Social Issues in Contemporary Native America

Reflections from Turtle Island

Hilary N. Weaver

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781409452065
• eBook ISBN: 9781317053880
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Anthropology
• Index: Social Sciences

Hilary Weaver has drawn together leading Native American social workers, researchers, and academics to provide current information on a variety of social issues related to Native American children, families, and reservations both in the USA and in Canada. Divided into four major sections, each containing an introduction, this book places the historical foundations of Native American social work in context in order to fully provide the reader with a comprehensive survey on various aspects of working with Native American families; community health and wellness; and community revitalization and decolonization. This groundbreaking volume should be read by both educators and students in social work and other helping professions in the USA and Canada as well as all human service professionals working with Native Americans.

PART I
Policy Foundations

Social policies both reflect and serve as the foundation for how Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples relate to each other. A firm understanding of the social, economic, and political status of contemporary Native Americans requires an examination of the evolution of social policies from historic times through the present. Policies undergird services, as well as the whole relationship between Indigenous Peoples and settler societies.

Indigenous Peoples are legally distinct from other ethnic groups that make up settler societies. This has led to the development of separate and unique policies. While both the US and Canada are settler societies of British origin, their social policies have evolved independently. The chapters by Weaver and Hart and Rowe provide readers with overviews of social policies in the US and Canada, respectively. In particular, Hart and Rowe’s chapter firmly grounds our understanding of social policies within the context of colonization. These chapters provide a foundation for understanding subsequent content on social, health, and economic issues.

Chapter 1
Sovereignty, Dependency, and the Spaces in Between: An Examination of United States Social Policy and Native Americans

Hilary N. Weaver

Social policies both reflect and set the stage for understanding the realities of Indigenous Peoples in the United States. Policies mirror the values, norms, and beliefs of the eras in which they were developed, as well as the priorities of the policy makers. “US Indian policy has followed a schizophrenic pattern with policies that are contradictory and mystify the relationship among the tribes, the US government, and the individual states of the union” (Wall 2010, 5).

Policies have shifted considerably over time, and continue to shift to reflect the values and priorities of those in power in the United States. Over time, it is possible to see dramatic policy changes as similar to pendulum swings, rather than a steady progression in a consistent direction. While initially it may be difficult to see the logic behind changes in policies, on closer inspection it is possible to understand shifts as a reflection of long-standing tension between federalism and states’ rights (Wall 2010). Additionally, with the benefit of hindsight, it is apparent that federal policy shifts often occur in response to an economic crisis and the need to stimulate the national economy using Native American capital (Wall 2010).

Ongoing themes emerge throughout the examination of social polices related to Native Americans, with the overarching theme being contrasting opinions about the amount of sovereignty retained by Native people. Additional sub-themes emerge, such as the tension between federal paternalism and Indigenous self-determination and the interplay between assimilation and maintenance of distinctiveness.

This chapter begins with a discussion of sovereignty as the foundation for relations between the United States and Native Americans. Value stances that guide policy makers such as assimilation, paternalism, and self-determination are also examined within this platform. Major policy shifts are reviewed according to the era in which they occurred. Variations in policies across regions are briefly described followed by concluding remarks about the trajectory of social policies in the US.

The subject of US social policies and Native Americans is an expansive one. This topic has been addressed in multi-volume books and even this requires only briefly addressing significant issues. The goal of this chapter is to set the stage; to provide readers with a basic understanding that will enable them to thoughtfully process the content of subsequent chapters. In no way does this chapter presume to cover policy issues in depth, but rather to introduce ideas.

Understanding Sovereignty, its Erosion, and Federal Paternalism

The United States Constitution recognizes Native American tribes as sovereign nations. Article 1 gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with Indian tribes, as they do with other foreign nations. This understanding of sovereignty was affirmed by the US Supreme Court in 1832 Worcester v. Georgia, which held that states are excluded from regulating or taxing Indian country as this is an infringement on Indigenous sovereignty (Ford 2010). In other words, at that time, states had no authority over tribes.

While recognition of sovereignty has been articulated in the Constitution and by the Supreme Court, viewpoints that contradict this stance have always existed. For example, at the time of Columbus’s voyage, the Vatican pronounced that a Christian prince has the right to invade land occupied by infidels (Bragaw 2006, Ford 2010). This position suggests that Indigenous Peoples had few if any rights, and certainly the Vatican did not recognize Native Americans as sovereign nations.

Within a generation of the Vatican proclamation, however, contrasting voices were raised by Christian leaders. In 1532, Dominican theologian Francisco de Vittoria stated that “Natives of the Americas possessed natural legal rights as both sovereign nations and children of God and must be treated accordingly” (Bragaw 2006, 161). These divergent viewpoints articulated almost 500 years ago still echo today and undergird inconsistencies in social policies.

Even when Indigenous sovereignty was acknowledged, this did not mean that Europeans considered Indigenous Peoples to be their equals. While Native American tribes might be recognized as self-governing nations, they were typically viewed as inferior (Ford 2010). Originally the popes, then the presidents beginning with Washington, used the term “Great Father” to describe their relationships with the tribes (Bragaw 2006), thus suggesting a paternalistic rather than an equal relationship from early on.

President Jefferson provides a good illustration of the complex and mixed perspectives held on Indigenous sovereignty by early Americans. While espousing ideas of progress, civilization, and ultimately assimilation as a goal for Native Americans, he was also a strong advocate of sovereignty and treaty rights (Bragaw 2006). Rather than using military might to promote American policies, he preferred to encourage compliance (i.e., voluntary removal with federal support rather than forced removal; Bragaw 2006).

Policies adopted during Jefferson’s presidency created the political and legal environment for the Indian Removal Act of 1830.

Jefferson’s administration undertook what would become an irreversible shift in the federal government’s Indian policy. The administration moved away from the policies pursued by the British Empire, the Confederation, and the federalist administrations, which had sought to limit frontier conflict by controlling the pace and direction of frontier settlement and closely regulating trade. It moved to a policy that aggressively used land acquisition, settlement, and trade as tools to force assimilation or removal across the Mississippi. Jefferson’s administration negotiated and assumed an obligation on the part of the federal government to Georgia to extinguish the sovereignty of the Cherokee and Creek nations, an obligation that was irreconcilable with federal treaties pledging federal respect and protection for those nations’ sovereignty. (Bragaw 2006, 160)

Other presidents would not even give the pretense of recognizing Indigenous sovereignty. Andrew Jackson saw treaties as absurd and blatantly denied sovereignty, claiming Native Americans were subjects of the United States (Bragaw 2006).

The federal government has regularly infringed upon Indigenous sovereignty and prohibited Native people from enacting and enforcing certain laws. For example, with the passage of the Major Crimes Act, tribes no longer had the authority to prosecute offenders of major crimes on Native American land. Forced land successions and removal also indicate limits on sovereignty (Ford 2010). Rather than wholly sovereign entities, Native American tribes were treated as domestic dependent nations, making true sovereignty an illusion (Boxer 2009).

In spite of significant infringements on sovereignty, in some respects Native American tribes continue to carry out functions of independent nations. For example, the Haudenosaunee, Lakota, and Ojibwe separately declared war on Germany in 1941 rather than being bound under the United States declaration (The Economist 2012). One particularly notable example of continuing sovereignty is that many tribes run gaming operations on tribal land, even when states prohibit gambling. In another example, continued control of tribal membership decisions is a central tenet of sovereignty and self-determination. In 1978, the US Supreme Court affirmed tribes have exclusive purview in making membership decisions as a central part of tribal self-governance (Riley 2007). Additionally, tribes can issue their own passports, as the Haudenosaunee continue to do. Sovereignty, however, must be recognized by others to have practical application. In an infamous incident in 2010, British authorities refused to recognize the Haudenosaunee passports of a lacrosse team, denying their ability to travel and forcing them to forfeit an international tournament they were favored to win (The Economist 2012).

In the 1831 US Supreme Court case Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, Chief Justice Marshall wrote for the majority:

Indian tribes were merely ‘domestic dependent nations’ existing ‘in a state of pupilage.’ He said that their relation to the United States ‘resembles that of a ward to his guardian.’ Justice Marshall’s characterization of the tribes as ‘dependent nations’ evolved into the trust doctrine and basically says that the relationship between the United States and the native peoples is that the United States is their caretaker. (Ford 2010, 407)

This 1831 decision sets the model of guardianship. Typically, guardianship is a temporary relationship in which a guardian prepares a ward for independence. This implies that US policy should temporarily take a protective and guiding stance toward Native Americans while ultimately preparing them for integration into mainstream US culture. As a result of these divergent goals of protection and integration, federal policy “has lurched back and forth, sometimes aiming for assimilation and at other times, recognizing its responsibility for assisting Indian development” (Boxer 2009, 8). Once established, only Congress can determine when the guardianship role will end (Ford 2010).

The Pendulum Swings: Assimilation versus Distinctiveness; Paternalism versus Self-determination

As noted above, Indigenous sovereignty has eroded, but vestiges remain. The question is how much sovereignty has been retained and how this is expressed. The 1800s through 1934 was a time when Native people lost significant amounts of land, and assimilation threatened the continued existence of Indigenous Peoples as distinct entities. Subsequently, the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 provided a direct reversal of previous policies and promoted the retention of land and cultural distinctiveness. By the 1950s, policies shifted again and relocation and termination sought to put an end to Native Americans and tribes as distinct within the fabric of American society. Recognition of the severe, unintended negative consequences of these policies shifted the tide once again as activism in the 1960s and 1970s saw the advent of policies promoting self-determination in a variety of venues such as health, child welfare, and self-governance.

1800s–1933: The Erosion of Sovereignty

After the establishment of the United States, the young nation’s growing population sought to expand its hold over land and other resources. These resources seemed within easy reach as Native Americans decreased in military might and population. This era saw a decreasing recognition of Indigenous sovereignty. Native people were removed from traditional territories to Indian Country beyond US boundaries, and to reservations within the US. Efforts at assimilation sought to eliminate Native Americans and their tribes as distinct entities, thus integrating them into US society and freeing up their land and other resources for American use. Significant policies of this era included removal, placement on reservations, boarding schools, restrictions on religious freedom, allotment, and the bestowal of US citizenship.

In 1786, the United States established the first reservation for Native Americans. This was initially done under the precept that separation preserved sovereignty. In creating this reservation the United States

claimed that its intent and future approach was to treat each tribe as an independent nation. In theory, while the notion of tribal sovereignty sounded like a move in the right direction, especially considering the fact that Europeans had disenfranchised countless Native American tribes, the tribes were already sovereign and what the United States was really trying to do was to obtain more land. For instance, in a letter from President Jefferson to William Henry Harrison, in 1803, Jefferson expressed his goal of ‘draw[ing] [Native Americans] to agriculture [because it would] cause them to [withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece of land.’ He also stated his desire to ‘see the good and influential individuals among them in debt [because it would make them] willing to lop [off the debt] by a cessation of lands.’ (Ford 2010, 401).

Once the United States became militarily strong enough, removal became official policy (Wall 2010). By moving the Eastern tribes to land west of the Mississippi river, their lands could be opened for American settlement. Small pockets of Indigenous Peoples remained in their territories, thus illustrating the incompleteness of the removal policy, but overall removal was generally seen as successful by the United States as vast tracts of lands were now devoid of Indigenous Peoples.

After the Civil War, rather than large-scale removal, tribes were confined to reservations, generally on small portions of their traditional territories. It was more cost effective and politically expedient to keep them in remnants of their territory than forcefully remove them to Indian Territory (Wall 2010).

During the nineteenth century, the US government officially embraced policies aimed at forced assimilation and the break-up of Native families (Graham 2008). In 1867, the Commissioner for Indian Affairs advocated for the forced removal of Native children as the only solution to the Indian problem, beginning 100 years of US policies of separating Native children from their families and nations (Graham 2008).

The residential schools were a primary example of a policy promoting assimilation. Pratt, the first director of Carlisle Indian School, is often credited with the slogan “Kill the Indian: Save the Man,” which reflected the change in strategy from physical genocide to cultural genocide. Thousands of Native youth were taken, often forcibly, to boarding schools far from their families and communities. At these schools they were educated in Christian virtues and vocational trades so they could subsequently find their place in American society and no longer exist as culturally, linguistically, or religiously distinct. Indeed, Native languages and religious expression were forbidden and harshly punished at the boarding schools. From the opening of Carlisle in 1879 until the mid 1960s, thousands of Native children were removed from their families and educated in the boarding schools, thus setting in motion generations of Native children raised in institutions with limited knowledge of what it means to be a family member, community member, or how to raise children traditionally.

The suppression of Indigenous spirituality received systematic codification in 1883 with passage of the Indian Religious Crimes Code which banned Indigenous spiritual practices such as the Sun Dance (Forbes-Boyte 1999, O’Brien 1991, Smith 2006, Venables 2004). Religious prohibitions were part and parcel of efforts at “civilizing savages” and assimilating Indigenous Peoples into the American mainstream. The ban on all Indigenous spirituality officially continued until the 1930s (O’Brien 1991), but in reality impediments still exist to free exercise of many traditional Indigenous spiritual practices (Weaver 2011).

Communal ownership of lands (i.e., reservations) was seen as a barrier to assimilating Native people into individualistic, mainstream American culture. If Native people could be reformed into nuclear families with individual land holdings, this would both facilitate cultural assimilation and free up coveted reservation lands for American settlement. Division of land (or allotment) became a primary tool of assimilation policy (Wall 2010). In 1887, Congress passed the Dawes Act. Under this policy, reservation land was divided and allocated in individual plots. Once land was divided and allotted, the remaining land was opened for sale to outsiders. Under this policy, land in Native American hands shrank from 134 million acres in 1887 to 48 million half a century later (Boxer 2009).

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, US social policy emphasized assimilation through various means such as removing children from their fa...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction
• PART I Policy Foundations
• PART II Social Work: Past, Present, and Future
• PART III Indigenous Peoples across the Life Cycle
• Part IV Well-Being and the Community Context
• Conclusion
• Index