already been rouched upon in previous chapters,with regard toIndianwars and land cessions: tribalsovereignty, treaties, federaltrust responsibility. federal bureau- cracy. Indian removal and concentration, boundaries and reservations, assimilation, and land allotment. Since these concepts are also essential to the contemporary lndian situation, they will besummarized here along with past governmental pro- gramsofthe 20th centuty. Then the pre- sent-day federal and Indian relationship will bedefined. along with contemporary Indian demographics andsocialconditions.
CENTRALIZATION AND
BUREAUCRATIZATION
With regard ro colonial foundations of Indian relations. each Britishcolony was originally responsible for itsown Indian policy.Asit turned out. a majorityoftribes came to support theFrench,and,atthe Albany Congress in 1754.inan effort ro gain more consistent and betterrelations with Indian tribes. the Englishdecided to unifY Indian affairs. with northern and southern departments directly under the royal government. In the following years.
the English implemented this policy.
appointing superintendents for both regions.
In 1775. at the start oftheAmerican Revolution. theContinental Congressorga- nized a Committee on IndianAffairs co decideon policy.UsingtheBritishsystem as amodel. therebels maintained a centralized Indian program becauseofthe advantages of collective bargaining. with authority vestedinthefederal congressratherthanthe states.Insteadoftwodepartments, however.
asunder the British system. three depart- rnents wereesrablished-nonhern, central, andsouthern. The northern wasresponsible for the tribes of the Iroquois (Hau- denosaunee) and allIndian tribes to their north; thesouthern wasresponsible forthe Cherokee andall tribestotheirsouth; and thecentralcovered thetribesbetweenthem.
The practice of treaty making wasalso based on colonial policy. The English.
French. and Dutch all recognizedthesover- eignty ofindian tribes.andtheynegotiated treatieswiththem inorderto establish the
credibility of their own landpurchases and claimstothe other colonialpowers. as well astoestablish trade agreements with Indi- ans. In 1778. the Continental Congress enacted itsfirst treaty wid, Indians-the Lenni Lenape (Delaware). For the United States.however. as hadbeen the caseforthe colonialpowers. treatieswereameansofa legalizing of the right of conquest and might just as well have been unilateral.
Indian sovereigntywastreated aslimited sovereignty bythe federal government and as nonexistentbymany settlers,landspecu- lators.and evenstate governments, which oftenforcedthefederalgovernment's hand.
These various questions-tribal sover- eignty. right of conquest versus right of purchase. federal versus state authority- weredealt with under theArticles ofCon- federation in effect from 1781 to 1789.
along with other ordinances of the same period. which accepted in principle that the central government should regulate Indian affairsand trade. andthatlandsand property should notbe taken fromIndian peoples without their consent. Neverthe- less.becauseof violations by settlersonthe frontierand Indian uprisings,the secretary of warwas made responsible forall Indian affairs in 1786, with superintendents under him. The next year.the Northwest Ordinance reaffirmed theprovisions ofthe British RoyalProclamation of1763.main- taining therightsof Indians to landswest of the Appalachian Divide. The Federal Constitution. drawn up in 1787. ratified bytherequired number ofstates in1788.
and enacted in 1789. adopted and refined thesameprinciples ofIndian policy.
From 1790 to 1799. the American Congressenacted fourTradeandIntercourse Actsrdating ro Indianaffitirs and commerce.
The acts licensed traders and established governmenttrading houses(the"factory sys- tem")to sellAmerican suppliesroIndians on credit; provided for the appointment of Indian agentsbythe president; authorized expenditures .for farm implements and domestic anfmals for the Indians; deter- mined boundaries for Indian lands; and requiredfederal approval and public treaty forthe purchase ofIndian landsby states.In 1802.anew TradeandIntercourse Actcod- ified thefour previousacts.And in1806.an Office ofIndian Trade was created within the War Department=-wirh a superinten- dent of IndianTrade under the secretary of
216 ATLAS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN INDIAN
war-to administer the federal trading houses. The "factory system" lasted until 1822. when the inellicient trading houses andthe Office ofIndian Tradewereabol- ished. Provisionsweremadeat thetimefor thelicensingofindependent traders.better ableto meetthe great demand for furs.
In 1824. to611the void created bythe abolition ofthe Office of Indian Trade.the secretaryof warcreated an Office ofIndian Affairs.with astaff within theWarDepart- ment. At thistime theappellation Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) first came into usage. In 1832. the new system was for- mallyrecognized by an act of Congress.
which gave the president the right to appointacommissioner of IndianAffairs.
In1834.Indian policywasfurther codified with a new Trade and Intercourse Act.And in 1849.theBureau ofIndian Affairswas transferred from the War Department to the Department oftheInterior.
r::OVALAND RESERVATIONS
Theconcept of aseparate Indian Country and a boundary line separating Indians from non-Indians originated with the British Royal Proclamation of1763. which reserved territory and prevented non- Indian settlement westof the Appalachian watershed. With theNorthwest Ordinance of 1787. the U.S. government reaffirmed this policy. Yetitfollowed through with _ onlypartial support. usingtrOOps tokeep Indians inbut rarely to keepsettlers out.
Settlers therefore pushed on toward the next natural boundary-the Mississippi River.
After the Louisiana Purchase of 1803-the U.S. acquisition of vast new reachesof territory-a newdimension was added to the concept of aseparate Indian Country. with tribes exchanging their landseast of the Mississippi forlandsto the west(under threat oflossof federal protec- tion against state andlocal elements. and through trickery.such as the appointment by federal officialsofnewtribalrepresenta- tives then negotiating with them. often wid, alcohol as a negotiating tool). The concept became policy in1825. with the creation of anIndian Country between the Red and Missouri Rivers (which wasfur-
rher defined andreferred to astheIndian Territory in the Trade and Intercourse Act of 1834); followedby the Removal Actof 1830. leading tothe relocation of many eastern tribes. Continuing non-Indian expansion. however, caused theso-called
"permanent"Indian Territoryto dwindle in size (see"The Indian Territory" and
"The Trailof Tears"inchapter 6).
Throughout the period of extensive Indian removal. U.S. policy wasoften at odds with itself. For example. in 1833.
ChiefJusticeJohn Marshall ruled infavor of the Cherokee keeping their ancestrallands.
butPresident AndrewJackson ignored this decision. Similarly. eastern politicians did not alwaysapproveofthemethods ofnego- ciacionorcoercionemployed byterritorial governorswho assumed theresponsibilities ofIndian superintendents.
Ingeneral.however, despite opposing voices, the trend was toward unilateral action on thepartof the federalgovern- ment. During theI 850s.agreatnumber of treaties were negotiated with Indian tribes-52 from 1853to 1856 alone-in which the UnitedStatesacquired 174mil- lion aCfesof land. In many instances, methods of deceit and duress were employed byfederal agents. but atleastthe process honored thetreaty-making princi- ple. Treatymaking aspolicy ended with a negotiatedagreementbetween the federal government and the Nez Perce in 1867.
the last ofsome 370 treaties. Alandmark decision inthe Cherokee Tobacco Case of 1870ruledthat the Cherokee were subject tofederal revenuelawsand notthe special exemption granted fouryearsearlier bythe Cherokee Reconstruction Treaty.Then in 187I.an actof congress officiallyimpeded further treaties.Although pasttreaty oblig- ationswerenot invalidated, Indianshence- forth were subject to unilateral laws of Congress and presidential rulings.
It was during this same post--Civil War period-the 20yearsfrom 1867until the inception of the allotment policy in I887-that thegreatest number of reserva- tionswere created.The reservation policy was consistent with that of the earlier Removalpolicy.in that itattempted to seg- regateIndians from non-Indians. The dif- ference wasthat instead of one large Indian Country. landswere divided up piecemeal.
with tribes confined to separate parcels withspecific boundaries.
The reservationidea extended back to earlymissionary activitiesinthe colonies- theQuinnipiac reservation in New Haven for Algonquians. established by the Puri- tansin 1638.and the Caughnawaga reser- vation in Quebec for Mohawk. founded by theJesuitsin 1676. aretwO early exam- ples.Butearlyreservations weredesigned more for separation from other Indians andforacculturation. rather thansepara- tionfrom whites. Twocenturies later, in the years following theAmerican Revolu- tion>theIroquois (Haudcnosaunee) were granted reservationsinwestern New York forthe purpose of thelatter concept.
Reservation Indian police badge
During the 1850s. after the Califor- nia gold rush. California. Oregon and Washington servedastesting groundsfor the reservation system, with the double purpose of preventing conflicts berween Indians and non-Indians, and creating placeswhereIndiansmight beinstructed in Euroamerican customs and technol- ogy. After the Civil War. the policy became widely applied throughout the West,with reservations serving ashold- ing and prison camps ina periodofcon- siderable strife. ForPlainsIndians whose territory had been drastically reduced and who had to adapt to an alien farming lifestyle, the reservation experience proved an immeasurable ordeal. And even if a tribe did make progress in adapting to the new order. it might be subject to further federal unilateral poli- cies. such as the consolidation of lands caused by bringing additional tribes to thereservation for the expresspurpose of detribalization, or outright compression of landsinordertoopen moreterritory to settlement.
f'J?t\i I
24)..
f-zr.t ~~ wr:5
ASSIMILATION AND ALLOTMENT
Assimilation asIndianpolicywasnornew.
Missionariesand educatorshadbeenprac~
tieing itsince theearliest colonial times, striving to Christianize and "civilize»
Native Americans, assuming they were bestowing upon them abetter life.During thelate 19d, century. after theperiod of separation as governmental policy, in which the primary objective was the removal of Indians from choice:lands, acculturation underduressandderribaliza- rion followed. The stated officialgoalwas the self-sufficiency ofIndian peoples.but it was self-sufficiency through termsdictated by non-Indians-i.e., the suppression of Indian culture and the adoption byIndians of mainstream traditions and technologies.
For many. thepush toNativeAmeri- can assimilation was well-intentioned.
Reformers,manyof whom hadbeenpareof the antislaverymovement in pre-Civil War years.believed that for Indians to be equal to other Americans. theyhadto adapt to the culture around them. Many early reformerswere Quakers. such asSamuel Janney. historian and poet, and Alfred Love, founder of the Universal Peace Union.Their work wasinstrumentalinthe appointment of Quakers to implement President Ulysses S.Grant'sPeacePolicy.
Another reformerwhoplayed a promi- nent early role was industrialist Peter Cooper. who founded Cooper Union in New York Cityfor theadvancement of sci- ence and art. Influenced by writer Lydia Maria Child's pamphlet All Appeal for the Indians (1868). he became active in the Indian reform movement. In 1868. he helped organize the U.S. Indian Commis- sion, dedicated to the prorecrion andeleva- tionoftheIndians and theendingof fron- tier warfare. Former congressman from NewYork William EarlDodge. as wellas theCongregational clergyman HenryWard Beecher,weremembers.John Beeson.who had written the pamphlet A Pleafor the Indians in 1858. and Vincent Colyer.for- mer commander of an African-American regimentinthe CivilWar,alsocameto be involved. Cooper's effortshelped leadto a subsequent governmental organization.
formed byCongress. the Board of Indian Commissioners>whichwasto oversee Pres- ident UlyssesGrant's Peace Policy.Cooper
CONTEMPORARY INDIANS 217
invited many Indian delegations toWash- ington, D.C., tocome alsotoNew York.
Among those to speak atCooper Union weretheOglala Sioux (Lakota) Red Cloud in 1870 and the Southern Arapaho Little Raven in1871. In1878, theWarDepart- mentsoughttoreassumeitsadministration overIndian affairsfromtheDepartment of the Interior. Cooper and Beeson, who believed char only civilian control could maintain lasting peacewith theIndians and leadtotheirsocialandeconomic elevation, opposed theintended transfer. They helped form theLadies'National LeaguetoProtect theIndians inorder tolobby against mili- tarycontrol.
Novelist, poet, and essayist Helen Hunt Jackson was another renowned reformer. Her involvement in the Indian rightsmovement beganon an1879 visitto Boston, during which she attended alec- turebyjournalist Thomas Tibblesconcern- ing the plight of the Ponca Indians (see
"Warsforthe West/Great Plains/Ponca" in chapter 5).Tibbles was touring with the Poncachief Standing Bear,plusthe Omaha brother and sister lecturers Francis La F1esche and Susette La Flesche (Bright Eyes), brought to Boston by the lawyer, reformer, and lecturer Wendell Phillips.
With HenryDawes, senator from Massa- chusertsandchairman of theSenate Com- mittee onIndian Affairs,in 1879, Jackson organized the Boston Indian Citizenship Association, whichlobbiedonbehalf ofthe Ponca intheir legalStruggleforahomeland in Nebraska. She entered into an open debate intheNewYork andBoston news- papers with Carl Schurz, secretary of the interior, and challenged hisstand on the issue.In 188I,the publication of hernon- fiction work, A Century of Dishonor.galva- nized public sentiments on Indian issues.
The book's discussion of deception and broken promises inU.S. Indian policy in regard to seven tribes, andof threemas- sacres of Indians by whires, had similar impact on theIndianrightsmovement as Harrier Beecher Stowe's UncleTomsCabin hadhadonthe antislavery cause.In 1882, Jackson wasappointed bythe Deparunenr oftheInterior asaspecialagenr, assignedto investigate the problem of encroachment onthereservations of California'sMission Indians. Her report resulted inthe Interior Department beinggranted theauthority to usemilitary fora to removesettlersfrom
Mission Indian lands. Her findings also resulted in a congressional appropriation enabling Mission Indians to homestead their lands and acquire individual titles without cost. Her experience as aspecial Indianagent in CaJifornia inspired hernext book, Ramona (J 884). The fictionalized account of the life of Cahuilla woman Ramona Lubo calledattention to the plight of Mission Indians under the impact of non-Indian expansion.
From 1883 until hisdeath in 1912, Albert Smiley,Quaker and philanthropist, hostedaseriesof semiannual conferencesfor leadingfiguresofthe"Friendsofthe Indian"
movement at LakeMohonk, hisresort hotel in the Shawangunk Mountains near New Paltz, New York. Prominent at the Lake Mohonk gatherings were Herbert Welsh, founder of the Indian Rights Association, and Senator Dawes. The federal govern- ment'spolicy [0replace thereservationsys- tem with theaIIounent ofland to individual Indians originated withresolutionsinitiated at the Lake Mohonk conferences."Other LakeMohonk recommendations eventually incorporated intofederalIndian policywere the discouragement of tribalism in Indian political and businessaffairs,increased fed- eral responsibility inIndian education, and granting of citizenship toIndians.
For most reformers, the means to assimilation became allotrnenr (Helen Hunt Jackson wasone notableexception, coming to oppose allotment policies).In 1887,the United StatesCongress passedthe General Allotment Act (or the Dawes Severalty Act), sponsored by Senator Dawes, under whichIndianreservationswere to bebro- kenup and allotted totheheads of Indian familiesin160-acre pieces, with theratio- nale that thelands would then bedevel- oped and farmed by economically moti- vatedlandholders. Followingthe assignment of plots to Indians, anysurplus territory would bedistributed to non-Indians with theidea ofbringing about the maximum utilization of tillable lands. In 1891, because of the continuing disuse ofmany oftheparcelsbyIndians, additional legis- lation provided for the leasing of their allotted lands tonon-Indians. And when the Cherokee and Choctaw of theIndian Territory refused allotment, taking their casetofederalcourts, Congress passed the Curtis Actof 1898, which dissolved their tribal governments and extended land
218 ATLAS OFTHE NORTH AMERICAN INDIAN
allotment policy tothem. In termsofindi_
VIdual fights, nonallotted Indian
d h . .dicri f wet.
un.er t e Juns icnon 0 the CoUrt of Indian Offenses, established in 1884,with tri~al un~tsadministering justicein allbut major crimes. (The Major Crimes AGt of 1885 formally gave jurisdiction ofmajor cnmes to U.S. courrs.) Allotted Indian"
however, were[Qbe subject toState,civil andcriminaJjurisdiction. ' .Thus, comi~g into the 20th century, Indians were subject toafederalpolicy that sought to eliminate tribal landholdingS'and politicalorganizations, suppress communal customs, and terminate trust status. At
me
end of the trust period, when so-called Indian "competency" was established-.
25-year schedule had originally been pro- jected inI887-Indians were to be granted citizenship. To expedite the process, the Burke Act of 1906 further amended the General Allotment Act, giving the secretary oftheinterior authority to release ailonees from federal supervision ahead ofschedule andremove anyremaining restrictions0
allotted lands. From 1917 to J929, the Department of the Interior's Competency Commission issued thousands of patents discontinuing federal guardianship of Indian lands (the "forced patent" period).
Other legislation of the periodencour- aged Native American acculturation, suchas the imposed cutting of uaditionally long Indian hair and the outlawing of the Sun Dance. Meanwhile, federally administered schools strived to educate Indians inthe ways ofmainstream society. Federalfunils also went to private schools, sponsored by various church denominations or bythe Friends of the Indian societies. The most successfulschool ineasing che culturalrran- siticn wastheCarlisle School in Pennsylva"
nia, founded in 1879 by Richard Pratr, which set the precedent for che manyIndian boarding schoolsofcheearly 20thcenrury·
In 1924, after the projected 25-yea;.
period but before the large majority 0'
Indians had proven "competency/- Con- gresspassed the Citizenship Act, granvng all Indians citizenship (although some states stillwithheld the right to
-s=
widiNew Mexico) Arizona, and Maine-nO.' granting ituntil after World War U).The impetus for citizenship resulted in p~
from the Indian contribution in Worl War I. But an additional motive was the hope formore rapid assimilation.
Yetby the1920s, the concepts of both
~ssimilation and alloun~nt were be~ng widelyquescion~d. Coercive ~ccultura~lon had createda cultureless Native American generacion, caught between twO worlds.
Tribal.governmentshad been replacedby a paternalisticand unresponSive federal bureaucracy.And many Indians in the allotted tribeshad lost not only their cul- tural and rribal identity but also their porentialeconomicbase--their land. Dur- ing theentireperiodof allotment, Indians weredispossessed of millions of acres, nearlycwo-thirds ofthe total heldin1887.
The originalredistribution of tribal hold-
ings accounted formuch ofthe loss,with
surplus lands going to non-Indians. But wirhouttribalor federal protection, indi- vidualallottees lost many more parcels.
Unscrupulous land speculators used a vari- eryofmeansto separateIndiansfromtheir lands.If they were unable to purchase landsdirectlyatanunfair price, theymight purchase inheritance rights or secure guardianship overchildren whowereheirs.
Tribalheirshipcustoms no longer applied, but state and local laws did. State policy alsohelpeddriveIndians from their lands because, ifan individual made progress in farming anallotted parcel, he orshe was heavilytaxed. And under the concept of eminentdomain,federalandstategovern- mentsgranted rights of way to railroads andtelegraph lines. Another side effectof allotmentwas the corruption of govern- mentofficials, In the greed over land, bribery andgraftbecame common. Some executivesin theInteriorDepartment, for example,becamestockholders incompa- niesdealing in real-estate.
Aseriesofreform commissions during the 1920s culminated in the Meriam Commission,undertaken by the private BrookingsInstitution, which, in J928, aftera two-year study, released itsrepon on Indian conditions-"The Problem of Indian Administration" -declaring the allotmentsystemadismalfailure. Thelast- ing-policies of the period would not be assimilationor allotment but, rather,those thatfostered greater protection of Indian fights,resources.cand health, such as the CitizenshipAct of1924; the Winters Doc- trine of1908,which defined Indian water rights; andthe creation within the Bureau ofIndianAffairsofaDivision ofMedical Assistancein 1910,which evolvedinto the
Division of Indian Health in1924; and the Snyder Act of 192 I, which made the Department of theInterior responsible for Indiansocial, educational, andmedicalser- vices.By theI930s,the stage was set foran Indian "New Deal."
TRIBAL RESTORATION AND
REORGANIZATION
In 1934, under sociallyprogressive Presi- dent Franklin D. Roosevelt and hiscom- missioner of Indian Affairs,John Collier, who had founded the American Indian Defense Association, Congresspassedthe Indian Reorganization Act (or the Wheeler-Howard Act).Reversing the poli- cies of assimilation and allotment, thisact gavelegalsanction totribal landholdings;
returned unsold allotted lands to tribes;
made provisionsfor the purchase of new lands;encouraged tribal constitutions, sys- temsofjustice, andbusiness corporations;
expanded educational opportunities through new facilities andloans,with an emphasis on reservation day schools insteadof off-reservation boarding schools;
advocated the hiring of Indians by the Buteau of Indian Affairs and Indian involvement in management and policy making at national and tribal levels;
extended the Indian trust status; and granted Indians religious freedom. Earlier that same year, Congress had alsopassed theJohnson-O'Malley Act, which autho- rizedfederal contracts withstates or private agencies for the provision of additional social, educational, medical, and agricul- turalservicesin orderto help raiseIndian standards ofliving.
Inaddition to tribal restoration and reorganization, Collierand hissupporters encouraged intertribal activiry. In 1944, with anewfound sense ofpan-Indian ism, Indian leaders,many ofthem employees of rile·BLA, founded the National Congressof American Indians (see"Indian Activism"
in thischapter). Alsounder theimpetus of Collier and Indian leaders, Congress cre- ated the Indian Claims Commission, an independent federal agency, in 1946.
Triballand claims had beenhandled since 188Iby the Court ofClaims, which had proven inadequate totheheavyIndiancase
load. The Indian Claims Commission, designed to expedite the processand pro- videfinancialcompensation for treaty vio- lations, would lasr until 1978 and grant awards of $800 million on 60 percent of the casesbrought before it(the Court of Claims would reassume any unheard claims). Indian bravery and sacrifice in WorldWar IIhelped foster anew sense of fairnesstoward Indiansamong politicians
• andthe general public, and it helpedbring about the Indian ClaimsCommission.
Collier's enlightened policies, aspared down by Congress, didnot redress allpast injustices. Allotted holdings were not all consolidated, and much of the Indian eco- nomic base remained fractionalized. The federal government stillheld a unilateral power overthepoliciesandfate of Indians;
BLA agents still managed many Indian activities.Moreover,both the relieffundsof the NewDeal,whichimproved thefinan- cialstatusandincreasedthe options ofindi- viduals, and World War II, which took individuals off thereservations,countered the.reawakeneddrivetowardrribalizarion.
During andafter Collier's administra- tion, whichlasted until1945,billsto abol- ish Indianreservationswereintroduced in mostsessions of Congress. As timewenton and anti-communist sentiment grew dur- ingthe cold war, Collier's policies came underincreasingfire becausethey encour- ageda communal Iifesryle.In the passion and ignorance of the time,itdidnot mat- ter to many politicians that Indians had Jived tribally for centuries, long before communal waseven a word. During the 1950s, the federal government would reverse its approach to Native Americans once again witharenewed coerciveassirni- lationisr policy.
TERMiNATION AND URBANIZATION
Proponents ofthe termination ofthefed- eral-Indian trust relationship and Indian assimilation intothe culturalmainstream, notably commissioners of Indian Affairs Dillon Myer and Glenn Emmons plus.
Senator Arthur Watkins ofUtah, came to shape the U.S. Indian policiesof the 1950s andearlyI960s. To achieveIndian accul- turation, theyalso advocated therelocation
CONTEMPORARY INDIANS 219
i
I
[,
I r
I!I"
iI'
I 'I
1. SENECA, 1797 PlANKESHAW,l804 61. SACANDFOX,1824 94. PALOUSE,1859 APACHE. 186S-g~ 883
2.LENNI LENAJlE (DELAWARE), 32.POTAWA1UMI.KJCKAP(X), 1819 62. IQWAY, 1838 95. CAYUSE.,1859
~~!.
J~~~~R~~:CH~1873WYANDOT(HURON), 33.KICKAPOQ,1819 63.IOWA:,1824 SSOURlA :;: ~~~~~9 136: M~~ROAPACHE, 1873
POTAWATOMI OlTAWA, 34. KASKASKIA,KlCKAPOO. 1803 64. OTOEAND MI
NO
98. YAKAMA, 1859 137. UPANAPACHE. 1856CHIPPEWA (OjIl3WAY), 1805 35. PlANKESH,,\W.1805 IOWAY, OMAHA, SACA 99.COLVIu.E,1872 138. CH1RiCAHUAAPACHE,1886 3 OTTAWA 1808 }6. KASKASKIA, 1803 FOX,1825 100. LAKETRlBE(OOLVIllE),1872 139.CHIRICAHUAAPACHE, 1886
,,:LENNI UNAPE (DELAWARE). 37. CHEROKEE. 1785-1835 65. OMAHA, 1854 101. SANPOIL-NESPELEM 140. WESTERN APACHE. 1873
QTIi\w...•.SHAWNEE 38 CREEK,1816 66.rONCA.lass (COLVILLE). 1872 141. TONTO APACHE. 1813
WYANOCrr (HURON'>, 1819 39: CREEK. 1832 67. OTOEANDMISSOURIA,I833 102. OKANAGAN (COLVlUE),1872 142. HAVASUPAl,I882
5.LENNI LENAPE(DE.1.AWARE), 40. CREEK.1814 68. PAWNEr!.,1833 103. METHOW (COLVlll.E). 1872 143. HUAlAPAI,IBB3
1795 41. SEMINOLE, 1823 69. OSAGE. IB25 104. WARM SPRINGS, 1859 14-4. MOJAVE. IB53, 1865
6 SHAWNEE 1795 42.LAKESUPERlOR BANDS, 70. ltSAGE. 1810 105.CLATSOP,1851 U5. CHEMEHUEVl, 1853
7: JlOTAWA1DMI,OITAWA, MISSISSlI'PI BANDS 71. OSAGE..IS19 106. TILLAMOOK,I851 U6. YAvAI'AJ, 1B73
CHIPPEWA (OjIBWAY), 1805 (CHIPPEWA),IB43 72.QUAPAW, 1824 107. Tll.L\MOOK,1855 147. AKlMELO'ODHAM-MARl·
S POTAWATOM1,1807 .0.LAKESUPERIOR BANDS, 73. CADDO. 1835 10S. COQUILLE. CHEl'CO, TIt,. COPA,I883
9:POTAWATOM1, 1821 M1SSISSJl'PIBANDS 74.MOEWAKANTON (DAKOTA UMOOK,1855 148.QUECHAN, 1853,1884
10. rOTAWATOMI, 1827 «.(CHIPPEWA). 1838 75.~~~86~M1SSISSIPPI 109, SW.KE.1879 149. TOHONOO'ODHAM,191G 11. POTAWATOM1,1832 L\KESUPERIOR BANDS, (DAKOTA SIOUX), 1851 110. LEMHI(SHOSHONE), 1875 150. NOOKSACK, 1855 12. POTAWATOMI, 1816 ~5.{CHJIlPE":t,l'~!~D 76. YANKTON (NAKOTA SIOUX), 1)1. SHOSHONE,18G9 151. WMNI,1859
13. POTAWATOMI,1795 .• BOIS FOR, 1825 112. OlEYENNEAND ARAPAHO, 152. SAMISH, 1859
14.POTAWATOMI, 1829 (CHIPPEWA),18G6 rr.SISSb"1'ONANDWAHPETON NORTHERN CHEYENNE, 153, UPPER SKAGIT. 1859 15.POTAWATOM1, 1833 46.MISSISSIPPI BANDS llANOS(NAKOTASIOUX). 1872 NORTHERN ARAPAHO, 1865 154. SWINOMISH,1859
16.~U~~~~~8~tND .7.
~~~~;;'~b~~DS. ~;.
~~~~~~~~871!~~.
~~'8~~O ~;~:~~~t't?~;91855
17. OTTAWA, CHII'I'i::WA MISSISSIPI'iDANOS KOTA,NAKaI"A SIOUX). 18G9 115 PITRlVER, 1853 157. SflllJtGUAMISH,1859
(OJIBWAY), 1820 (CHIPPEWA), 1848 THERN PAJlITE. 1853 158 MAKAH 1859
18, SAGINAW. CHIPPEWA 18. P1UAGFJtANDLAKE :~:
~==~~~A~859 ~:~.
~~;O~, 1853' 159: CLALLAM.18S9(OjIOWAy),1820 WJNNIBIGOSHISH BANDS NAKOTA) 1851 118. INDJANSOFCAUf{)RNIA.1851 ]60,SNOHOMISH, 1855 19.SAGINAW,CHIPPEWA (CHIPPEWA),IS55 82.ARlKAAAMANDAN,HIDATSA 1l9. WESTERNSHOSHONE,18G9 161. QUILEUTE.1859
{OJIBWAy),1808 49. PILL'lGER BAND {FORTBERTI-lOLD 120. GOSHUTE. 1875 162. SKOKOMISH, 1859
20. g~~~A~I~~BANDOF 50.
~~~A~A~68
83.~~~:'~~J'~~ ~~: ~g~;'~ER~~;I~IB80 ~~: ;~Kg~~j~8;;59
21. MIAMI. POTAWATOMI, 1818 (CHIPPEWA).1863. HfDATSA, 1851 123. HOPI,1882 165. SUQUAMISH, 1859
22. MIAMI, POTAWATOMI, 1827 51. RED U.KEBAND,PEMBINA 84. ASSINInOINE, 1851 12.4.NAVAJO(DINEH). 18G8 166. DUWAM~SH. 1859
~:~~l~r.\:;~~r ::: r.~!l~l~1.~;:: 186, :: gSi~5?8:~GROS :?': ~~f~~i~A m: ~s.~J~~:' 1859
26. MIAMI. WEA.1809 54. WINNEBAGO, 1829 88,UPPER T'l!ND D'ORElLLE, 1855 12.8, SANTOOOMINGQ(KERES), 1905171. STElLACOOM,1855
27. PQTAWATOMI, WEA, 1818 55, SACANDFOX,1805 129. SANlLDu.FONSO(TEWA),1905 172. NISQUAllY.I855
28. POTAWATOMI. WEA. 56. SAC AND);OX,1832 ~:
~~~~~i ~~;~
130.NAMBE(TEWA), 1905 173. LOWERCHEHAUS.1855 KICKAPOO, 1818 57, SACANDfOX.1831 .. 131. SAN1"A CLARA O"EWA),1905 174.UPPERCHEHAUS, 1855 29 WEA KlCKAPOO 1810 58. SAC ANDFOX,1842 91. COEUR 0ALENE. 1887 132. TAOS rnWA), 1905 175.COWLITZ; 1855 30' Wfj.,'1818' 59. SAC ANDFOX, 1837 92. KAUSPEL. 1887 133. KlOWA,COMANCHE, AND 176. CHINOOK, 1851 31:l...l!NN.ILENAI'E(DFJ.AWARE), GO.J(:::r\'CIAY,SACANDr-ox.la~ 183293. SPOKAN,18927.1 iNDlAN LAND CLAIMS IN THE UNITED STATES,,how;ngtribnl titk anddaresof<Jtablished ownership,as deurmined bythefideral government's Indian ClaimsCommission,/946-78
ofIndians tourban centers. The report of theHoover Commission ontheReorgani- zation of Government in 1949, recom- mendingtermination. becamethe basisfor theseriesofgovernmental resolutions.
In 1952, Congress established a Vol- untary Relocation Program, which offered counseling andguidance before relocation aswell as assistancein finding residence andemployment innew communities. In )953, Congress passed the Termination Resolution (House Concurrent Resolution 108), which called for Indian equality under thelaw aswell asthereleaseofcer- tain tribes from federal supervision. That same year,Public Law 280 gavecertain states civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indian reservationswithout theconsent of tribes. Also that year, Congress repealed the special prohibition lawsregardingIndi- ans.In 1955, thePublic Health Serviceof theDepartment of Health, Education, and Welfare assumed responsibility forIndian healthandmedicalcare fromtheBlA.And in1956, theBlA instituted off-reservation educational programs, including the Adult - Vocational Training Program.
Meanwhile, from 1954to 1962,Con- gress terminated the federal relationship with 61 tribes, bands, and communities.
Among the largestweretheMenominee of Wisconsin. Although termination waspre- sentedto them asfreedom fromfurtherfed- eralintervention, anunderlyingmotive for variousprivate non-Indian interests and congressional alliescentered around the acquisition oftimberon Indianlands. Afrer termination, thenew Menominee corpora- tion,MenomineeEnterprises,Inc.,encoun- tered economic setbacksinthelumber busi- ness.Many tribalmembers losetheirlands becauseof aninabilityto paythenew prop- erty taxes. And without federally sponsored social,educational,and healthservicesand facilities,the tribe sunkdeeper and deeper into poverty,As a result, acoalition of Menominee factions along withnon-Indian supporters lobbied forrestoration of trust status forthetribeand reservationstatusfor remaining lands. In 1974, Congress finally complied,passingthe Menominee Restora- tion Act. Four yearslater, Congress also restoredthefederalgovernment'scrustrela- tionship with the Ottawa, Wyandot (Huron), Peoria,andModoc.
The Indian Claims Commission, cre- ated in 1946 for tribes to present their
long-standing claims concerning stolen lands and broken (reaties andto receive monetarycompensation, indirectlyserved asanotherinstrument of termination;scr- dement ofclaimsfinalizedtheprocess, rul- ing outtheprocurement offormerlands for allcompensated tribes,landsthat in the long run would havebeenmore valuable than thecash awards. In termsof having actual lands returned, lndians were suc- cessful inonly anumber of casesbrought beforefederalagencies or courts. In197), forexample, the federalgovernment agreed to return 48,000 acresof rhe Blue Lake Wilderness Area in New Mexico to the TaosPueblo, andin1972,thegovernment returned 21,000 acresto theYakamatribe in Washington.
The positive results of the Indian ClaimsCommission andthoseresultscon- sistentwith theconcept of tribalrestora- tion, asinstituted underJohnCollier'sear- lier tenure, aswellas withthenextphaseof governmental policy-self-determination for Indian peoples-were as follows: the
$800 million in cash awards aided tribal economies; legalconsciousnesswasraised, withmany tribescontinuing to maintain
legal-counsel even after the settlements;
Indiansreceivedpublicityconcerningpast injusticesand ongoinglowstandardsofliv- ingjvaluableethno-hisrorical research con- cerning Indian-non- Indian relations was conducted; and tribes found pan-Indian unity ofcause.
SELF-DETERMINATION
Termination asofficialfederal policy came to anendduring the) 960s,although vari- ousprogramsfromthetermination period carried overinto the 1970s.The catchall phrase, used to describe United States Indian policy from the 1960sto the pre- sentis "Indianself-determination," which embraces a varietyof concepts, including tribalrestoration, self-government, cultural renewal,'.development of reservation
~ourceS, andself-sufficiency,aswellasthe ongoing special Indian and federal trust relationship for the protection of tribal assets andthe provision of economic and socialprograms needed toraise the stan- dard of living of Native Americans to a levelcomparable to therestof society.The thrust of the policy ofcourse hasvaried
with changing federal administrations, And Indian leadersthemselves have advo- catedvarying aspects of it, asconsistent with the meaning of the phrase itself, which expressesIndian involvement and choice,
A number of governmental studies andcommissionswerepivotalinthetrend away from termination and towardself- determination: In ]961, three commis- sions-the KeelerCommission onIndian
eAffairs; the Brophy Commission on
Rights, Liberties, and Responsibilities of the American Indian; and the United Stares Commission on CivilRights-rec- ommended more constructive programs supporting Indianself-determination and fostering Indian economic and social equality. In )964, the Council on Indian Affairssponsored the Capiral Conference onIndian Poverty. callingattention tothe plight ofcontemporary Indians. In)966, theColeman Report criticized theBlA for itshandling ofIndian education. Alsoin )966,aWhite HouseTaskForceonIndian Healthcondemned medicalandsanitation conditions onreservations. In 1969, rwo reporrs-s-rhe Josephy Report on Federal Indian Policy and theKennedy Reporton Indian Education-called for greater Indian involvement inboth political and educational processes.In1977,the Ameri- can Indian Policy Review Commission opposed forced assimilation ofIndian peo- ples and advocated tribal self-derermina- tionand self-government.
Just asthese variousstudiesandcom- missions increased society'sawarenessof theIndian condition, sodid thework of Indianactivistswho,ina mood of growing militancy inthe) 960s,founded manynew pan-Indian groups andstaged manypolit- ical events and demonstrations (see
"Indian Activism" inthischapter). Out of the new public and congressional aware- ness came numerous social relief and reformmeasures, suchasthePublic Hous- ingAct(1961), offering assistance toIndi- ans in housing improvement; the Area Redevelopment Act (1961), granting reser- vations federal funds foreconomic devel- .opment; theManpower Development and Training Act (1962), offering vocational training to Indians; the Economic Oppor- tunityAct (1964), creating anIndian Desk in the Office of Economic Opportunity through which tribes could receive Head
CONTEMPORARY INDIANS 221
theWest,withagencieson particularreser- vationsaswell.At thetop oftheorganiza- tion, there isa commissioner of Indian Affairsand adeputy commissioner, with various staffs;at the regional level,area directors;and at the agency level, superin- tendents. Many Native Americans have positions in the BrA, but relatively few have servedat the highestpositions. Other governmentalagencieshavebeen involved in Indian affairs through theprovision of specialprograms and activities, including the Departments of Agriculture, Com- merce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, Transporta- tion, andtheCommunity ServicesAdmin- istration. Under thepolicy ofself-determi- nation,thetribesthemselveshaveassumed alargeshare of management responsibili- tiesforIndian-relatedservices.
In the federal-Indian trust relation- ship, specific treaties can be cited as the source of the federal obligation to some tribes;executiveorders,congressionallegis- lation,andjudiciarydecisions arethe basis ofobligation to others. Atreatyisbydefi- nition abinding agreement between two sovereign nations, coveringgovernmental rights,human rights, and property rights.
Bysigning treaties, thefederalgovernment byimplication recognized the sovereignty of Indian tribes. In exchange for the promises made bythe government, the U.S.receivedmillions ofacres ofland. The abrogation of treatiestherefore by exten- sion representsa violationof theprinciples of theAmerican Constitution.
Sovereignty, asit hasbeen applied to Indiantribes, isa relativeterm.Unilateral action on the part of the federal govern- ment haseroded the original concept as
reservation isheldbythe Navajotribe,with ]4miUionacres;other reservationsareonly afew acres (seeAppendix C foralist of U.S.reservations). Somereservations,espe- cially inthe East, are state-recognized, not federally recognized.
Only federal and tribal lawsapplyon federal trust reservations unless Congress has determined otherwise, by granting state and local governmencs a certain degree of jurisdiction aswell(asisthe case in13statesunder Public Law280,enacted in1953during thetermination eta).Full- fledged state reservations are subject to state regulations,with federalIndianpolicy inan ancillaryrole.Whereas the BrAoper- atesa number ofelementary andsecondary schoolsonfederalreservations, statebureau- craciesareresponsiblefortheprovisionof education, throughschoolortuitionsubsi- diesonstate reservations.
Adistinction is madebetweenthose tribes that once held federal acknowledg- ment-terminated tribes-and thosethat never did. Since the treaty-making period ended in1871,the way to achievefederal acknowledgment is byan act ofCongress oran Executive Order.Numerous tribes are now under petition for acknowledg- ment-about asmanyasarecurrentlyrec- ognized. Since 1979, aFederalAcknowl- edgment Project inthe Division ofTribal Government Servicesofthe BrA hasbeen in placetojudge severalcriteria oftribal identity, including history,genealogy,rerri- rorialiry, community, and political struc- ture. Itisa slow process, but the list is growing-almost 50additionally acknowl- edged tribes sincethe early1980s.
shapeto theconcept ofself-determination.
Withnew issues, such asmattersofregula- tion and taxing of gaming, there will be newlawsandprograms, butitwould seem that another dramatic shift to an entirely new federal policy-some new version of forced assimilation, for example-seems unlikely. U.S. Indian policyseems finally tohave founditself.
Start,UpwardBound, Vista, and Commu- nity Action Funds, breaking the BrA monopolyoverfunding ofservicesto Indi- ans;the Civil Rights Act(J964)and the VotingRightsAct(J965),applying toall minorities;theElementary andSecondary Education Act (I966), providing special programs for Indian children; the Small BusinessAdministration's "ProjectOwn"
(I968),guaranteeing loans forsmallbusi- nessesonreservations, theCivilRightsAct (I968),extending provisionsoftheBillof RightstoreservationIndians; theEnviron- mental Policy Act (I969), protecting Indianresources;theIndian Education Act (J972), establishing compensatory educa- tionalprogramsfor Indian students;the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act (I972), establishing revenue-sharing among federal, state, and local govern- ments; theIndian Financing Act(I974), establishing aprogram for the financing of Indian businesses; the Housing and Com- munityDevelopment Act(1974),provid- ing funds forIndian housing; theIndian Self-Determination and Education Assis- tanceAct(J975),permitting tribesto par- ticipate in federalsocialprogramsandser- vices,andproviding mechanismsfor tribes tocontract and administer federal funds;
the Indian Child Welfare Act (J978), establishing standards for federal foster programsand providing assistancetotribal childandfamilyprograms;andtheAmer- ican Indian Freedom of Religion Act (1978),stating that Indianreligion ispro- tected by the First Amendment. (The NativeAmerican FreeExercise of Religion Act of1993strengthened Indian rights as defined in the American Indian Freedom of Religion Act, andanamendment toit in 1994protected the religious useof peyot<
byNativeAmericans.)
Although federal programsfor Indian self-betterment and tribal development declined in number duringthe1980s and 1990s because ofcutbacks in funds, the federal government continues to back nominally the principles of Indian self- determination. The tribes themselves, through economic development bymeans of gaming enterprises, for example (see
"Indian Gaming" in this chapter), and through political and legal action (see
"Indian Activism" inthischapter), and thrQugh cultural renewal(see"IndianCul- ruralRenewal" in this chapter)have given
THE FEDERAL AND INDIAN TRUST RELATIONSHIP AND THE RESERVATION SYSTEM
In thecontemporary relationship between thefederalgovernment andfederally char- teredtribes. asit hasreachedthepresent through anumber ofhistorical stages, the U.S. Congress with itspowers to ratify treaties and regulate commerce is the trustee of the special Indian status. The trusteeship involves protection of Indian property; protection oflndian righttoself- government; and theprovisionofservices necessaryfor survivaland advancement.
Since the relationship existsatthe tribal level,Congressdoesnot actasthe guardian of individual Indians any more than of other citizens,and Indiansarenot«wards"
ofthe federalgovernment.
Inthecommission of itstrusteeship, Congress has placed themajor responsibil- ityforIndian matters in the Department of the Interior and its subdivision, the Bureau oflndian Affairs.Inaddition to the central office in Washington, D.C., the BJAmaintainsregional offices. mostly in
IndianIsland; Penobscot Reservation,Maint(photobyMollyBraun)
inherent inthetreaty-making process.The limited sovereignty of tribesasit exists today iscomparable to that held bythe states. The tribeshave powersto govern themselves, but only under federally imposed regulations.Tribesreceiveassis- tance forservices in the same way that Statesreceive subsidiesforsocial programs, education, transportation, ere,Tribesalso receivefurther federalaidasmany private corporations do, inthe form of taxrelief and funds for researchand development or jobtraining.
Asgovernments, tribes have theright toregulate tribalmembership; makelaws;
establish courts and tribal police; enforce laws andadminister justice (except major crimes, which areunder the jurisdiction of federal courts, as setforth bythe Major Crimes Act of 1885); remove non- members from tribal property; levytaxes on tribalmembers; and regulate land use, including resource development, environ-
~ental protection, and hunting andfish- mg.Sometribeshavewrittenconstitutions and legalcodes;othersmaintain traditional unwrittensystems.Most govern by some form of council-some representativeand others general for all adults-with an electedchief orpresident, orboth,
Therearemore than 550federally rec-
?gnized tribesin the United States,allexist- mg asunique politicalentities. Manyother tribesexist with their own governmental
and legalstructures,someof themincorpo- ratedunder the lawsof thestate,butwithout federal charters and without trust status.
There exist about 315federalreservations, with atotal of approximately 56,000,000 acresheld in trUStbythefederal govern- ment, thelarge majority west ofthe Missis- sippi River (somereservationsin California are called rancherias). There are some 44,000,000 acresofAlaskan Native lands.
Some reservations-are restricted to one tribe, others arejointlyheld.Somereserva- tion land is owned, rented, andoccupied by non-Indians, Some reservationsare solid blocksof land;otherpiecesareinterspersed with nonreservation lands. The largest
HolrywoodSeminole Reservation,Florida(photobyMollyBraun) ChaokeeReservation,NorthCarolina(photobyMollyBraun)
CONTEMPORARY INDIANS 225 224 ATIJ\S OFTHE NORTHAMERICAN INDIAN
;:. ~- .. ---.- -
---- --- ---
Although American Indians are the onlyethnic group specifically mentioned in theConstitution, thedesignation isnot relevant atthe individual levelbut rather at the tribal-Indian tribes are distinct politicalentities withexecutive. legislative.
and judicial powers.That istosay,Indians asindividuals have the same rights-the right to vote; rightto travel freely;right to buy andselloff-reservation property; right tobuyalcoholic beverages; subject tofed- eral, state, and local taxes;etc.-and are subject tothesamelaws as allotherAmer- icancitizens. Indians astribalmembers, however,havea specialrelationship with the government: inability to sell trust lands without tribal and BlA approval;
special reservationnondrinking laws (dry reservations asopposed towet); special exemptions to federal. state, and local taxes, etc. And each tribehasitsunique infrastructure and regulations.UnderU.S.
law,therefore. Indiansmight be citizens of four different governments: federal,
~;..
r :'
"" Santa ~Rtno
;Q-,:.).Rfsa.Sacl?mcmo
'"to akIana
·Stockion
·SanJose "\
-Fresno -.•.
state, county or city. and tribal, with complex overlapping jurisdictions. And contrary topopular belief,individual Indi- ansdo not automatically receive federal funds simply because they are Indians.
Types andsources offundsvaryfrom tribe
[Qtribe-income fromleasingordevelop- ment oftribalproperty andresources; fed- eralcompensation for trearyviolations, encroachments onIndian lands,andmis- management of trust property and funds;
or subsidies from special governmentaJ programs.
A5tothequestion ofIndian ethniciry, tribesdeterminemembership and natural- ization proceedings. and standards of acceptance. It generally holds that to be enrolledintoatribe, atleast oneparenthas toqualifyas atribalmember. Butbecause of low populations, some tribes enroll members with onlyonequalifying grand- parent.Some tribes, following traditional customs, require descent to be either matrilineal orpatrilineal. Tribalenrollment
URBAN INDIANS
atabout 65percent (asof 1990 census).
Some Native Americans have made the move as aresultof government-sponsored counseling andtraining, and othershave movedontheirowninsearch of economic opportunity.
Butfewin bothgroupshavebeenable tobreak outofthe cycleofpoverty, unem- ployment, andsocietaldiscrimination or indifference. The newfound cultural isola- tion ofthecities hasled many toopt for thepovertyofthereservations. Those who dostayinurban centers fall into atleast three recognizable patterns: first, skilled laborers,often living onthe edgesof cities in Indianenclaves;second, thoseremain- ing orientedto theirhome reservations or ruralcommunities, journeying back and forth depending on seasonal jobs; and third, an Indian middle classinterspersed in non-Indian neighborhoods. Many of thisthirdgroupremainactive in Indian cultural and political affairs and, likethe others, can becalledbicultural.
Because ofdifficult social conditions and detachment from direct tribal affilia- tions. theurban settinghas fostered. espe- ciallyinthe 1960s and 1970s, butwith a carryoverto presenttimes, anewbrandof Indian social andpolitical activity: urban centers with programs and services designed to easethetransition to city life andencouragea sense of"Indianness" and belonging, aswellaspolitical groups, such astheAmerican Indian Movement (AIM), founded in Minneapolis in 1968 (see
"Indian Activism" in this chapter).
Another outcome of Indian urbanization hasbeenacertainamountof"brain drain"
on thereservations,withmanyof
die
more successful and upwardly mobile individu- als siphoned off.However, the growth of Indian gaming sincethe late 1980s, with increasingjobopportunities, hasledto the returnto
reservations of a number of urbanized tribal members (see "Indian Gaming" in thischapter).The greatestconcentration of urban Indians arefoundintheLosAngeles-Long Beach areaof California. Other citieswith large Indian populations are San Fran- cisco-Oakland inCalifornia; Chicago in Illinois; Detroit inMichigan; Tulsa and Oklahoma City in Oklahoma; NewYork City and Buffalo inNew York;Phoenix and Tucson inArizona; Minneapolis-St.
Pauland Duluth in Minnesota; Seattle- is necessary for federal recognition
(although not fora census count).
It isestimated that one-third to one-half the Native American population in the United States now lives in cities. From 1900 to1940,thepercentage of theurban Indian population fluctuated within the range of 1-10 percent. Urbanization began toaccelerate during World War II, however,when greatnumbers ofIndians joined thearmedservicesor workedatoff- reservation wartime jobs, breakingtradi- tional ties.With thefederal government's termination andrelocation policies of the
1950s and I960s, migration toward the
citiescontinued ata fastrare. Infact, at every10-yearcensusfrom 1940 to 1970, the urban percentage almost doubled, from seven to 13 to 28 to 45 percent, beforeslowing; thepercentage nowstands
226 ATLASOFTHE NORTH AMERICAN INDIAN
• UrbanIndianpopulationcenter
@ Municipalitywithhighconcentration of Native Americans
7.3 URBANINDIAN CENTERS
Everett in Washington; Rapid City in South Dakota; Denver in Colorado; Mil- waukeeinWisconsin; PortlandinOregon;
Albuquerque in New Mexico; Nome, Bethel, andBarrow inAlaska.
NONRESERVATION RURAL INDIANS
Inthediscussion of contemporary Native Americans, quite often athird category besidesreservationIndiansand urbanIndi- ans is overlooked-those Indianslivingin cohesive ruralcommunities without fed- eralor state acknowledgment or truststa- tus.Asisthecase with someurban Indian communities, many of these groupsare justasculturally andpolitically integrated and organized as thelegallydefined tribes.
Nonreservation Indian communities evolvedoutofthreediffering setsofcircum- stances. In the East,where themajority of suchgroups exist,thefactthat manyIndian peoples were defeated and displaced long before American independence meant a minimum ofreservations.IntheWest,the federal allotment policy beginning in1887 meant thebreakupofmanyreservations, as did termination 60 years later, Many of these groups have soughtfederalacknowl- edgment (orreacknowledgment) in order t1 protecttheircultureand resources.
INDIAN SOCIAL CONDITIONS
The U.S. Indian population has been growing since itslow point ofless than 250,000 at the start ofthe20th century.
According tothe 1990 census, there are almost twomillion NativeAmericans. In analyzing theresultsof anycensus,thesys- tems ofcollection andclassification have to betaken intoconsideration,withaplusor minus marginassumed.Inrecent censuses, the ~eihod of self-identification is employed, along with the gathering of tribal lists; respondents are asked toenu- merate theethnic groups withwhich they identify, leading tothe inclusion ofacer- tain number of people of mixed-ancestry and the exclusion of others. The large increase inthe NativeAmerican popula-
1990UNITED STATESCENSUS COUNT OFNATIVEAMERICANS
Indian Inuit Aleut
Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada NewHampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania RhodeIsland South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total
16,312 31,245 203,009 12.641 236,078 27,271 6,472 1,982 1,432
35,461 12,926 4,738 13,594 20,970 12,453 7,217 21,767 5,614 18,361 5,945 12,601 11,857 55,131 49,392 8,435 19,508 47,524 12.344 19,377 2,075 14,500 134,097 60.855 79,825 25,870 19,859 252,089 37,443 14,210 3,987 8,049 50,501 9,859 64,349 24,Q93 1,650 14,893 77,627 2,385 38,986 9,426
105 44,401 284 80 2,552 297 83 19 14
89 10,052 234 52 3,534 208 99 18 20
•• .: ~~;mng< _._
j~~i,;;d;::~'::~;i
5r.Fa"1:SpearfizlJ~ Pierre. .Huron ~Min,ntlpolis RapidCiry@) Mitchell. ".Si':!:~_J;ajb.. _~Madi:n
Denver.
,:'~~.>
Stud, : Albuquerque: • City: .:: .• "~,
o;t:)!:::\;jo !,\.,
: Rou
431 443
223 199
155 206
132 54
414 452
170 97
67 65
114 84
82 73
92 88
34 19
169 202
210 174
253 254
235 282
50 40
173 154
106 49
38 26
156 104
45 14
201 269
62 96
754 1,042
152 178
38 9
230 269
02 129
545 508
264 259
42 42
106 91
62 12
96 84
721 807
116 74
32 14
200 189
1,791 2,065
36 37
181 220
37 16
1,967,367
CONTEMPOflARY INDIANS 227
