Protest by Indians Sought an End to Paternalism
Protest by Indians Sought an End to Paternalism
The Indians who came to Washington on the "Trail of Broken Treaties" carried a plan to completely redesign the relationship of their people to the federal government that for so long has made decisions for them.
The issues raised in the plan have been obscured by the seizing of the Bureau of Indian Affairs building, but the underlying causes of Indian discontent will remain no matter how that eye-catching turmoil is resolved.
The over-riding issue, according to specialists here in Indian problems, is the growing Indian demand for self-determination: an end to what amounted in the past to alternating paternalism and neglect by the federal government.
The essence, said George Mitchell, one of the founders of the activist American Indian Movement, "is that Indian people should control their own lives."
Mitchell's general observation covers a spectrum of Indian opinion that seems to range from outright separatism to the more prevailing view that Indians are entitled to a greater voice in directing the many educational, welfare and public works projects that serve them.
There appears to be a firm agreement, however, that all Indians are seeking a guarantee that their lands will not be taken from them. Even the separatists favor massive federal funding to assure the preservation of traditional Indian culture and the opportunity for badly needed social and economic advancement.
In an eight-page single spaced document that forms the "Trail of Broken Treaties" demands, 20 separate propositions are put forward, all covering the same basic theme of enhanced Indian reponsibility.
The proposals, approved at the AIM convention in St. Paul two weeks ago, cover a multitude of complex questions and Indian experts disagree among themselves on exactly how they are to be interpreted.
For example, there is a provision calling for renewed Indian treaty-making authority, a right that was withdrawn by Congress in 1871 when it assumed a kind of colonialist supervision over Indian matters.
In the 19th century, the treaties amounted to agreements between sovereign Indian nations and the Washington authorities. The militants seem bent on establishing that kind of relationship again. For the most part, however, the Indians appear to favor treaties as contracts.
This concept of "contracting"--giving the Indians authority to direct their own educational, welfare and health programs with funds from Washington--has been gaining support in recent years as a viable method of increasing Indian pride in themselves.
As embodied in the Indian plan, contracting is certainly not a radical departure. President Nixon himself accepted the motion in a major address on Indian affairs in July 1970.
The goal of any new national policy toward the Indian people, he said, should be "to strengthen the Indian's sense of autonomy without threatening his sense of community."
"We must assure the Indian that he can assume control of his own life without being separated involuntarily from the tribal group. And we must make it clear that Indians can become independent of federal control without being cut off from federal concern and federal support."
The principles enunciated by the President and those put forward by the young militants occupying Bureau of Indian Affairs are not so very far apart in the view of specialists here.
Basically, the Indians wish to move in the same directions as the White House, only faster and perhaps further. It is not unlike the situation that prevailed in the mid-1960s when blacks in America found rhetorical agreement with President Johnson but disagreed on the pace of change.
Continuing the black analogy, Indian specialists here say the AIM is similar to the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee and the Black Power advocates who espoused a kind of nationalism that at times bordered on outright separatism.
Moreover, much of the AIM leadership--which largely overlaps with that of the "Trail of Broken Treaties"--comes from urban Indians, rather than those remaining on the reservations.
The urban Indians, who now represent about half of the 800,000 Indians in the country, tend to produce a more militant leadership, experts maintain than the reservations, where tribal officials are selected along more traditional lines.
George Mitchell, himself a resident now of Washington, said that he retains his ties to the Chippewa reservation in Minnesota where he once lived. It's not a matter of where you live, he said, but of common Indian problems.
The "grass roots" people who joined the occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs building came from tribes throughout the country. Some traveled from reservations, some came from city centers.
"They are all Indians," said Mitchell "and these are their proposals."
Besides the question of restoring Indian lands (the plan calls for a 110 million acre "native land base" by 1976) and an overhaul of all existing treaty-contracts the "Trail" proposal seeks a new federal agency to replace the existing BIA.
This "Office of Federal Indian Relations and Community Reconstruction" would recognize Indian prerogatives to self-control, but at the same time would funnel billions of federal funds to what the proposal calls the "Indian Nations."
The main reason for wanting to abolish the BIA, in the view of Indian specialists, is that it represents the past approach to Indian needs: white managers, for the most part, supervising Indian schools, roads, real estate management, even police.
While the Indians reject that paternalism, they are equally opposed to the policy adopted in the Eisenhower years known as "termination," aimed at the closing of all reservations and severance of federal ties.
For the few tribes involved, "termination" was a disaster. Without federal trust protection, their lands and resources were quickly taken over by shrewd business interests. The prospect of forced assimilation created widespread concern about the preservation of Indian culture.
As a policy, "termination" has been abandoned for more than a decade, but its memory haunts the Indians anxious to reconcile their quest for dignity of independence with a continuing reliance on Washington's financial support.