Indian voices and a new comprehensive Indian policy

[Harold Schiffman]

Indian voices and a new comprehensive Indian policy
Posted: November 23, 2007
by: Editors Report / Indian Country Today


In the space of two years, between 1968 and 1970, Presidents Lyndon B.
Johnson and Richard Nixon made comprehensive and innovative statements
on Indian policy. Together, the combined statements created the
fundamental principles of contemporary policy, usually called
self-determination policy. Neither president used the expression
''self-determination policy,'' but ''self-help,'' ''local tribal
decision-making'' and ''self-determination'' were expressions used on
both policy statements. No president before or after Johnson and Nixon
has provided such comprehensive statements on Indian policy and
relations between Indians to the United States.

During the early 1900s, Indian policy cycled back and forth between
policies supporting Indian self-government, paternalism, or fostering
of full citizenship, often called assimilation. Since the 1930s, all
presidents have rejected the paternalism of the 1880s to 1920s. During
the early reservation period, the Office of Indian Affairs took
virtual control over Indian reservation communities and delivered a
policy of forced assimilation. Indian children were shipped to
boarding schools where Indian culture and language were discouraged.
Indian governments were rendered powerless and land was broken up into
small individual portions according to various allotment acts. The
Miriam Report in 1928 outlined the failure of Indian department
paternalism; it resulted in the loss of Indian lands, poor economic
conditions, poor health and little direction for most Indian
communities.

Between 1930 and the 1960s, presidents rejected paternalism, but had
various solutions to Indian policy. The predominant policy was to
provide Indians with the tools to become self-sufficient members of
American society and economy, and called for an ultimate dissolution
of Indian wardship status and federal trust relations. Presidents
Hoover, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and the early Johnson offered
variations of the transition to full U.S. citizenship to avoid the
paternalism of government trusteeship and to have opportunities to
enter and enjoy the fruits of American economy and life.

The clearest expression of the full citizenship policy was the
termination policy of the 1950s. Termination refers to the ending of
U.S. trust responsibility and wardship status for Indians, but also
meant a denial of treaty rights and independent Indian governments and
status. After the revelations of Nazi death camp racism in World War
II and during the Cold War, international pressures from the United
Nations and the Soviet Union underscored political and economic
disadvantages for American racial minorities. Indian issues tended to
be framed as racial minority issues, and presidents pressed policies
of full citizenship through greater civil rights and greater economic
opportunity as solutions to Indian wardship and federal paternalism.

The full citizenship policy had a fundamental flaw: it did not have
the support or consent of most Indian communities and peoples. While
the presidents believed they were working in the best interests of the
United States and Indian people, they tended to develop policy without
significant American Indian influence. Since the 1950s, U.S.
presidents started to consult regularly with Indian leadership, but
often did not adopt or incorporate Indian voices and ideas into the
formulation of the full citizenship policy.

After the House of Representatives passed House Resolution 108 in the
summer of 1953, Congress worked to implement the termination policy,
in part because presidents did not work effectively to initiate a
termination policy. Congress started to initiate termination policy
with congressional acts and laid out the policy for the executive
branch. During the 1950s, the National Congress of American Indians,
newly incorporated in 1944, led many Indian communities in opposition
to termination policy, and by the late 1950s had secured a strong
coalition of states and tribal communities to stop termination. In
total, about 110 Indian communities were terminated, although since
then most have been restored under the self-determination policy.

Indian leaders and national organizations turned to alternative policy
solutions during the Chicago Conferences of the early 1960s, and
through the NCAI. Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were actively
engaged in listening to Indian recommendations for new policy
orientations. Kennedy's Indian policy was based largely on full
citizenship and anti-poverty programs. Early in Johnson's
administration, he too advanced citizenship and anti-poverty programs,
but by his 1968 Indian policy proposals, ''The Forgotten American,''
Johnson had gained considerable knowledge about Indian issues and
needs. While he continued to advance a strong anti-poverty program, he
now recognized that many Indian people wanted to remain in Indian
communities. He suggested a policy of maximum choice, where Indians
could choose between reservation life or work in urban areas. Early in
his administration, Nixon consulted with Indian leaders and was
well-informed in his 1970 Indian policy statement. Nixon rejected
termination policy, and asked Congress to officially reject H.R. 108,
which set out termination policy. Congress agreed. Nixon argued that
Indians should have the right to develop and build reservation
governments, communities and economies without the threat of loss of
federal government-to-government relations. Furthermore, Nixon stated
that federal support of tribal communities was not out of the goodness
of the government to help a disadvantaged racial minority, but the
basis of relations between Indians and the U.S. government were based
on solemn treaties and agreements. The United States has a moral
obligation to uphold the treaty agreements.

The most far-reaching Indian policy during the 1900s emerged when
Indian people were actively engaged in policy construction. When
Johnson and Nixon listened to the policy principles and needs of the
Indian people, Indian policy much more clearly reflected the goals and
needs of Indian people, and reflected the history of honoring treaties
and other agreements.

The year 2008 is an election year, and we need the presidential
candidates to listen again more closely to the needs and issues of the
Indian people. The next president should be held responsible to
consult and incorporate the needs and aspirations of Indian
communities into a comprehensive Indian policy, for that will help
Indian peoples confront the issues of the 21st century.

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096416164

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of
the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a
message are encouraged to post a rebuttal. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)
*******************************************