Sacking of Indian Bureau--a 20-Year Setback?
Sacking of Indian Bureau––a 20–Year Setback?
In mulling over the recent destructive raid on the building that houses the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington, I keep asking myself whether a similar event might have occurred at the headquarters of any other federal agency. For example, would government officials have stood aside and permitted a group of unhappy farmers to dismantle the Department of Agriculture, or a group of dissident veterans to sack the VA?
The answer is, probably not.
In spite of the fact that our treatment of Indians has not always been exemplary—to put it charitably—most Americans are, at least in the abstract, favorably disposed toward the original inhabitants of this country.
This attitude has produced an undesirable amount of romantic nonsense, but it has also directed many Americans to assist Indians in a variety of well–intentioned ways. Indeed, like the eagle, the Indian has become one of our national symbols.
When this widely held attitude of respect is combined with the general belief that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (about which most Americans know even less than they know about Indians) is an inefficient, corrupt, Indian–hating agency—public enemy No. 1, therefore, where Indians are concerned—one can begin to understand the seeming indifference of government officials, and the public generally, toward the occupation of BIA headquarters in Washington the week before our national election.
Eastern newspapers tended to be quite laudatory about the demonstration during its early stages. The leaders of the militant group were portrayed in some editorials as folk heroes, widely supported by their fellow tribesmen, who had finally had their fill of the evil and ineffective BIA—and were going to do something about it.
Indeed, the demonstration seems to have been planned with the best of intentions. It was meant to attract public attention to the failure of the government to fulfill treaty obligations. Some of these failures occurred so long ago as to be beyond correction, but others are still remediable.
Soon, however, the protest got out of hand, partly because of the ineptness of government officials in dealing with the demonstrators, and partly perhaps because some protest leaders may have thought that a bit of mayhem would bring added attention to their cause.
On Monday, Nov. 6—in an attempt to clarify the situation—Secretary of Interior Rogers C. B. Morton issued a press statement. In it, he characterized the militants as "a splinter group not representative of the reservation Indians of America." Also, he quoted William Youpee, executive director of the National Tribal Chairmen's Assn., as saying, "This illegal intrusion has no meaningful support in the Indian community."
White House aides had, by the time the secretary made his statement, taken over negotiations with leaders of the militant group. They knew, as did Morton, that elected reservation leaders throughout the country had sent dozens of letters and telegrams to Washington, dissociating themselves from the actions taking place there and urging the immediate removal of the militants before they tore the building apart.
These same White House aides, moreover, knew that three principal leaders of the occupation force had served time in prison for violent crimes and feared they might well resort to violence in this instance.
However, the aides wanted to avoid a confrontation with a minority group on the eve of the elction and, in addition, to avoid the bloodshed that such a confrontation would certainly produce. Thus, they agreed to amnesty for the Indians and to pay their way back home.
Unfortunately, by the time this agreement had been reached, the Indians had done nearly $2 million worth of damange to the building and had carted away several truckloads of valuable records.
It is ironic that many of those who helped sack the BIA headquarters had demonstrated on previous occasions to have the services of the bureau expanded to include themselves. They were, for the most part, urban Indians whom the BIA does not consider to be among its clientele.
A majority of these Indians were from the Great Lakes area where AIM (American Indian Movement), which sponsored the caravan to Washington, had its beginning. Their numbers were reinforced by militant young Indians, including a few from the reservations and urban areas of the West and Midwest.
Before the Washington incident, the federal government had been giving serious attention to devising ways for providing more assistance to Indians who have left the reservations. A recent federal court decision in San Francisco, now on appeal, may clarify the entitlement of such persons to the benefit of services providing by the Indian bureau and the Indian Health Service.
There are a few Indian organizations in the cities—among them the Indian Center, Inc., and the Urban Indian Development Assn., both of Los Angeles—that have demonstrated great skill in working with government agencies in the direction and management of programs to provide employment assistance, social service and education.
The prospect of getting more federal support for their programs may have been reduced appreciably by the actions of dissident urban Indians in Washington.
On the other hand, urban Indians may suffer less as a result of the recent violence than will their reservation brethren. It is the latter who will be immediately affected by the destruction and theft of records on which many important decisions depend.
Beyond that lies the possibility of congressional reductions in appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, an agency whose present budget exceeds $500 million.
The Nixon Administration has taken a significant step in the past three years. It has sought authority to make grants to Indian organizations that can permit the latter to take over the management of local programs, rather than continuing to have services imposed o them from the outside. Such a policy, it is hoped, will give the affected Indians a heightened confidence in their ability to manage their own affairs.
Unfortunately, one organization that has had such a grant (for "educational purposes") is AIM—the very group that led the attack on the Indian bureau.
It is now possible, to say the least, that some congressmen may wish to withhold further authority for the bureau along these lines until assurance can be provided that grant funds will not be employed to stage another Indian uprising.
An elected leader of an Arizona tribe was quoted last week as saying that the sacking of the Indian bureau had "set Indian affairs in this country back 20 years."
I hope he is wrong—there have been many positive changes in the past decade. But if he is wrong, I will be surprised.