Shifting Policy Regarding Indian Affairs
Discussion | Summary
This document discusses various historical and social issues concerning Native American tribes in the United States, focusing on termination policies, reproductive rights, self-determination movements, and federal recognition.
Termination Policies: In the 1950s, termination policies aimed to end federal trust responsibilities for certain tribes, causing division within the Eastern Band of Cherokees between those who relied on federal aid and those who saw economic opportunities in reduced federal involvement.
Advocates for Termination: Individuals like Pearson McCoy and Fred Bauer advocated for the termination of the Eastern Band of Cherokees, arguing for economic benefits, while Chief Jarret Blythe opposed it due to concerns about increased racism and discrimination.
Sterilization of Native American Women: Between 1970 and 1976, the Indian Health Service sterilized a significant percentage of Native American women, a practice influenced by racist policies and a lack of informed consent, which ended after the Roe v. Wade decision.
Self-Determination Movements: The 1970s saw a shift towards self-determination for Native American tribes, marked by resistance movements at places like Alcatraz and Wounded Knee, with Presidents Nixon and Ford supporting tribal rights and self-determination.
Legislation and Land Claims: Legislation in the 1970s resolved numerous land claims in favor of tribes, such as the Taos Pueblo’s claim to Blue Lake, representing a period of peaceful resolution and progress for Indian self-determination.
Federal Acknowledgement Program: The Federal Acknowledgement Program established criteria for federal recognition of tribes, leading to paradoxical situations where some tribes, despite being large and functional, remain unrecognized due to issues like land base and provenance.
Discussion | Full Text |
Fall 2016
While thinking about all the Acts and the Public Law that were passed that we read about this week, in addition to the stories of activism from the text, it’s clear the period from 1887 to 1934 represented a time of shifting policy for the U.S. government. This is to be expected from a monolithic entity like the federal bureaucracy, or a political branch steeped in the business of governance like the legislature. In fact, after the Dawes Act of 1887 and by the early 20th century, the lawmaking faculties of the government bent toward allowing Indian tribes a modicum of leeway as they aspired, each in its own way, to self-determination. There were always pockets of citizen and business-related resistance, however. Note that the Johnson-O’Malley Act of April 16, 1934 specifically excludes Oklahoma, where landowners were likely outright hostile to displaced Indians receiving assistance or social welfare from the state government, even if it were reimbursed by the fed. In contrast, people in other parts of the country had been horrified by the photographs and accompanying narratives in the Meriam Report detailing the poverty and death toll that was destroying indigenous communities. So, these competing desires between government and stakeholders, such as ranchers or other capitalists, and the softer side of humanity expressed by the will of the people, resulted in a sort of seesawing on the part of lawmakers and the nation, the guardian to these ‘wards’, and the Acts, Public Law, and generally shifting policy toward Indian people is reflective of this behavior. By the 1950’s and the passage of HCR 108, as Dr. Svingen notes in his lecture, the attitude had shifted back the other way as the government attempted to turn down its relationships with tribes, such as the Menominee, whose status was terminated. The period from 1887-1934 is one of the many such swings in U.S. history, as the nation continually dispossess Indian people of their lands and occasionally bends the other way to uphold treaty obligations, if only furtively, perhaps to ease the collective conscious, or for business, or both.