siales:TJen) o i rive Nations .ce to tin? ratHi c a tlon or U S Con' musi honest In all things. They r.>us: no: the opportunit y to creaie and lo es:abllsh Idle or ;;ossi p bul be ,"7\en ocssesslng these nment challenged people lo sea;::;; lor honorabie qualllies. .Thel> hea:!s s ."lall be lull of i de,..,ocracy. One ot the lillie Y.nown anc aocd will and ihelr m!,;ds fJil.ed wlt.'1 a h<> Faundinc Falhers rs !he lac! thai yearning !or-lhe o i the l)'?ople of. t h e Con .. r : d a d .amocratlc model no/ In Greal tederacy llaly. nor a n y or the Wome n also heid the oower to imoc<1ch ;:tny clvftlz:alion: Thomas.Jerterson. ben le2de r '"""'c Jailed aller lhree warnings '' !In and olhers Jound lhe oldesl p;.r serve the besl of ihe people. lt ihe 'F .. Iemocracies on earlh among lne ding Faihers h a d disclosed the polllical power s or 1 rndi a n s many India:1 peri"\aps women like Abigai l ontatlves of l/"' e U_S Congress mal A.:::!ams wile o l future President .John Adams. could h ambassadors lrom lhe Haudena' have et lectivelv assumed positions as -Founding Conlederacy. as well as the Mothers: 'Nhil e women could have argued lhey e -Grandlalhers .. ol the Algonquian deserved. at least. equal rights with American ln1211o.ns. For centuries !hese American Indian ':'omen. : .' :. -. Jle wer e governed by democrallc prl[l' ........ :. lgh 1 ;;_ .. :;5 ,:;,;.!.J;j ... : phy ol flberfy was advance d the lnher e.nl right-' ole. Indian Ag,enl George Morgan and j as tntermeciiarie s in rhese talks. His "Mohawk Wolf Clan Belt" diplomat demanded an. Jnt imale In behalf of the women pres-erved rill e l o or' lhe cultures. soclaf slruc l u res and f....lhe land through lamllle.s and c lans. This may be ll!' ol the American Indians. He travelled :l-anolher /ace! of the Iroquolan which some Indian communilies and mel wlth lnr; Founding Fathers may have preferred not Jo mak e 1 lrontier democracies. He witnessed public. In contrast. women In the Unlle-d Slates re people wer e e ndow.ed with 111e were not permilled the right to own land, nor even peak freely, the right to Ia vote. mur:;h less control system of ,.?.dom. as well as the separ.won of justice_ f_raouran women also marn1a1ned a sari o l oower.s Into branches. veta power to stop wars. II women across the I.:Jnd checks and balances was firmly in had known the truth about the power of Indian branches of the g Feat Tree Ofwomen. !he for equal rights could been tong the Haudenausaunee. "People or heard earlier. and American history mtghl have The Unlte<:i S tales government: c!'lanoed o.-er the past lwo hundred years. i-surprtsingly s imilar to !heir Grand Two generalions ago. Dr. Paul Wallace. a .respected In lroquoian and AJgon1TTEFlN OF IR001.JOIAN GRAND quian s::tudies traced lhe source or the first --united COUNCIL Nal. ion.s--.' When .1 retracedlhese rool.s to Onon-"-ga. led by T.atadaho the Firekeeper daga and then lo f was by a 11 the Conlederacy, oaralleled .stone monument to. Dr_ Wallace whtch stands the U .S. executive bra:-1ch Their before the Akwesasne Mohawk Longhouse. On the ch was divided Into lwo parts. The lop was engraved ltte Tree ol Peace 1ollowed by d Seneca. uni\ed as E lder B r others .' these words: 1er house al the lracfitional Senal e;: TO AMERICA s OLDEST ALLY d Cayuaa. composed the Younger THE !ROOUOIS CONFEDERACY r to the-House o l Representatives. p=QPLE OF THE LONG HOUSE--J w ith represenlalives ai the Slx Moha":'ks. Oneida. Onond.aga. Cayugas. summer ol 1754. Benjamin Franklin Senecas T0 Whom Were laler Added the creal ion aJ a colonial G rand. The Tuscaroras Constituting Albany Plan ol Union. --: THE SIX NATIONS 1 Government may be formed lh r Founded bv Deoanawidah and Hiawatha who Or. Wallace b egan lhe stor y by rec lrooucis as I."le "f;;mou.s Indian co;;ie p rovided a model lor. a01d an inc en Ir;;nslormallon o r lhe coloni Unlled Sl2les o r Amerlcc:: Over years ego. according l c lraqu.ols faitl G rsal Peacemak:r emergad a i the tim bfe war. He Inspired tlie warrior s 10 weapons al war b eneath a sa.cn?d Tre! Arl eagle scared from the he.avens. perc of the tree and cluiche d lhe arrows lo the united Indian n a tlons. (The U S. na: pictured on t:-te back ol the one aollar bi 13 arrows for 1he 1 J ori g inal Unlled Sia The Haudenausaunee have preserved the origins ql,the Tree of Peace. AI the pf; Tree ol Peace at Phlladelphi<> I!' C:hlel Jak!! Sw::;,;J "'xp;alne!:! !hrcugli: L C...U e i Tom Porter: In the beginning of time. wnen our C made the human beings. everything r fo survive In the future was c :ea1 e 1 C reator asked ariiy one thing: Never lo be appreciative ol the oilts o f Mother Our people were instrucled how to be 0 1 and how to survive. But alone time d-u dark age in our history perhaps over years ago, human bejngs no longer lis t e r the original Instructions. Our Creator be sad, because lhere was so much c dishonesty. injus:t.ice and so many war. our Creator sent a Great Peacemak e r "' message to be righteous and }usland tor a good furture for our children seven 9er lions to =me. He called a l l the warring pie loge!her. and \old them as long as t : was .killing_ t.here would never be peac mind. There must be 3 concerled ellor human beings, an orchestrated e ffort. peaca to prevail. Tnrough logic. reaso1 and spiritual means. he Inspired lhe waa lo bury thetr weapons [lhe origin or the sa) Ia -bury the ha_tchel .. ) and planted aror sacred Tree ol Peace:u Upon hearing tll s story. 0 r Robert /.. lor-mer Assistant Secretary General ol lhe l Nations. responded ... This prolound action s as oerhaps the oldest eiJoq lor disarmame world hislorv: .. The rcembled the Grand Council or lhe CAME DUrliNG MORE THAN A CENTURY. OF nausaunee. STRIFe. T hEY LOYALLY PRO 'ounding Faihers choo s e 10 keeo TEC:E D THE INFANT ENGLISH COLONIES. design of the Unrted Slal. e s SHOWED Tr!;:M THE W ,\Y TO UNION. ANO SO e clue may be relaled lo a maJor HELP::.O P:=iE?ARE THE AMErtiCAN Ai'/0 CANA ""'een Jroquoan v s U .S:s judicial DIAN ?EOPLE FOR NATIONHOOD. lroquoian supreme courr was er. men. C!an Mothers and Womens ned a balance of power in.thei r IN ME:MORY OF. OUR SELOVC:O SROTHE?. TO-RI-WA-WA-KON (Or, Paul A __::::::=::=:::::::::::::::::=::=::=::::::::=:::::::3.-AK ':V;:: SA S N E N 0 T E: S / SUM M 1 9 8 7/P AGE 3 E

PAGE 151

: p ltc olr Jn, ,,.,, ... me 16 lnSf -I. r I lro(\uolan elders have long clalmeo 1Fielr -. --o1, sldl anf I I 'IOtnlH\ lo Pillllclpi!IC In Thu )/ supaliJliOI) ol pov1e1s in gove1nrnonl und checks ntl balanc:os ol powe1 willlln gove1nrnenls are 1 1acoablu lo ou1. consilullon. The so ill!l Ideas loarn menl servod as a model lor lho Unlled Slales To Miller, ') pul ll1elr lradlllon loa leal, opproprlole passages 1. Dr. Robel\ lvlullcr, "A VIsion ol Pr.acr!, lrom lhe Greal Law of Peace have boen poslllonod loraword lo Grego1y Schoal, Tl \e lvlorgun sldebyslde wllh lhe Conslllullon ol \he Unlled Papers: War and Revolullon Peacu and Slales ol America, Tllo resulls proved slrlklng The Friendship (1907) J b L parallels are vnmlslakabll!. Moreover, \he dll 15. There are six versions ol llle Gre;J/ luw ol lerances proved !Jvan mora lnleres\lng. Fealurlng Paaca and 11\e loundlng ol lhe l1oquols Con high quallllcallons lor leadership, pollllcal rlghls lor loderacy: women and a rQmurkal;llo syslem ol lusllce, lho I. The Newllousa version, galhored and [Jrr.plos ol A1norlcu'n orlgln!i. cd by /\ll>orl Cuslcl<, o Nuw Yorl< OnoncJ:Iqa1 Two' main schools ol \hough\ hnve 'domlnaloc.J ,. Tuscnro1a, T11ls vo1slon hus boon edited IJy f'i!tlccr ed by lho colonists ... Over 200 yoiliS iHJO an Onondnga chlel aclvlsed Donjnmin F1anklin and olhor coloninl rop1esen, lalives saying, "Our wlsn r9rclnlhers est<1blishod Union and i\ll)ily ... lhi5 1nndo us lormlclal.lle ... Wo nru a and II you obse1ve lho sarne nolhods 'JOU will iiCfiUIIo l1usll S\lenglh ond Powor ."" scholarly ln. lerprel"allon The Imperial schoollool
PAGE 152

-. X, n rOW&H> ""' Vol!UU Ill 1110 I :IUOI U!Oiilct s anu YOlliiQfll IJtolliO/ s 1 1\11 \11o huslneus ol tho l'lvu Hnllons Conlcdc1nlo Council shall bo' conth)c locJ IJy I flu COII\blnod bodlo s ol lhu Conluthlla\u \CIIIul rlisl 11\o question shnlluu pussod upon lly 11\o 1 \ollawk nnd Snnuca \ C hlul Statosnen lho Eldo1 01olhos\ lhcn II shall Uo dlsr.ussctl untl pussotl hy the Oncio dlvltlotllnlo l>nlllos (oach has 2 chlels lolalllng B chlels/ r ogelhe1, lho 1.\ohawk ond Seneca lei lho Senalo Tha chlol oro choson by lha woman ond holtl tho poslllon as lon11 u IIIey nrve lollhlully Each has an equal volco, bul decisions ate lo1matl I.Jy consonsus. l .,, : : .. : . :': Clans ontl Consanguinity Wompum Among lho ontltholt postolily lhe1e shalllle lhe lo:towlno odolnnl clens: Groo\ Ocarer, Ancient Noma Oeurot, Gtuel Beat Tu11lc, Polnlod Tullio, Slontllng Rock, Laroe r1ovc1, Lillie Plovet, Deer Plueon Hawk, Eel, Ball, OpposlloSioool lha Hnnd, and Wild Pololoes Thuso claus dlsilll>ulor.J lluouoh \holt rospocllvo l.jal(ons, shulluu lhu solo ovma1s nnd holdo1s ollilo soil ol lho co11nlry anti In lholllis 'li vosled as u bit u nc i .C\1 ll). Jutlgemsnl on 11\G Conviction ol lrnj)ouch menl Wemnum Hl (coni.). Tho Wo1 Chlols shulllllen tllvosl the wing \Chlcl Slalusmnnl ol his \llle IJy o r der olihe women In whom lhe illleshlp is voslctl Wllon lho \Chlel S t ate stnnn\ls daposnu 111o sholl noll y lho Conlotle1ato [Chlol SiaiCslncn\ \1\rough \heir War Chlol, Qnd the \Cillo I Slulesmun lho acl. lito wllllhon sclocl onolhor ollhelr sons as a cnndldnln and lho (Chlol Sialosman) shall alec I him. Than shall \he chosun one bo lnslallod by lho lnslall.allon Ce1c1nony. (12J.XLI, EUC, Gi, Wilen a (Chlel S\alesman\15 lo hu ucrosotl. his Wa1 Chlel shall ar.J<..11esshlm os lollows : "So you, dl51ugurtl anti set 01 f\3U(]hl \1\e wa1nlngs Oi YOUI WOIIlCn ICioliIOS. So you lllny lhe wa1nlng ovet you1 shoulue1 lo casl lhem behind you. "Oohold lhe brlghlncss ol tho Sun : and In lho. lulohlnoss oltho Sun's llgh\ I you ol your II ilu ond romove lhe soc rod otnbielll ol lho (Chlol SiillesmenshlplUIIo I 1emove !tom you1 ll1ow lhu W0111pum 2 7 All \ C hild ol tho l'lvo Conludeul slaii !SIIIOII wllll n lnn11ly nntl u1o C l li1cns ol 0110 ol 11111 l'l vo, now with C>C < !Illion t o lho Plno l'1uu C hlul. I lie clan1nollu11s a n d w on\un cvalualu vd10 Is quutillud to ho a chlcl lhtlgl\1. (9HI, EUC). Wumpurn l'ho llnonl dosccnl ollllo peoria ol lhu Flvo shall run In llle lomola line Women shall be conslde1od tho p10genliots ol tho Nallen Thoy shall own tho land and lha soli. lvlcn an<..l women sllull tallow tho slulus ol tho mothul (GULX, TLL). Wampum 115. Tho. women heirs ol 1110 Con lotlolnlo ( C hlul Slolcr.tnau\ tlllos shull bo called 11oyonoh ohio) lor nllllmu lo como (6 ll.XI, TLL) dae1' s onlla1s lo lhu woman whoso hudlilQO nr e." The Wot Chlol shall now add1nss tho wotliOII ol lhe deposed Lotd and say : ''lvlolllots,' ns I have now dCflO!icd yout \ C hlci !Jialosmonl I now oh11o lo you lhu 11111ulu111 i!IH.I tho IIIIo ol Chlol Stnlesmanslllp) lllCIOIO< U tepossess thorn Agnln hlmscli to tho dupbsc<..I\Chlcl Stalcslnan) he shall say : ''1\s I havu now UCflOSU!I nntl tllschot gcd you so you nr o now no \Chlel Slalosmnn) You shall now go yout alohg, I he 1 as\ oliha people oltho ConlccJe1 acy w1ll ool go wllh you, lot we know nol tho kind ul ml11d lhal possesses you. IIIII Ctculul ilas11othlng lo do will\ wrong so he will not come to 1cscuu you liom1he precipice ol tlosltucllon 111 wl11ch you hnvu s 511\all I WpOIIS his 0YIIIinnliiy, il illly, and v ll\0 hilS piOVOII a lailhiul nan lo his Hatlon /\ppwlion "'"" ul Cl1111l SiiiiOfi\UII j'lhc 1\lll\lllllt ol was sol IJy lhH JluaccrllnlOS O>I110d. WIIS llloo men poSo551ng lhoso huno1nl>la qunllllcs lhol make lho 11uo 1oyanah II Elacllon ol Members ol \1\o Grnnd Council Wampum 51\. Wilen a \Cillo! Sintnsmaoshii)\lille becomu vacanllhrough uoolh 01 olhet cause, the Royanoh women ol lhe clan Ill Vlillch lillc is shall lu;JicJ a counc'tl and shall choose one ornono \heir so11s lo llltlho olllcu J'fiOHio vacl llll. Such a condltlole sholl nol be lho lothul ol ilny Conletlerale \Chlol Slalnsninnl II lhn rlonlrn chnll hn" r .. .1 .....

PAGE 153

lltUIIU,Ute ,,,-.; --.. .' 1.u, Atlodull10h shqll dispatch mor.sonoors lo surn rnon ollllro Conlederoto [Cillo I Slulosrnoll] logcllwr to assetnblo bonoalll lhe Ttoo ol o Lono : Leavos ... (4V, TLL) ... : ... : :' : I I ... : .: :i_ 'Powers Eoch Nutlon ol lho Ornnd Council .; .. .:..: ) ... :. .' > .:: Sole Judge ol Ouallllcatlons ol MemberG / .. ': Wampum 17.. A bunch ol a corloln number ol : /L.' shell (wampum) slrlngs each lwo spnns .lr1 lonolh : : proprietary right to lha [Chlel Slutosmnllshlp) IIIIo lor all limo 19 como, subject to cerlnln roslflcllom; hore'ln,alleJ menllpned. (5DLIX, 'ILL).:!. ',! I ..... ,. ,::::r. Wampum ..... 1B II ony Conlodornlo ICillol Slalesmnn] riaolec 'ts or roluses to n\loncJ tho Con: ledara\a Counoll, lha other [ChloiGinlosmun) oltllo ol which he.ls n.mombor slloll rriqul1o lllnlr. War Chlel .lo request llio lornale sron5otc ol lito : :. ''" : IChla I s lei esmtln] 00 oull\y OI deloc lion .to uamnnd ; 1\s al\endanoo ol lho Councll:.ll 110 rolusos, \llo. holding .ttio 1llla. shall :;lmmocllalnly .. candidate lor .... .::,:. .. No [Chlel Gtalesmon].shall b o oskod rnora llwri \.'i( once lo a I lend I he Conled o r n Ia Council.. (3. 0XXX, .. TLL) '' ... : .... '.'..<: : .::. : : ;: {' :. '. J I 1, t ;f'., ,'i:.:'h ; 1 < .. ',",1: ... ..... :; .' .. : ';:r :, .. :: Rules ol ,Prooeecllngs i .-::-. Punishment ol. : Chlal Statesman .. > ... : .. :. ,:. Wampum: 52. Tho llo .yorwh womon,.lwlrs ol tho .:' : [Chlel S\alesmohshlp] 1111691 shnll.nlloulcJ It bocomo nocessory cortec\ and udinonlsl1 llio.lloldoro-ol : .: ll1elr IIIIas, Those only who a \lend lila Council rnuy ... do I his and I hose who do IIO\ shall objoct lo. who I hns been sold nor sltlvo \o undo lhu uc\ior1 .. ... (63LXIII, TLL). ... : ,: ; : ,J .,,o :,, I :' ) ; : I .'o : :: ... o', : '' \ :'',.' '! ',1 ,.:; .... Wampum Records :.: :: ; :.. .. .,. : ... r.: ... Wampum, 23, Any IChlol Sln\o:.tt1ntij ol llio r-lvo .. (Six) Nall.cins Conlederacy rnay construct silo II sir Inns lor wampum ol slz.o or lnngth as

PAGE 154

f Chronology of Significant Dates 1763 1775 1778 1781-1789 1787 1790-1834 1791 181 2 Britain's Proclamation of 1763, which granted tb.e original people perpetual rights to lands west of the British colonies. This was never upheld. The Continental Congress created three Departments of Indian affairs: a northern, middle, and southern. The first treaty signed and made with the United States and the Delaware. The Delaware Nation agreed to let colonial troops pass tbrough their territory U.S. Articles ofConfederation, modeled after the Iroquois Confederation, granted each state the right to handle its own Indian relations. Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance. This ordinance turned the Norib.west Territory into states. Indians weie assured they would not be treated unfairly. Yet this ordmance was ignored. Congress passed Trade and Intercourse Acts prohibiting states and individuals from purchasing land directly from the Indian Nations. Only the federal government could buy Indian lands. Creation of the U .S. Constitution replacing the ArticJes of Confederation, with Indian relations becoming the exclusive authoritj of the federal government. Indians were citizens of.their own nations, but not of the United States. W ar of 1812, ended forever the alliance between Indians and Great Britain and, soon after, Spali1.

PAGE 155

1824 1830 1832-1842 1850 1850 1853-1857 1863 1864 Congress created the Indian Office; power to Congress, later becoming the BLA.. passed the Indian Removal Act. Tbis act removed Indian tribes from the southeastern states when gold was discovered on Cherokee lands. This act set aside lands west of the Mississippi River for tribes and officially started the removal and relocation of thousands of Indians. Chief Justice Marshall de:5ned the Cherokee Nation and other nat!ons as, .. domestic dependent nations ... He described the relationship as "ward to a guardian. Removal ofnineteen eastern tribes to larids west of the Mississippi. California became a state. The concept of. Westward expansion and "'Manifest Destiny'' became fully enforced; a belief that land from the east to the west coast was meant to be one country. U.S. Crimes Act was passed giving the U.S. government the authority to set up the criminal code for Indians. U.S. government negotiated "reservation" Treaties with fifty-three tribes. This restricted Indians to reservations and opened up other Western territory to settlers. The Long Walk where 8,000 Navajo were trapped in Canyon de Chelly. Twenty-five hundred Navajo died. Sand Creek Massacre, Sand Creek, Colorado; a massacre of over 500 Cheyenne and Arapahoe Indians, consisting of mostly women and children. I I I

PAGE 156

1871 1879 1885 1886 1887 1890 1903 1924 1928 1934 -r Congress enacted a law ending treaty making with LJ.dians. This law laid the groundwork for assimilation policies. Establishment ofthe fust off-reservation Indian boarding schools. The intent was to "civilize" and "Christianize" Indians. Major Crimes Act passed. This gave federal courts jurisdiction over major crirries ofindians on Indian lands. U.S. vs Kagam.a, a decision that gave the federal governm.ent absolute authority to define how it would .. protect, Indian tribes. Dawes Allotment Act passed This Act divided Indian land, and allotted Indian families and individuals a certain amount of acreage "Surplus, was sold to white settlers This was also the beginning of the "blood quantum, of Indians. Massacre at Wounded Knee. On December 29, approximately 300 Indlans, mostly women and children were killed by federal troops. Lone Wolfvs. Hitchcock established that Congress had absolute authority over Indian relations including the right to pass laws that vioiated treaties. Citizenship Act, declaring Indians citizens of the U.S. even though many Indians did not desire U.S citizenship. U.S GOvernment commissioned the ''Meria.m Report" to study Indian economic and social conditions. Indian Reorganization Act adopted by some Nations stated that the government had an obligation to provide for the minimum needs of its Indian citizens.

PAGE 157

1953 1956 1968 1968 1975 1978 1978 1990 1991 House ConcUJ.!ent Resolution Act dissolved .. tribal status and effectively enQ.ed fedeial government's trust relationship with certain tribes. Public Law 959 provided ftmds for on.:.fue.,.. job training for Indians, urging Indians to .. relocate from reservations to cities_ Indian Civil Act guaranteed civil rights to tribal meTTl bers on reservations and provided f.mds for the development oftribil judicial systems_ Founding of the American Indian Movement (Allvf), which began a period of Indian militancy in the u_s. Indian SelfDetermination and Educational Assistance Act allowing tribes to manage their own housing, health, and other programs with less interference from the Secretary ofin.terior. American Indian Religions Freedom Act giving Indians freedom to practice their traditional religions on reservations_ Indian Child Welfare Act, giving tribal governments authority over Indian child custody proceedings. Indian Arts and Crafts Act intended to promote Native American artwork and business, reduce foreign and counterfeit product competition and stop deceptive marketing practices_ Native American Graves Protection and RepatriationAct, .establishes that Native American tribal groups own or control human remains or cultural items that are discovered on tribal and federal lands_ In addition, objects must be returned to tribes upon their request.

PAGE 158

I I r BriefHistory of Some Indian Nations Cheyenne If we wanted to construct a hypothesis concerning Cheyenne origins, we might postulate a series of migrations from the area east ofthe Great Lakes to the mote western portions of the continent in what is now Oklahoma The Cheyenne are an important division of the Algonquian linguistic family and are counted as one of the groups of Plairts Indians In the sign language among the Plains Indians, the Cheyenne are Qy _i;lle ri,g.Qt fip.ger le; ha,n,d s_eyeral times, a gesture which' means "striped arrows,, alluding to the preference of the Cheyenne for using turkey feathers to wing their arrows The Cheyenne were originally agriculturists and makers of pottery, living in permanent villages in the timbered country of their ancient habita,tion, presently included within the state ofMinnesota. In a later period of their history, theybecame roving buffalo hunters on the Plains. During the last century of tribal days, the life of the Cheyenne people was dominated by warriors known as "Dog Soldiers." These were the young men of the tribe who trained for war and were gloried mwar. The reservation history of the Cheyenne Nation can be divided into two periods. During the earlier period, from the end ofthe Indian Wars in the 1860s_and 1870s until the passage of the Indian Reorganization Act in.l934, the Cheyenne were essentially treated like prisoners, lined up and counted periodically, living where they were ordered by the army, subsisting mostly off government rations, sent involuntarily to boarding schools, subject to imprisonment without trial, and unable to OWJ;J. property. They were non-citizens to whom the Bill of Rights did not apply. By 1930 it had become apparent to government planners that Plains Indians were not becoming extinct, that in fact their population was increasing, and that plans had to be made to organize the reservations on some permanent basis By this time the Plains Indians had little land remaining to them, and mostly not of agricultural quality With the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, the government called a halt to the sale of Indian lands and provided money to buy back land for the landless fudians. This act called for the creation of tribal governments with some power to benefit their peoples. In modern times : the Cheyenne peoples have developed varioUs social pro grams fot the redistribution of resources that take the highs and lows out ofth.eir monthly income. The public manifestation of this system is the "giveaway," a lavish distribution of gifts of food and money to persons as is needed. Giveaways are required in Cheyenne culture to recognize many different kinds of events: elections as tribal leaders, funerals, anniversaries, graduations, arid naming ceremonies. The sponsors of the giveaway are usually the extend'e:d family of the honoree. In warm weather a giveaway is usually held outside. Giveaways as part of festive occasions often incorporate Cheyenne singers and their powv;;ow drums and the y invite costumed pow-wow dancers to perform around the drum. Powwows oftwo types are common: those that are community affairs, mostly for resident s ofthe community and their friends, and the powwows that are commerciaL At the local community powwows, the participants celebrate family alliances and

PAGE 159

friendships and community and tribal values. Most people at a local Cheyenne po-vvvvow know all the other people in attendance. The com.rilercial powwows charge admission, don't serve dinner, and offer substantial prize money to costumed dancers In these days it is possible for the very best dancers and singers to support themselves and their families entirely on earn.ings from ._t.1.e powwow circuit" which comprises reservations and major cities aU across the United States and Canada. If one only knew of the Cheyenne from attending powwows or. observing a giyeaway, one might not know what to expect when visiting them at their homes_ In their daily lives, Cheyenne people have a practical domestic existence similar to that in any other small U.S. community. Children watch television and play outside. Adults cook and work and care for their families_ The only distinction is that the adults and children plan their acfiYities o utSide the hoine thafmay include the celebration of their rich cultural heritage. Lakota The three divisions ofthe Sioux people are the Santee (Dakota), the Yankton (Nakota), and the Teton Sioux (Lakota). The Lakota Nation was a confederation of seven bands: the Oglala, the Sicangu, the Minneconjou, the Hunkpapa, the Itazipco the Sihasapa, and the Oobinunpa. In the mid-1800s, at the height of its power and land control, the L
PAGE 160

-Today, the Oglala Lakota Sioux reservation in South Dakota is the poorest place j,n the United States with 75% of the peop le unemployed. while otb.er Indian groups are. starting to grow rich on the proceeds of gambli,ng, the Oglala Lakota Sioux remain attached to the poorest place in America. Isolated by a desert of grass their reserv-atio n is a bleak reminder that rural poverty can be much worse than urban poverty. Tirree quarters of the people are unemployed. Two-thirds are below the poverty line. One-third of the Indians are homeless. Alcoholism and fetal alcohol poisoning are rife. The. average lifespan on the Sioux reservation is 45. The settling of the Oglala Lakota Indi ans by the U.S. government illustrates the cultural clash between the tWo groups' notions of society. The U.S. government imposed upon the Oglala a social immobility in which property was to be located at a .fixed address. Such notions of civilization were thought to possess self-evident benefits by the U.S. government_ However, the forcible imposition of such notions on the Lakota shows how and dama.:,o:ing it W4S to their sense of culture and society. With little else to occupy them, the Lakota Sioux are being consumed by their history. The reservation is all that is left ofhunting grounds that once covered forty million acres. Today, the Sioux continue to claim their ancestral land and have refused to accept compensation for the territory lost after General Custer discovered gold in their sacred Black Hills. In 1980, the Supreme Court said of the rape of this territory: "A more ripe and ;rank case of dishonorable dealings will never in all probability be fonnd in our history." The Lakota Sioux go to great lengths to teach each generation their history and culture. Many who leave t."'eir reser1ations for education often choose to return to the reservation. It is a source of pride. Mohawk The St. Lawrence River Valley, which the Mohawk called the "big waterway," has a lengthy history dating back over 9, 000 years. The first occupants were the hunters who roamed the shores of what was then the Champlain Sea As the climate improved over the centuries, the Champlain Sea receded lea ving the St. Lawrence River. Wbile these early inhab itants may have lived a simple hunting lifestyle, there is ar:iiple evidence that they enjoyed extensive trading networks. Archaeological studies conducted in this territory indicate the area as extensively popUlated by aboriginal groups that hunted, fished, and gathered berries and plant life Some of the nearby islands were used for burial mounds, indicating an advanced concept of an afterlife. The Mohawk moved into the StLawrence River Valley area in the late 1600s and began forming alliances 'VVith other neighboring villages. The Mohav;rk were central to two of these alliances: The League of Six Nations or "People of the Loughouse:' (Iroquois League), a confederation of six peoples in northern New York state, and, a second alliance, a confederation of villages, including the Iroquois, Huron, Algonquin, among known as the Seven Nations of Canada or the Seven Tribes in what is now southern Canada. These groups were frequently employed on French expeditions against the English colonies in the series of colonial conflicts knowu today as the French and Indian Wars. By the time the Europeans began to their wc;y up :the St Lawrence River, natives they found tlli-iving in villages and camps along the river had established a

PAGE 161

fairly sophisticated trading network that extended hundreds of miles. These. groups had also established a strong agricultural base that allowed for significant development The basic social unit of the Mohawk is the matribneal clan. Each clan generally has one or more villages, depending on the of the community, at any given time Presently, the village of Akwesasne, in the state ofNew York, on the U.S. border with Canada, is the largest Mohawk community: This community, with a population over 12,000, has born witness to many external struggles and controversies. The last decade ofthe nineteenth century saw drastic changes in the politica"r landscape of .Akwesasne and the other neighboring Mohawk communities who were still governed by the old "life chiefs." Non-native governments began legislating away their existence by on the communities and doing away -with the old clan-based system of choosing leaders. In spite of the many affronts to 1\1oJ:iawk cultural and political sovereignty, the last half of the nineteenth century has witnessed a cultural renaissance. Mohawk baskets made of black ash and sweet grass is a popular commodity to visitors, sparking a thriving "cottage industry." Old ceremonies, legends, and songs and dances have begun. to make their way back :into the practice of the natives. By adapting their old ways to a new world, Mohawks have been able to prevent the total assimilation of their people and the loss of cultural values that had "swallowed up" many less native communities. Na-vajo The Navajo Nation, the largest in the United States with over 250,000 members, has a reservation consisting of over 16 million acres of land. The Navajo Nation (reservation) is larger than the state of West Virginia and extends over much of northeastern Arizona and adjoining southeastern Utah and northwestern New Mexico. It completely surrounds the Hopi Indian Reservation, and has its boundaries Canyon de ChellyNationalMonument, Navajo National Monument, and Rainbow Bridge National Monument, all extraordinary geological features Navajo, who call themselves Dine' ("People"), speak a language belonging to the Athabascan family. The linguistic roots for "navahu"' have been traced to the word "nava" for cultivated field and "hu"' for the mouth of the canyons. Most archaeologi....st.s and anthropologists believe that the Navajos and other Athabascans descendants of peoples who came over the Berin_g Strait land bridge during the last Ice Age. This conclusion was reached because of facial characteristics, certain medical studies linking Chinese and Navajo women, and a study oflanguage groups. The Navajo language belongs to the Athabascan group which creates a trail of tribes with the same Athabascan language roots over 4,000 miles in 1ength from the interior of Alaska to the states of Sonora and Chihuahua in northern Mexico. The Navajo people themselves traditionally believe the "Emergence Story of Navajo Beginnings." This story holds that the Dinehjour:i::teyed from the First World to this world that the Holy People had prepared for them. The Dineh world is composed of a series of worlds and is populated with many characters and animals that explain the presence of the Dineh in this wo:rld. Father Sky and Mot4er Earth are seen as the creators ---

PAGE 162

-------and caretakers of this Dineh world. From this journey through a series of worlds grew a deep respect &."-ld stewardship for the earth and its resources. The Navajo people entered tb.e Southwest in the 16th century about the tiine the first Europeans began making explorations into the area. Prima..-:ily hunters and gatherers, they soon leamed agricultural techniques from more sedentary neighbors and became adept at growing corn. After the Spaniards introduced sheep, goats, and horses in large numbers beginning in the 17th and 18th centuries, the Navajo became pastoralists as well. The Navajo were militarily defeated by the United States in 1863. Most of them were removed from their homeland in Arizona 3J.J.d western New Mexico in a tragic event in Navajo history that has been called "The Long Walk." Navajo were forced to move on foot some 350 miles to the Bosque Redondo on the Pecos Piver in eastern New Survivors of the march remained eXiled there until June of 1868 when the-Dine signed a treaty with the U.S. government that established a reservation of 3.5 rniliion acres in their former homeland. The remaining Navajo people then began their Long Walk home, and by the :first of August of 1868 they reached their promised lands. Navajo families are traditionally matriarchal, with a kinship system that follows the lineage of the woman. Today, the total number of clans represented is calculated to be over one hundred and forty, from twenty-one major groups. Traditionally, individuals who share a common clan do not marry. When young people marry, the husband traditionally goes to live with the bride's parents. The Hogan or residence of the family is considered the woman's, as are all sheep and goats. The man has his horse, saddle, and any cattle. The Navajo Nation is divided into political entities called Chapters. They serve the purpose of being a forum for solving community issues and problems. These Chapters elect delegates to the Tribal Council, which meets regularly at Window Rock, Arizona, and decide upon the major issues of the Navajo government. The Navajo Nation is a land of plateaus, mountains, and mesas that are among the most beautiful in the world. Traditional Navaj.o jewelry is world renowned, and silversmiths can be seen craftirig earrings, belt buckles, concho belts, bracelets, brooches, bolo ties, and necklaces out of sterling silver and high quality semi-precious stones, especially turquoise. Other arts of particular interest and superior quality are baskets, pottery, kachina dolls, sand paintings, and rugs. While it is true that the Navajo Nation is the largest and one of the richest Native American nations in the United States, unemployment is still twice the national average_ The present tribal chai..rma.."TJ. and other leaders believe that education is the answer and efforts are being made on all levels to keep Navajo children in school in order to aid them in receiving a higher education. Pueblo The Pueblo Indians ofNew Mexico and Arizona are descendants of the first people to enter the _Americas, perhaps 20,000 years ago. These earliest ;:roups, the Paleo.:. Indians, encountered an environment very different from that oftodav. The climate was J cooler and wetter. Over the centlli-ies, by about C.E. 500, as the climate becat.-ne more dry and the land was more like the desert we see today, early Pueblo life began to focus on agriculture. Farming created less mobility, and small villages with several penmment

PAGE 163

dwellings started to appear along the Rio Grande. These villages had two to twelve pithouses that were dwellings dug into the ground with ramped entrance ways, roof support posts, central fireplaces, and roofs covered with brush an<;l mud. It was during this early period that pottery first appeared.. Pottery jars and bowls were created for-coob.ng, sto:ri_ng, and serving food and water_ The major agricultural products were corn, peas, and squash. At least forty ofthese villages, many made of adobe and standing several stories high, were built on both sides ofthe Rio Grande, in the region extending from what are now Utah and Colorado to the states of Sonora and Chihuahua in northern Mexico. Many villages had hundreds of rooms; the largest ones had over a thousand rooms and probably several thousand inhabitants. The group plans of these prehistoric -villages vary, but all include contiguous rectangular rooms for living and storage, ceremonial rooms or kivas, which were either rectangular and incorporated into blocks of living rooms, or they were. separate, semisubterranean, circular rooms, plaza areas, and trash mounds. Rooms were constructed of adobe mortar with exposed timbers used to support flat adobe roofs ... It has been noted that the aspects of life that are most problematic for a society are those elaborated in ritual and religion. Therefore the themes of the rituals and rites of the Pueblo Indians developed around the themes dealing with water and rain to ensure crops. In addition, among the descendants of the ancient Pueblo, village harmony and respect for elders are important values. Today, the All-Indian Pueblo Council ofNew Mexico divides its members into eight Northern Pueblo and twelve Southern Pueblo. The Laguna are considered one of the Southern Group and the Taos are one of.the Northern Group. Laguna Pueblo The peoples live in the mesa and .rp,ountain country west of the Rio Grande in what is now New Mexico. Like that of their neigb.bm;s, the language of the Laguna Pueblo is Keresan. The Laguna Pueblo was apparently founded by some disgruntled Acomas and by Eastern Keresans from Cochiti, Santo Domingo, and Zia. If historians are correct, the move of these pueblo peoples to Laguna took place in 1697. In 1699, New Mexico's governor conferred San Jose on the village as its patron saintand gave the community official recognition. In 1858, Congress confirmed a land grant to the Lagunas. The Laguna reservation was created by executive order in 1910, and lands were added to it in 1938, 1939, and 1940-42. The Laguna reservation consists of over 400,000 acres ofland. Laguna today has a population of over 3000 and is one of the largest of the Southern Pueblo groups. The major attraction of the Laguna Reservation is the Laguna Pueblo itself and its San Jose church. The white-painted church, which crowns t.lJ.e bill on wbich the pueblo is built, remains a centerpiece for this historical site. The church of Mission San Jose was under construction by 1706. Tne same building, made of field stones and adobe, has survived to the present The craft ofpotterjwas revitalized at beginning in 1975, and Laguna potterf is a bighly valued art. Laguna pottery is characterized by white background with bro"',-n and black geometrical designs hand-drawn on the external surface. I I I I I

PAGE 164

-.... Taos Pueblo As early as the 12th centlli)l, Tiwa-spea.king peoples a.Irived in what is now New .i\.1exico divided into t"wo segments, one g:-oup :m.ovi..Tlg south to arec.S now occupied by the Sandia, Isleta, and Ysleta del Sur pueblos, md the northern group, the Piclli-is and the Taos, remaining in the area to the west ofthe Sangre de Cristo Mountains. This division, whenever it occurred, brought about sufficient change in the common language spoken by the two segments that in historic ti..rnes S0uthern Tiwa and Northern Tiwa became distinct, but mutually intelligible, dialects. The pithouse-dwelling ancestors of the Taos people who 3.!:-rived between 1000 and 12{)0 are in the general region of the west side ofthe Sangre de Cristo Mountains. During the 13th century, larger, multi-f3.mily surface dwellings appeared. Settlement iiithe immediate vicinity of today's Taos Pueblo began about 1350, and has continued to the present. In 1540, by the time members of the Vasquez de Coronado expedition came north spectacUlar mud-plastered multi-storied structures were foun
PAGE 165

source of all Algonquin W.-ibes_ Th_ey also shar-ed an oral tradition -vvith the Kickapoo wi:10 lived in the nort.b.e3.$! p2rts of what is now the state of O.b.io and, therefore, were considered the "southern" complement to the Kickapoo ofthe north. The loss of their homeland to the Iroquois gave the Shaw-nee tb.e reputation ofbeing wanderers, but this was by necessity not choice_ Shawnee chiefships were patrilineal, v;ith descent traced through the father, and chiefships were heredit&.--y and held for the life of the individuaL During-the summers the Shawnee gathered into large villages of bark-covered long holises, v.-ith each village usually having a large council house for meetings and religious ceremonies. In the fall they separated into small hunting .camps of extended families_ Men were the warriors and did the hunting and fishing; women's responsibility was the care of the corn:fiel