AIS 102 American Indians and the U
AIS 102 American Indians and the U.S. Political System - Fall 2004
Diana Ortiz
AIS 102
E-Mail: dortiz@palomar.edu or dmo77@
Required Texts:
Pevar, The Rights of Indians and Tribes, 3rd ed.
Canby, American Indian Law, 3rd.ed.
TIMELINE
August 22-29
Introduction and orientation; Indians/Indian Tribes
Canby: Chapter 1,
Pevar: pgs. 18-24; Chapter 15
August 30-September 5
Tribal Sovereignty/ Public Law 280
Canby Chapter 5, 8
Pevar: pgs. 122-128;
September 6-12
History and Development of Federal Policy
Canby, Chapter 2
Pevar, Chapter 1; 121-122, General Allotment Act
September 13-19
Tribal-Federal relationship; Freedom of Religion
Canby: Chapter 3, pgs. 313-324
Pevar, Chapters 3, 5
September 20-26
Modern Tribal governments - their structures and powers
Canby, Chapter 4
Pevar, Chapter 6
September 27-October 3
Tribal Gaming
Canby: Chapter 10
Pevar: Chapter 16
*October 4-17
MID-TERM
October 11-17
International Relationships; Indian Child Welfare Act; NAGPRA
Canby, pgs. 324-342
Pevar, Chapters 13, 14, 17
October 18-24
Indian lands and land claims; Native Hawaiians
Canby: Chapter 12
Pevar: pgs. 24-27
QUIZ/ASSIGNMENT: due Oct. 23
located in the quiz/exam folder
October 25-31
Treaty rights
Canby: Chapter 6
Pevar: Chapter 4
November 1-7
Hunting and fishing rights
Canby: Chapter 15
Pevar: Chapter 11
Novemebr 8-14
Water Rights
Canby: Chapter 14
Pevar: Chapter 12
November 15-21
Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction
Canby, Chapter 7
Pevar, 7, 8, 9
*November 24
Paper Due
November 29-December 5
Taxation And Regulation
Canby: Chapter 9
Pevar: Chapter 10
*December 6-17
FINAL EXAM
Lecture 1
American Government Review
Sources of Law
There are several sources of law in the United States:
Constitution
Statutes
Treaties
Case law – court interpretations of the law
We will be discussing all of these sources in this class.
Governmental Branches
The following is a review of the roles and functions of the three governmental branches. We will be addressing topics this semester that involve all three branches.
The three branches of government are: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The role of the Legislative branch is to create law through the passage of statutes. The role of the Judiciary is to interpret law and the role of the Executive is to implement law.
Legislature
Congress is comprised of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives has 435 members. The Senate has 100 members (2 from each state).
In California, the legislative branch is comprised of the Senate, with 40 members, and the Assembly, with 80 members. (As you will see during the semester, the state plays a very limited role in Indians affairs).
Executive
The President heads up the executive branch of the federal government. Beneath the President, are numerous federal agencies, such as the EPA, Dept. of Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. (The Bureau of Indian Affairs is an agency within the Dept. of the Interior).
At the state level, the governor heads up the executive branch and also has numerous agencies beneath him.
Political Parties
Republicans hold a majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the current President is Republican.
Does it make a difference which political party a political representative is from? Yes. The Democratic Party generally supports taxation, regulation and social programs while Republicans support lower taxes, particularly for corporations and the highest tax brackets, less social spending and less federal regulation. It has been said that the Republican Party represents the wealthy. This is primarily due to their emphasis on reduced social spending, such as subsidized housing and welfare.
When voting takes place on Capitol Hill, most politicians are expected to follow party lines. As you will see, politics is not a pretty business, hence the old adage: there are two things that you don’t want to see made - sausage and law. (In this class, we will not look at sausage, but we will be looking at law).
In addition, the president makes federal judicial appointments, but these must be confirmed by the Senate. This gives the Senate power to block appointments. This is a ploy that was used by the Republican Senate during the Clinton administration to ensure that Democratic judges were not appointed.
There is an increasing number of Indian Republicans, but since becoming U.S. citizens, Indians have been predominantly Democrats. Why are there now more Indian Republicans? Some tribes have increasing resources and depend less on government grants to provide governmental infrastructure. These resources have also resulted in little or no need for welfare and similar social programs for tribal members. This has occurred on reservations that previously suffered from severe poverty. This changes the needs of both the tribe and the individual, and often changes their political ideology.
Creating Law
Some of you may remember the cartoon that featured a bill on the capitol steps, and sang a catchy little tune about how laws are made. If you don’t, that’s okay, I’ll give you my version – but I’m sorry there is no song to accompany this.
Laws start as bills and are launched by a committee that addresses that type of bill. For example, the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs addresses all Indian issues in the Senate (The House Resources Committee addresses Indian issue in the House of Representatives). A bill must be authored by at least one legislative representative, and is often sponsored by more than one. (The ideas belong to the representatives, but the bills are actually written by a department of the government, who do nothing but write laws).
If the committee passes the bill, it then goes to the full legislative body. For example if the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs passed a bill, it would then be heard on the floor of the Senate. If the Senate passes it without changes, it then goes to the House of Representatives, where it once again must go to a committee before being heard on the floor. If any changes are made to the bill while in the House of Representatives, it must return to the Senate committee, then the Senate floor for approval of those changes. This process can keep bills bouncing back and forth for quite some time before a statute is actually passed, and the final version of the bill often has little in common with the original bill. Once Congress passes a bill, it must be signed into law by the President. If the President vetoes a bill, it requires a 2/3 vote of Congress for the bill to become law. It is therefore very difficult for a bill to become law without the consensus of the President.
When you read a bill, you can tell where it originated by the letters preceding the bill number. If it begins with “S” it originated in the Senate. If it begins with “HR”, it originated in the House of Representatives.
Similarly, state bills begin with “SB’ if they originated in the Senate, and “AB” if they originated in the Assembly.
Judiciary
The role of the Judiciary is to interpret the law. Keep this in mind as the semester proceeds. At times it may seem that the judiciary has lost sight of their role.
The federal judicial system consists of three levels. All cases are first heard in the District Court. If a party is not happy, he or she may appeal to the Court of Appeals for the district in which the original action was heard. There are 11 appellate judicial districts, known as circuits. In California, we are in the 9th Circuit. Any decisions made by the 9th Circuit are only valid law in our region. There are many times when different circuits come up with conflicting opinions, and therefore, conflicting law.
If a party is unhappy at the appellate level, they can apply to have the case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court by filing what is know as a petition for certiorari. (There may be footnotes or citations to cases throughout the semester that read “cert. denied”. This means that the Supreme court refused to hear the case). The petition is simply a request for the Supreme Court to hear the case. The U.S. Supreme Court is under no obligation to hear cases, and takes only those cases that they want to hear. They hear only cases involving areas of federal law (as opposed to state law). They are suppose to take all cases in which there is a conflict among the appellate courts, but this doesn’t always happen. (The current Supreme Court has taken fewer cases than any court in history).
The judiciary is not considered a political body, but remember the President appoints Supreme Court justices and the appointments are ratified by the Senate. Presidents tend to select justices that have similar political views. Once appointed, the justices serve for life, or retirement whichever comes first. Thus, the President’s political views can carry over into the courts long after he has left office.
Many of the current justices were appointed by conservative Presidents. We therefore have a conservative court, which supports state’s rights and has not been particularly kind to Indian interests. (A recent study indicated that the current U.S. Supreme Court upholds criminal rights more often than it upholds tribal rights).
Political Power
What does it take to have political power? Money. Political campaigns are very expensive, and most candidates are in need of funds. It is illegal to offer a large campaign contribution (or a small contribution) in exchange for a vote on a specific issue. It is not illegal, however, to offer a campaign contribution and at some later time, ask for a vote on a specific issue. The end result is that money buys political power so gaming tribes are often politically powerful.
Keep these concepts in mind as we move forward throughout the semester.
TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY
What is an Indian Tribe?
A tribe is a group of Indians recognized as constituting a distinct and historically continuous political entity for at least some governmental purposes. There are both federally-recognized and non-recognized tribes. Federal recognition allows tribes to build a governmental infrastructure and entitles tribes to federal grants for medical services, housing, etc., but not all federally-recognized tribes have land. You will see when we discuss termination, that in the 1950s many tribes lost their land and still remain landless.
Federal recognition may arise from a treaty, statute, executive order, administrative order, or from a course of dealing with the tribe as a political entity. The BIA determines which tribes will be recognized, but it was not until 1978 that they promulgated a set of rules setting forth the requirements for recognition. Prior to 1978, this was done on a case by case basis. Since then, bills have been introduced in Congress, at various times, which would take this task from the BIA and give it to an independent commission appointed by the President. Congress has thus far not passed any such bill and it still remains within the domain of the BIA.
Among the requirements for recognition are that:
1. The tribe must have a government that exercises power over its members; and
2. The tribal government continued to function as an autonomous entity throughout history until the present; and
3. The tribe has been identified as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900 (This can be demonstrated by using books, magazines, anthropologists, historians, etc.); and
4. The tribe occupies a specified territory or inhabits a community viewed as distinctly Indian.
If the BIA does not follow their own criteria, a tribe seeking recognition can appeal to an administrative board, then to federal court. There is no right to contest the criteria for recognition – only the application of the criteria to a particular tribe.
Example: (The following example is completely fictitious and is used for demonstrative purposes only). The First People’s Tribe was a federally-recognized tribe in Orange County. In 1950, Orange County began to flourish and the tribe began to intermarry. By 1960, there was little interest in tribal affairs. The reservation was leased to Disneyland and the tribal members disbursed throughout the community. In 2000, Proposition 1a was passed, which allows Indian tribes to have casinos. Descendants of the First People’s Tribe now want to re-establish their tribal government and open a casino. Should the tribe still be federally recognized?
No, the tribe would no longer have federal recognition. Once a tribe receives recognition, it can lose recognition only by:
1. Voluntarily ceasing to function as a government; or
2. Congress can decide to no longer recognize the tribe.
In the example, the tribe ceased to function as a government, so they are no longer entitled to federal recognition.
There are a few cases in New England where a state recognized a tribe but the federal government did not. The states recognized tribes, took their land and gave tribes reservations and financial assistance as a reward for siding with colonists in 1776. Some tries later petitioned for, and some have received, federal recognition.
There have been many cases where the federal government has placed more than one tribe on a single reservation and recognized this new tribe by another name. For example, the Blackfeet Tribe is comprised of the Blackfoot, Bloods and Piegans – three distinct tribes. Their northern counterparts remain separate tribes in Canada.
Who is an Indian?
Many of you are of mixed ancestry. Do you know exactly what fraction of ancestry you have from each nationality? Most Indians know exactly how much “Indian blood” they have because it is required for various purposes.
The textbooks discuss four definitions of “Indian”.
1. Tribal requirements
2. Federal jurisdiction
3. General meaning
4. Census Definition
Tribal Definition
Tribal enrollment is specifically within the jurisdiction of the tribe itself. Blood quantum required for tribal enrollment varies from tribe to tribe. Some tribes, such as the Cherokee, have no blood quantum requirement while others, such as the Mississippi Choctaw require that members have ¾ Indian blood quantum. Other tribes have recently introduced a requirement that an individual must live on the reservation to become enrolled.
When there is no blood quantum requirement, an applicant for enrollment must be able to trace their ancestry to a tribal member, and in some cases the applicant’s mother or father had to be an enrolled member of the tribe.
A tribe can change its requirements for enrollment at any time that it chooses. For example, Santa Clara Pueblo required that the mother be an enrolled member of the Pueblo for her children to be enrolled. The tribe later changed the requirement so the father had to be an enrolled member. Mrs. Martinez had a child and attempted to enroll her child. The child had the requisite blood quantum, but since the father was not an enrolled member, the child was ineligible for enrollment. (Mrs. Martinez sued the tribe in federal court in an attempt to get her child enrolled, but she lost).
Federal Definition
To receive government services, in many cases, but not all, there is a requirement of ¼ Indian blood from a federally-recognized tribe. The federal government does not consider members of non-federally-recognized tribes to be Indians. As we will discuss in more detail later, in the 1950s, Congress terminated many tribes. When the tribes were terminated, that is, no longer federally-recognized, the individual tribal members were no longer considered Indians by the federal government, and were no longer eligible for federal services.
Enrollment does not always determine jurisdiction. Often eligibility for enrollment is enough to consider an individual a “member” of a federally recognized tribe for purposes of application of federal law.
General Definition
If you have 1/252 degree of Indian blood, does this make you an Indian under the general definition?
The general definition of an Indian is that:
1. The individual must have some degree of Indian blood; and
2. The individual must be recognized as an Indian by the relevant community.
In my example, you have met part one of the test because you have some Indian blood. Part two depends on how the community recognizes you. If you are enrolled in a tribe with no blood quantum requirements, you have clearly fulfilled the second part of the test. If you are not enrolled in a tribe, it may be a harder matter to prove and your success may depend on the purpose for which you are using the identification.
One question for you to ponder is this: “Indian blood” defines who is and is not an Indian so if an individual is ¼ Indian and receives a blood transfusion from a non-Indian, is he still ¼ Indian?
Census Definition
Does the census definition accurately reflect who is or is not an Indian?
The census considers anyone to be an Indian who claims to be an Indian. This often results in large discrepancies between the other definitions of an Indian and the census definition. Indians living on the reservation often do not respond to census requests, while other individuals who have some Indian blood, but are not enrolled in a tribe, may report themselves as an Indian to census takers. For example, the 1990 census reports that the Blackfeet tribe has 32,234 members, while the tribe reports approximately 14,500 for the same period.
Indian Country
Indian Country will become more relevant later in the semester as we talk about Indian land holdings and jurisdiction.
Lecture 2
Tribal Sovereignty/P. L. 280
History of Tribal Sovereignty
Sovereignty is defined as the inherent right to self-govern. It is sovereignty that sets Indians apart from other minority groups, and it is sacred among Indians.
A dichotomy existed from the time of the initial contact with Europeans. European powers believed in the discovery doctrine. They believed they had rights to the whole world, even those areas inhabited by indigenous peoples, subject only to an earlier European claim, because only European Christians could own land. At the same time colonial powers, and later the federal government, dealt with the Indians through the use of treaties – agreements between sovereign powers.
The first treaty recorded between English colonists and North American Indian confederacy is the 1608 treaty between the Jamestown colony and the Indian emperor, Powhatan. From this early point in the relations between Indian tribes and European colonists, one can see that treaty relations involved a process of cultural as well as diplomatic negotiation. In these early treaties, the scope of ill-defined concepts, such as tribal sovereignty, and novel institutions, such as reservations, were first tested and practiced. Much of the theory and practices of our modern federal Indian law is generated out of this early treaty-making era.
A law was passed in 1790 known as the Trade and Nonintercourse Act aka Trade and Intercourse Act. (The law has nothing to do with sex). This law states that Indians cannot transfer land except to the federal government. Two colonists (land speculators), by the name of Johnson and MacIntosh each received title to land. One received title from the federal government and the other received an earlier title from a tribal chief. To complicate the matter, the title from the tribal chief had been given before the American Revolution, so England was still in charge of land transfers. In 1823, the two took the case to the Supreme Court. The court said that Indians have not completely lost their land rights, what they have is the right to occupy the land. When they cease to occupy the land, their rights to the land are extinguished. (How would this affect a tribe, such as those in the plains, that subsisted by following the buffalo? A prediction would be that if they leave the land, their rights cease at that point).
In 1831 and 1832, two other cases were decided by the court. (These cases and that discussed above have become known as the Marshall trilogy, because they are three landmark decisions authored by Chief Justice Marshall). In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Cherokee Nation argued that it was a foreign nation. Even though Cherokee Nation v. Georgia was not decided by the Supreme Court due to lack of jurisdicition, it remains a pivotal case in federal Indian law. The Court conncluded that Indian tribes are not foreign , at least as that term is used in the U.S. Constitution, in describing the Court's original jurisdiction over controversies between a state (Georgia) and foreign states (tribes). Rather, Justice Marshall's opinion for the Court holds that tribes are "domestic dependent nations," whose relations with the U.S. resemble that of a "ward to his guardian." This language gives birth to the "Trust Doctrine" in federal Indian law. This fundamental doctrine governing the federal-tribal relationship holds that the U.S. has a trust responsibility to act on behalf of Indian tribes.
The last of the Marshall trilogy, Worcester v. Georgia, involved several missionaries attempting to Christianize the Indians. Georgia passed a law that required any non-Indians entering Indian Country within the state to receive a permit from the state of Georgia. The missionaries had no such permit. At the request of the tribe, the missionaries refused to get a permit, to allow the Supreme Court to decide if the tribe was on equal footing with the state. As the case wore on, and the missionaries were sentenced to perform hard labor for their crimes, several of the missionaries cooperated with the state. By the time the case was decided there were only two missionaries who faced a sentence of hard labor. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case and decided that tribes are on equal footing with the state and that state laws have no force and effect in Indian Country.
The court’s decision in Worcester v. Georgia has been diluted over the years. In a 1973 case, McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that state law can intrude into Indian country only if two conditions are met:
1. There is no interference with tribal self-government and
2. Non-Indians are involved.
Tribal Jurisdiction Over Non-Indians
Canby speaks of the “Montana Rule” which applies when looking at tribal powers over non-Indians. Tribes have power to regulate non-Indian conduct, on non-Indian land within reservation boundaries, if
1. The non-Indian enters into consensual relationships with the tribe or its members; or
2. The conduct threatens or directly affects the tribe’s political integrity, economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe.
For example, if the telephone company provides telephone service on the reservation, they must comply with tribal law, even if the service is provided to a non-Indian on his own land, if his land is within the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation. (As a practical matter, if tribal law is too restrictive, the telephone company may choose not to conduct business on the reservation).
Congressional Power Over Tribal Sovereignty
Congress has what is known as plenary power over Indian affairs. (This means plenty of power). The U. S. Constitution is the source of Congressional power and serves as its only restraint, subject to interpretation by the courts.
Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the “Indian Commerce Clause” and states that “The Congress shall have the power…to regulate commerce with the foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”
In the late 1800s, Congress passed a law known as the Major Crimes Act, which gave the federal court jurisdiction over Indian vs. Indian crimes, which it did not previously have. This law was challenged in 1886, in U.S. v. Kagama. Kagama was a member of the Hoopa tribe in Northern California. He was tried for murder under the Major Crimes Act. He challenged Congress’ power to pass the act, claiming that it had nothing to do with the regulation of trade. The United States made an interesting argument in this case. They argued that if the federal government did not have the authority to punish murderers of Indians, even other Indians, then there would be less trade to regulate. The court did not buy this argument, but they did decide that the federal government had the power to pass the law, because if the federal government didn’t have this power then only the tribes would have the power to punish murder of one Indian by another Indian. (And it certainly couldn’t be left in the hands of Indians to punish their own tribal members).
This case and an additional case, Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, set the limits on Congressional power over Indian affairs. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock involved an 1867 treaty with the Kiowas and Comanches known as the Treaty of Medicine Lodge Creek. Terms of the treaty stated that it could only be amended by a vote of ¾ of the adult Indian males occupying the land set aside for the tribes. Prior to the treaty, the tribes had sustained themselves by hunting buffalo. When placed on a reservation, they were forced to rely on government rations, which were insufficient, so the Indians were starving. At the same time, there was an influx of non-Indian settlers, which created a demand for more land. The Cherokee Commission, an entity created by the executive branch of the federal government, attempted to renegotiate the treaty to obtain an additional 2,150,000 acres of land from the tribes.
The government agents acquired the signatures of 456 adult males. They certified that there were 562 eligible voters, thus giving them the assent they needed to modify the treaty. A tribal roll prepared less than three months after the Commission certification showed that there were 725 adult males over the age of 18 and 639 over the age of 21, so the Commission did not have enough votes to amend the treaty.
Since fraud was committed, should the treaty amendment be valid?
The tribes sent a letter repudiating the signatures and spoke to the President, but the treaty amendment was sent to Congress for ratification. Congress investigated the matter and both the Secretary of the Interior and the Indian Affairs Commissioner asked Congress not to ratify the agreement. Congress then attached ratification of the agreement as a rider to another bill, and passed the bill.
The tribes sued to stop enforcement of the agreement. The court said that congressional power is a political power not subject to judicial control. Since Congress has the power to eliminate treaties entirely, they must presume that Congress acted in good faith. The court further reasoned that if Congress were to be controlled, it would eliminate their ability to act in case of emergency.
These decisions have given Congress virtually unfettered power over Indian affairs. The only area in which the courts have restrained Congress is when land is taken without providing any compensation.
Sovereign Immunity
If you are at a tribal casino and the roof falls in on you, and breaks your back can you sue?
All sovereign powers have what is known as sovereign immunity. The doctrine of sovereign immunity states that you cannot sue a sovereign without its consent. The federal government has what is known as the Federal Tort Claims Act that sets out the procedures and circumstances under which the federal government will accept liability for injuries on federal land. The state has a similar ordinance. In the case of Indian tribes, consent to suit can come from either Congress or the tribe. In the example above, you cannot sue for your injuries, unless the tribe allows you to sue. (In California, all gaming tribes must have what is known as a Tort Claims Ordinance, which says if you can sue, and procedures for doing so).
Assume in the example above, that the tribe has not waived its sovereign immunity. This infuriates you so you walk out of the tribal casino with a slot machine, valued at $10,000. The tribe sues you to recover their slot machine, so you sue them for your injuries that have resulted in $100,000 in medical bills. Can you do this?
There is a doctrine known as recoupment. Recoupment says that if a sovereign, in this case a tribe, sues you, the tribe’s sovereign immunity is waived only to the extent that they sued you. So in my example, you could only sue the tribe for $10,000 – the amount for which they sued you. If it was an old used slot machine, and they only sued you for $500, you could only counterclaim against the tribe for $500.
P.L. 280
In 1953, during what is known as the termination era, Congress passed a law known as Public Law 83-280. The purpose of P.L. 280 was to relieve the problem of lawlessness on California reservations.
There were problems with P.L. 280 from the beginning because the federal government did not appropriate any money to repay the states for the services they were mandated to provide. At the same time, tribes resented the intrusion into their sovereignty.
P.L. 280 gave 5 states extensive criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indian Country. Alaska was added later which now makes six states where Congress imposed P.L. 280 jurisdiction without state or tribal consent. These are known as the “mandatory states.” P.L. 280 was amended in 1968 so that both tribes and the state must consent to state jurisdiction, but this only affects the imposition of state jurisdiction under P.L after 1968. The mandatory states were unaffected by this amendment. There is also a provision for retrocession – which is returning jurisdiction from the state to the tribes. The problem with retrocession is that the state must request that the federal government grant jurisdiction back to the tribes – the request does not come from the tribe itself.
Civil Jurisdiction
Courts have diluted the grant of civil jurisdiction under P.L. 280. If you read the act literally it seems to have few limits on state jurisdiction, but Courts have stated that Congress seems to have added the civil portion of P.L. 280 as an afterthought. This is due to the lack of legislative history attached to the bill, as there usually is. Since there is no legislative history, the courts have interpreted the act as they see fit.
As Canby indicates, county and local ordinances do not apply on Indian reservations. Does this mean there is no building code on Indian reservations? Yes, building codes are county law. Unless the tribe adopts a building code, there is no building code applicable to Indian reservations. (Under the current gaming compact, a code must be adopted for casino construction).
If suit is brought in state court against an individual Indian, state law will apply, but tribal ordinances and customs have full force and effect if they are not inconsistent with state laws.
Lecture 3
Federal Policy
There are 2 basic views regarding Indian tribes:
1. Indian tribes are here to stay and need a land base which needs to be protected.
2. Tribes should disappear and their members absorbed into mainstream society.
The result is that for the last two hundred and twenty-five years federal policy regarding Indian affairs has been pendulum-like, swinging back and forth between assimilation and self-determination. This shift does not occur instantly, it rather resembles a continuum:
Assimilation____________________________________________Self-determination
The textbooks divide the history of federal Indian policy into several eras.
1. Colonial Period – ended in 1820
Initially, European powers dealt with Indians through the use of treaties. After the American Revolution, the federal government continued this practice for two reasons: Non-Indian settlers needed land, and war weary from the American Revolution, the federal government wanted to ensure peaceful relations with Indians.
European powers, and later the federal government, took the role of a protector of the Indians from the settlers who wanted land. The U.S. Constitution gave Congress power over Indian affairs, so Congress passed a series of Trade and Intercourse Acts that made interactions with Indians subject to federal control.
2. Removal (1820-1850)
Generally, the non-Indian community believed that Indians would assimilate, become christianized and live in the European tradition. There were those, however, including Thomas Jefferson and his followers, who didn’t believe Indians and non-Indians could live together. Jefferson therefore urged voluntary removal of Indians to their own territory west of the Mississippi River.
Indians were moved from the southeast U.S. to Oklahoma, many of them dying along the way. This resulted in what has become known as the “trail of tears.” The move was termed “voluntary”, but under the circumstances, tribes were left with little choice other than to leave their homelands. By 1849, the eastern U.S. was almost entirely free of Indian tribes. The Bureau of Indian Affairs was then moved from the War Dept. to the Dept. of Interior.
3. Movement to Reservations (1850-1887)
Non-Indians began to move westward. The federal government created a policy of restricting tribes to reservations. Tribes were moved entirely or were granted portions of their land, with the bulk of the land going to the federal government through treaties that were often coerced or fraudulently induced.
When Indians were placed on reservations, Indian agents supervised their adaptation of non-Indian ways. Organized religions tried to christianize Indians and reservations were divided among the churches. There are many Baptist churches on reservations; however in the west, Catholic churches are dominant. Some traditional religious dances and ceremonies were outlawed at this time, to encourage christianization of the Indians.
One of the most significant events of this era, in a legal sense, occurred in 1883. The U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in a case known as Ex Parte Crow Dog. Crow Dog killed Spotted Tail on the Lower Brule Sioux Reservation. Both Crow Dog and Spotted Tail were members of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. The district court in the Dakota territory sentenced Crow Dog to death for the murder of Spotted Tail. Crow Dog claimed that the laws of the U.S. did not apply and that the district court had no jurisdiction to try him. He then applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. (This is a request that is made when an individual is being illegally held against his will).
There was a law that applied in Indian Country which stated that general laws of the United States applied to punish crimes committed anywhere in the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S., including Indian Country. The act provided for an exception when an Indian had been punished by the local law of the tribe, or in any case when a treaty provision gave the tribe exclusive jurisdiction over such offenses.
The argument made in support of jurisdiction was that pursuant to a treaty, the U.S. had jurisdiction. The treaty provided that “If bad men among the Indians shall commit a wrong or depredation upon the person or property of any one, white, black, or Indian, subject to the authority of the Untied States,” the Indians will turn them over to the United States to be punished. The court said it is clear that this was not meant to apply to a crime committed by an Indian against another Indian.
Next, the U.S. relied on treaty language that said, “Congress shall, by appropriate legislation, secure to the tribe “an orderly government.” The court said this meant self-government - the tribe could maintain peace and order through use of their own laws and customs. The court further said that Indians should be judged by their own law not by “one which measures the red man’s revenge by the maxims of the white man’s morality.” (In this case, peacemakers of the tribe negotiated with the families of Spotted Tail and Crow Dog for compensation for Spotted Tail’s death. Crow Dog and his family gave Spotted Tail’s family $600, eight horses and one blanket to compensate them for the loss of Spotted Tail).
It is said that by the time the court’s decision reached the Dakota Territory, Crow Dog had a noose around his neck. Non-Indian authorities had no choice but to let him go.
The BIA had been lobbying Congress for many years to get federal criminal jurisdiction extended into Indian Country. Congress reacted to this case by giving the BIA what they wanted. The Major Crimes Act was passed, which granted criminal jurisdiction over certain crimes to the federal government. This marked the beginning of the next shift in federal policy towards assimilation.
3. Allotment and Assimilation (1887-1928)
Those friendly to Indians realized that there was hopeless poverty on reservations. Other non-Indians resented the reservation system because there were tracts of land that were completely unavailable to settlers.
In 1887, the General Allotment Act, also known as the Dawes Act, was passed. Under the plan, Congress thought they could assimilate the Indians in a single generation. It was supported by those sympathetic to the plight of Indians, who believed that Indians could be given plots of land, become middle-class farmers and assimilate into mainstream society.
The Act authorized the President, whenever he believed it was advantageous to the Indians, to allot reservations into farm-size parcels, according to a formula dictated by Congress. The act called for 160 acres of land to be given to the head of each family. 80 acres was to be given to all other tribal members. These quantities were doubled if land was only suitable for grazing, but later all quantities of land to be distributed were cut in half.
There were many problems with the Allotment Act, as you will see from the external links. One of the problems with allotments is that it didn’t provide for future generations. The land was divided at a specific point in time among those who were alive at that time.
The Allotment Act provided that allotments were to be held in trust by the federal government for 25 years. This meant that the federal government owned the land for the benefit of the individual tribal member. The purpose of the 25-year period was to give Indians time to learn proper farming and business methods. During this period, the land was not subject to state law including taxation, but at the end of the 25-year period, title to the land was given to the individual Indian and state law applied, including taxation. Many allottees lost their land because they could not pay the taxes.
Indians living on reservations were not considered U.S. citizens until 1924; however, under the Allotment Act, upon receiving an allotment, an Indian became a U.S. citizen and was subject to state criminal and civil law. In 1906 the Allotment Act was amended so that Indians became citizens when the trust period expired and they received title to their land.
Each reservation had a federally appointed Indian agent. The agents withheld rations and annuities for individuals who wouldn’t work their land. For many tribes, agriculture was not a natural way of subsistence. Plains Indians were hunters, traditionally following the buffalo. Indians in Washington and the Great Lakes were fishermen. Even the withholding of food and money was insufficient to convert many Indians to a life of farming.
In 1891, the Allotment Act was amended to allow the Secretary of the Interior to lease the land of any allottee who couldn’t benefit from or improve his allotment. If the agent didn’t like the way an allotment was being used, he could lease it to whomever he wanted. After 1891, leasing became a common occurrence.
A further problem is that the Allotment Act subjected allotted land to state intestacy laws if the allottee died without a will. Most Indians didn’t have wills. Under state law, if a person dies without a will, the property will pass to his or her spouse. If there is no spouse, the property passes to his or her children. In the 1800s, it was common to have large families. If an Indian died without a spouse, each child would receive an undivided interest in the parent’s property. For example, if a man dies leaving 10 children, each child will receive a 1/10th share of the allotment. If each of those children has 10 children and dies without a will, those children will inherit a 1/100th interest in the land. These interests are undivided. That is, each of the 100 people doesn’t get an acre of land; they all receive a 1/100th interest in the entire parcel. To do anything with the land, there must be agreement of all 100 owners. Getting 100 family members to agree on anything is a tumultuous task (at least in my family). This has resulted in many allotments being unused. This problem still exists today.
By the mid-1920s, the federal government realized that assimilation was not going to work and the shift began towards reorganization.
4. Reorganization (1934 - 1953)
The Merriam Report was prepared at the direction of the Secretary of the Interior to assess conditions on Indian reservations. The report stated that the Congressional purpose behind the Allotment Act was to make farmers out of the Indians, but the act provided for instruction and training in agriculture, which did not occur. The report further outlined procedures for improving Indian services and made recommendations for expenditures of funds.
Congress was outraged when they received the Merriam Report. The general belief was that the report was slanted in favor of the bureaucratic apparatus of the BIA. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs therefore conducted their own investigation. Several years later, after the senators made many trips to reservations and observed the poverty firsthand, they came up with basically the same results.
In 1934, the Indian Reorganization Act, (IRA), also known as the Wheeler-Howard Act, was passed to rectify conditions on the reservations. The Act promised expanded social programs, federal funding of projects and put an end to allotments. It also extended the trust period indefinitely for existing allotments that were still in trust. In addition, it authorized the Secretary of the Interior to restore to tribal ownership any excess lands the federal government acquired from the tribes under the Allotment Act, as long as the land was still held by the government.
The IRA allowed tribes to organize for their common welfare and adopt a constitution and bylaws to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The BIA sent a model constitution and bylaws to all tribes. The constitution and bylaws had to be approved by the majority of adult Indians residing on the reservation within two years. Benefits to tribes if they organized pursuant to the IRA were that, the tribe had the right to:
1. Employ legal counsel, subject to BIA approval
2. Prevent the sale, disposition, lease or encumbrance of lands or other tribal assets without their consent
3. Negotiate with federal, local and state governments
4. Receive appropriations
5. Form Tribal Corporations
181 tribes voted to accept the act and 77 tribes specifically rejected the act, including the Navajo tribe.
Tribal governments were bolstered under the IRA, but not in the traditional sense. The new governments, created at the direction of the BIA, often had little resemblance to the tribal governments that once existed, but even using this federal model, this era of supporting tribal governments only lasted until 1953.
Termination and Relocation (1953 - 1961)
This period began towards the end of World War II. Domestic budgets were reduced to support the war effort and many federal agencies were reduced or closed. Many Indians left the reservation to work in factories or join the armed forces. The federal government began a policy of paying Indians to leave reservations and move to selected cities to support the war effort. In California, Los Angeles and Oakland were selected as cities for relocation.
In 1948, Congress wanted to transfer responsibility for Indians to the states as soon as possible. At the same time, the National Council of Churches issued a report recommending that Indians be given full citizenship by eliminating a lot of the legislation that bound them to the federal government. Conservatives wanted federal budget cuts and believed that Indians could make it on their own once freed from government control, while liberals took a civil rights position and thought they could help the Indians by lifting discriminatory legislation.
In 1947, the Senate Civil Service Committee asked the acting Indian Commissioner to bring them a list of tribes that could function on their own, and concentrate on those that could do so within a reasonable time. Tribes chosen for termination were based on four factors: (1) degree of assimilation of the tribe; (2) economic conditions and available resources; (3) willingness of the tribe to dispense with federal services; and (4) willingness and ability of the states to provide public services. In 1948, under pressure from Congress, the BIA began to assemble this data on all federally-recognized tribes.
In 1952, House Resolution 108 was passed declaring that “at the earliest possible time, all of the Indian tribes and the individual members thereof located within the States of California, Florida, New York and Texas, should be freed from federal supervision and control...” ( Resolutions are statements of policy only and have no legal effect). After receiving reports from the BIA regarding the social and economic status of tribes, Congress passed a series of acts terminating tribes. These included the California Rancheria Act that terminated 31 California tribes. After passage of the acts, the BIA was given a period of time to implement complete termination of federal services to the tribes. The shortest period of time allowed was less than 1 year and the longest was 12 years.
The overwhelming majority of Indians were opposed to termination, but in San Diego County there was a division among Indians as to whether tribes should support termination. The Mission Indian Federation, an Indian organization that had been around for many years, was now led by Purl Willis, a non-Indian. Willis argued in favor of termination. The argument made was that many Indians were now living off-reservation, and yet services were provided as if all Indians still lived on reservations. Willis argued that termination would free the Indians. It was time for them to be treated like all citizens. At the same time, a few Indians, including Max Mazetti from Rincon, led the local opposition to termination. The argument for the opposition was that Indians were not prepared to submit to state jurisdiction, including state taxes and property taxes. The fear was that many Indians would lose their land if they were forced to pay taxes.
The primary argument in favor of termination in San Diego County was an economic one. All federal health services for California Indians ended in 1955. The closest Indian hospital in San Diego County was Soboba Indian Hospital in Hemet. This hospital was closed and many Indians tried to use the county hospital but were denied treatment. The federal government also stopped federal support for individual Indians with the expectation that county and state governments would carry on this function. San Diego County refused to pay welfare benefits to Indians living on reservations until a lawsuit was filed and decided in favor of the Indians. This lack of benefits left many Indians with no way of supporting themselves. It was in this climate that P.L. 280 was passed.
In 1958, the Secretary of the Interior casually announced that no other tribes would be terminated without their consent, but it was not until 1970, that the termination policy was formally repudiated. At that time, it was President Nixon who asked Congress to officially repeal the termination policy.
Tribal Self- Determination (1968)
There was plenty of social change in the 1960s. It was the time of the Viet Nam War, the peace movement, free love and the occupation of Alcatraz by Indians. Suddenly, it was cool to be Indian.
This era was marked by a reversal of Federal Indian policy. The new goal was to strengthen tribal governments and once again try to make them self-sufficient. Farming failed, BIA domination through the Indian Reorganization Act failed, total assimilation through termination failed and now the federal government was ready to try something new.
In 1968, the Indian Civil Rights Act was passed which purported to provide individuals with protections not previously afforded to them. The Bill of Rights serves to restrain state and federal governments but does not apply to tribal governments since they predate the Constitution. The Indian Civil Right Act provides for most of the rights asserted under the Bill of Rights, but not all of them.
The Indian Civil Rights Act includes a provision that requires consent from both tribes and states before asserting jurisdiction pursuant to P.L. 280. The Act also includes a provision which provides for the retrocession of P.L. 280 jurisdiction at the request of the state – not the tribe - so if a tribe wants to retain jurisdiction over its own criminal and/or civil actions, it must have state approval.
In 1975, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act was passed. The act took control of federal programs from the BIA and gave it to the tribes. At the request of tribes, the Secretary of the Interior was directed to enter into contracts with tribes, and organizations designated by tribes, for the administration of health, education and construction programs. The act also gave preference for American Indians when hiring for contracts affecting Indians.
In 1982, the Indian Tribal Government Tax Status Act was passed. This act gives tribes many tax advantages that are given to states, including the right to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance government projects.
In 1983, President Reagan reaffirmed the policy of strengthening tribal governments, with the additional goal of reducing their economic dependence on the federal government.
Current Policy
As you previously read, federal policy shifts between self-determination and assimilation. There are several factors occurring in recent years that seem to indicate that the tide is shifting yet again.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act represents an intrusion on tribal sovereignty previously seen only in laws affecting the sale of alcohol on reservations. Gaming compacts negotiated between tribes and states contain varying degrees of applicability of state laws, but all compacts apply some measure of state law to Indian tribes that did not previously exist.
The BIA’s budget has been drastically reduced since about 1995. In addition, several bills have been proposed in the last few years that erode tribal sovereignty.
There is a bill that has been raised in at least two congressional sessions that would impose corporate income tax on tribal governments for casino income. This is unprecedented. State, city, county and tribal governments have never paid income tax on their earnings. The state of California pays no federal taxes on their lottery income, yet this bill would impose such a tax on tribes. The bill has been defeated every time it has been proposed, but it is almost certain to be raised again.
A bill has also been proposed a few times to use means testing in determining federal allocations to tribes. This would take into account a tribe’s income from all economic development in determining how much federal aid to give the tribe. Proponents claim that tribes, particularly wealthy gaming tribes, should not receive appropriations from the federal government because they do not need the money. Opponents claim that the federal government has a trust responsibility to the tribes, as enunciated in the Marshall trilogy, regardless of income. This is the price the federal government should pay for taking tribal lands. Some fear that means testing is the beginning of termination. This bill has also been defeated every time it has been proposed but is sure to be raised again.
Yet another bill which has been proposed several times is Slade Gorton’s bill to eliminate tribal sovereign immunity. This bill has thus far not passed, and Gorton was not re-elected to the senate in 2000, so it is uncertain if this bill will be raised again. The U.S. Supreme Court has included in its opinions an invitation to Congress to eliminate tribal sovereign immunity.
Indian housing has taken a new turn. Prior to 1994, Indians were unable to obtain mortgages on reservations because they do not own the land. There is now a program in place, known as HUD Section 184 loans, which enable Indians to obtain federally-guaranteed mortgages to build, buy or renovate houses on the reservation. Traditional Indian housing programs have also changed. The Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds Indian housing authorities and builds houses for low-income individuals to either buy or rent. Up until the last few years, these housing authorities have been subsidized. Low income housing on reservations is still subsidized but the new housing laws require that Indian housing authorities act as businesses. At the same time, it allows tribal housing authorities more flexibility by allowing them to determine how they will allocate federal monies.
The Republican-controlled congress has had a policy of federal de-regulation and granting power to the states. At the same time, there is a conservative U.S. Supreme Court who are consistently affirming and expanding state rights, while limiting tribal rights.
While many Indians still live in poverty on isolated reservations, others are sophisticated, have money and know how to use it for political gain. Some tribes, as well as individual Indians, are in a position to make sizable campaign contributions, which equates to political power. Tribes have more political power now than ever before in history. With the power of the tribes pitted against the conservative congress and court, it will be interesting to see where federal policy goes in the future.
Lecture 4
Federal – Tribal Relationship/Freedom of Religion
Federal Trust Responsibility
The federal government has what is known as a “trust responsibility” to Indian tribes. This trust responsibility was first enunciated in 1831 by Chief Justice Marshall in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia when the court said that Indian tribes are domestic dependent nations, and that the relationship of tribes to the federal government is that of a ward to its guardian. (It has turned out to be an abusive guardian).
This doctrine further evolved in 1886 in U.S. v. Kagama, when the court said, “Indians are the wards of the nation… communities dependent on the United States for their daily food…” When Indians were placed on reservations, their means of subsistence was disrupted, and in many cases completely eliminated. The Plains Indians followed the buffalo, but when placed on reservations, they could no longer hunt for subsistence. This did indeed make Indians dependent on the federal government for food.
As a result of this history of dealing with tribes, the duty owed to tribes by the federal government is known as a fiduciary duty. This duty arises when the federal government has taken over control of tribal assets such as money, land, timber, etc. This is the highest level of responsibility that can be owed to another and means that the federal government must act within the best interests of the tribes. For example, if you invest money in a mutual fund, the manager of that mutual fund owes a duty to use the utmost care in managing the fund. In the case of tribes, if the federal government has control over tribal assets they are like the mutual fund manager, they must use the utmost care in managing the tribe’s assets. Does this always happen? No. As you will see from the external links, the BIA has grossly mismanaged tribal assets.
The federal government’s trust responsibility arises from statutes, treaties, agreements, executive orders and the government’s historical relations with tribes. This means that the federal government has a duty to protect federally-recognized tribes, but the federal government cannot be required to do a specific act unless a treaty, statute, agreement, executive order or course of dealing clearly imposes or implies the obligation. For example, courts have made the federal government litigate to protect tribal lands and resources since management of tribal land and resources is under the control of the BIA. There was also a case where the BIA was held liable for funds that were supposed to be paid to tribal members and were instead paid to a tribal government that BIA officials knew were misappropriating the funds. More recently, Indians have sued for money that appears to have been “lost” by the BIA. (Cobell v. Norton). The Cobell case has been working its way through the court system for a few years and is not yet over.
If the federal government has a trust responsibility, how can Congress pass laws terminating tribes?
As Canby pointed out, the trust responsibility is enforceable against executive agencies, such as the Dept. of Interior and the BIA, but the Supreme Court in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock decided that congressional policy towards Indians is not a subject for the courts. Congress is restrained only by the U.S. Constitution, which in the case of Indians only discusses trade. This means that Congress can terminate the trust relationship anytime it wants to, but tribes cannot terminate this relationship.
There is another problem in carrying out the trust responsibility when litigation is involved. When there are legal disputes, the Dept. of Solicitor represents Indian interests until the case goes to court - then the Dept. of Justice takes over. The Dept. of Justice often handles conflicts on the other side - against Indians, so you have a single law firm, the Dept. of Justice, providing representation to Indians as both plaintiffs and defendants. Since the BIA owes a duty to tribes, and the Dept. of Justice must enforce this duty, this has sometimes created a situation where one federal agency is suing another. This results in the federal government, in effect, suing itself.
A recent example of the conflict of interest that exists in the Dept. of Justice arose in the state of Washington. The governor refused to negotiate gaming compacts with Washington tribes. A few tribes were offering gaming without state compacts, in violation of federal law, so the U.S. attorney filed suit in federal court to seize the tribes’ slot machines and close the casinos. The court decided that the U.S. attorney should be acting in the best interests of the tribe and suing the state for refusing to negotiate a compact, rather than taking action against the tribe for operating illegal gambling devices.
To take care of these conflicts, former President Nixon wanted to establish a separate legal agency for handling representation of Indian interests. It seems like a good idea, but to date, this hasn't happened.
Religious Freedom
American Indian religions vary significantly from other western religions such as Christianity. Traditional religion was not historically classified as a religion subject to protection by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. One of the goals in the 1800s was to “Christianize” Indians and lead them to civilization. As late as 1921, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs stated that “The sun-dance, and all other similar dances and so-called religious ceremonies are considered ‘Indian offences’ under existing regulations, and corrective penalties are provided.”
In modern America, there are still problems encountered by followers of American Indian traditional religions. One of these problems is that traditional religions are connected to the land. Some ceremonies must be practiced in specific sacred areas at specific times of the year. In 1978, Congress passed the Native American Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. section 1996) to protect access to sites. The Act states:
That henceforth it shall be the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rights.
Three tribes in Northern California have sacred sites in the Six Rivers National Forest, which have been traditionally used for ceremonial purposes. The Forest Service proposed to build a road through the forest linking two towns. In Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, the court found that the ceremonies were an integral part of traditional religious belief. The ceremonies could be practiced only at the particular sites in the national park and disturbing the natural state of the land would make the ceremonies virtually impossible. What did the court decide? The court said that the government can use its own land any way that it sees fit, regardless of whether or not Indians are negatively impacted, as long as the government doesn’t coerce individuals into violating their religious beliefs or penalize their religious activity, so the Indians lost in this case. The major problem with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act is that it is only a declaration of policy. It contains no remedy for violations of the law.
There is federal land in Wyoming, known as Devils Tower National Monument. Devil’s Tower is a sacred site for a number of tribes. It also provides some of the best rock climbing in the country. The Dept. of the Interior tried to balance these competing interests. The most significant tribal ceremonial activities at Devil’s Monument occur during the month of June, so the National Park Service closed Devil’s Tower National Monument to commercial rock climbers during the month of June. A group of rock climbers sued the National Park Service claiming that the June closures violated the First Amendment by favoring Indian religions over other religions. How do you think the court decided in this case?
The court found that the closure violated the First Amendment to the constitution in that it supported American Indian religion, so the National Park Service posted a notice asking climbers to voluntarily refrain from rock climbing during the month of June. The climbers sued once again claiming that the voluntary notice favored American Indian religions. What do you think the court decided this time? The climbers pushed it too far this time. The court said that the voluntary request did not violate the climbers’ constitutional rights.
Courts have also rejected Indian attempts to prevent the federal government from building dams and flooding sacred places and refused to block the development of a ski area on a sacred mountain.
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act contains a provision that directs the President to require federal agencies to review their policies and procedures and identify changes needed to comply with the federal policy stated in the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. From 1978-1979, a task force identified 522 instances, affecting 70 tribes, where changes needed to be made. None of the task force’s recommendations have been adopted.
There are also a number of cases in recent years regarding prisoners’ rights to religious freedom. Courts have decided that prisoners have no right to use sweat lodges, since the use of sweat lodges must be balanced against the need for prison security. It is up to each prison administration to determine if they want to allow or prohibit the use of sweat lodges.
Peyote use is another area of religious freedom that has been addressed by Congress and the courts. The Native American Church has religious ceremonies that include peyote use. There was a case in 1990 in which two drug and alcohol counselors were members of the Native American Church and ingested peyote during religious ceremonies. Word got back to their employers and they were fired. Oregon law classified peyote as a controlled substance and provided for criminal penalties for its use and possession. (The case originated in Oregon). The men applied for unemployment but were denied unemployment benefits, so they sued – not for being fired, but to receive unemployment benefits. The Supreme Court held that employees could be denied state benefits, including unemployment compensation, for using peyote on their own time in religious ceremonies.
Congress reacted to this case by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The act specifically stated that it was being passed in response to the Supreme Court’s decision and granted protection for sacramental peyote use by Indians. The law provided that Indians ingesting peyote during church ceremonies were not subject to criminal drug penalties for such use. The Supreme Court had the final say; however, and in 1997, the court declared the act unconstitutional, so the court’s opinion in Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith is the current law regarding this subject.
Lecture 5
Tribal Governments
There were numerous tribal governments in America when the earliest settlers arrived, but there were no institutions resembling that to which the settlers were accustomed, so they believed that no governments existed. In fact, the Iroquois had a very advanced governmental structure, which later served as a model for the American colonies.
One of the primary societal differences at the time of early contact was that tribes typically had oral societies, reducing nothing to writing, while Anglo societies relied on the written word. Why wouldn’t tribes have written societies? In many cases, tribes were nomadic. It would be difficult to haul file cabinets full of documents with them when they moved from one encampment to another.
Ancient systems of government were disrupted as tribes were removed to western lands and placed on reservations. The federal government took over most of the decision-making and internal control of tribes. Only a few tribes, including New Mexico pueblos, escaped this fate. In some cases, the federal government placed groups of Indians together on single reservations, even sometimes groups who were enemies, because they shared a common language, even though they were from distinct political groups.
As you previously learned, the goal of federal policy during the allotment era was to assimilate Indians and destroy tribal governments in a single generation. By the 1920s, very little was left of traditional tribal structures. The Indian Reorganization Act strengthened tribal government, but not in the traditional sense. Tribal governments were strengthened and encouraged, but only so far as they adopted the Anglo model distributed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The model, as you saw earlier, required Secretary of Interior approval of most activities, including enrollment. The BIA used this approval to control tribal affairs. It was not uncommon for BIA representatives to regularly attend tribal government meetings.
Tribes that organized pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) have standard constitutions and are governed by a General Council, consisting of all adult members of the tribe, and a Tribal Council, which is elected. The powers given to the Tribal Council vary from tribe to tribe. Many California tribes, who did not adopt the IRA, have an IRA governmental structure, but they do not have a constitution or bylaws. These tribes are governed by custom and tradition. The Tribal Council in this type of government retains only those powers delegated by the General Council. Since there is no constitution, these powers can change either by ballot or at any duly called meeting of the General Council. It is therefore much easier to change the delegation of power when a tribe is following customs and tradition, than one that has adopted a constitution.
Not all tribes have IRA or IRA-like governments. For example, the Mississippi Choctaw Tribe is governed by a chief who reports to an elected tribal council on a quarterly basis.
There have been significant changes in tribal governments in the past 200 years. Traditionally, the role of government was to adjudicate disputes. Tribal governments have now become more bureaucratic, with some tribes using powers of taxation and regulation of various matters that affect the tribe. Tribal governments more closely resemble state and federal governments, than traditional governmental structures; however, tribal bureaucracy has not risen to the level of state and federal bureaucracy, partially because their constituency is much smaller.
In many tribes, tribal leaders work full-time jobs and are not compensated for their positions on the tribal council. It is still uncommon to find college-educated tribal council members. Although some tribes are now developing junior colleges on their reservations, for many tribes the closest college is located some distance from the reservation. Even if an individual is willing to leave his or her home to attend school, what will happen after graduation? Job opportunities on many reservations are very limited so there are often no jobs, and no prospects, at home to which the graduate can return. The choice then has to be made whether to leave one’s culture to pursue a career, or forego the career and stay close to the culture.
Indian Judicial Systems
Traditional justice systems varied by tribe. Often the tribal chief, religious leaders or some type of council served as the judicial body. Disputes were mediated. The role of the “judge” was to help the parties come to an agreement between themselves and enforce tribal custom to keep harmony within the tribe. The goal of punishment was to compensate for harm done, not to punish the criminal. Religious custom and tradition were the basis for Indian justice and the “judge” often offered to compensate the injured party himself just to keep harmony within the tribe. Banishment from tribes was very rare.
In contrast to traditional Indian justice systems, Anglo systems of justice are adversarial. There is always a winner and a loser and harmonious relations are generally irrelevant. The goal of punishment in Anglo systems is to punish those who break laws, often by putting them in prison and removing them from society.
Courts of Indian Offenses - CFR Courts
In the early 1800s, Indians were being pushed west to reservations. The BIA was part of the War Dept. and law and order was in the hands of the U.S. military. In 1849, the BIA became part of the Dept. Of Interior and was placed under civilian control. Indian agents were responsible for law and order on reservations, but some tribes retained some responsibility for law and order pursuant to treaties - mainly Indian vs. Indian offenses.
Courts of Indian Offenses, or CFR courts, were created by the BIA to deal with law and order on reservations and by 1883, the Courts of Indian Offenses were a regular part of BIA activities. The courts were administered using specific rules published by the BIA in the Code of Federal Regulations, hence the name, CFR courts. This marked the beginning of the evolution of separate branches of power within tribal governments.
The legal status of these courts is unclear - only one federal case discussed the courts and it said that they were merely educational and disciplinary instruments used by the U.S. government to improve the condition of the dependent tribes. What about the separation of powers in the federal government? The BIA is an executive agency that developed and implemented courts – a judicial function.
Allotment policies, beginning in 1887, increased the need for CFR courts because traditional forms of government were disrupted. Families were divided to assimilate more quickly and these courts banned some religious dances and ceremonies in the name of law and order. Indian judges staffed these courts but Indian agents, who were generally non-Indians working for the BIA, selected the judges. The agents often rewarded those Indians who were assimilating.
At their peak, CFR courts operated on about 2/3 of the reservations in the United States. Under the Indian Reorganization Act, tribes could take back their judicial functions but the courts have continued in existence on some reservations because some tribes lack resources to develop their own court systems.
Modern Tribal Courts
Tribal courts have extensive jurisdiction over civil matters within their boundaries and some criminal jurisdiction. The Indian Civil Rights Act limits the maximum penalty that can be imposed by a tribal court in criminal matters to one year in jail and/or a $5,000 fine. The result is that tribal courts generally only hear misdemeanor offenses.
The Indian Reorganization Act allowed tribes to re-establish their own tribal justice systems. Establishment of a tribal court system allowed tribes to use their customs and traditions in deciding matters before the court, but after the allotment era, most tribes weren’t in a position to recreate what they once had. Some traditional methods of dealing with disputes could not be revitalized because they depended on religious ceremonies that were long since forgotten. In addition, by this time, many tribal members were Christians and did not practice traditional justice that involved religious ceremonies so modern tribal courts often followed a BIA model.
Most tribes now have courts and tribal codes that have been passed by their legislative bodies and approved by the Secretary of Interior. The Tribal Justice Act was passed in 1994, which encourages development of tribal courts. There are, however, a limited number of tribal courts in California. This can be attributed to several factors. P.L. 280, by its grant of jurisdiction to the state, provides state forums for dispute resolution and criminal prosecution. Even if tribes had tribal courts, matters could still be heard in state court, unless jurisdiction is retroceded. Another obstacle to the development of tribal courts is the relatively small size of California tribes. Few tribes have more than 1,000 tribal members, others have less than 100 tribal members, and more than a few tribes have less than 20 tribal members. Federal resource allocations are based on the size of tribes, so California tribes have not received the financial support they would need to develop court systems. With the proliferation of gaming in California, the ability of tribes to develop their own courts is changing. The resources are now available to those tribes with casinos to develop tribal courts and casinos have created a need for forums to resolve disputes involving casino patrons and employees. Within the next 10 years, there will probably be a number of tribal courts in California to deal with these types of matters.
Some modern tribal courts are very formal, such as the Navajo court system. The tribe has its own bar exam. It also provides tribal prosecutors and defense advocates as well as a court of appeals that issues written opinions. Other tribal courts have single judges and operate on a part-time basis. Several tribes have pooled their resources and developed Inter-tribal Courts of Appeal, which hear appeals of cases from several different tribes.
Some tribes elect judges, just as is done in state courts. Other tribes appoint judges, usually by the tribal council. Judges are often tribal members, but unlike state and federal courts, judges are not usually lawyers. Judges generally get some sort of training, but this informality often results in judges relying on their own personal knowledge of cases in reaching their decision.
Enforceability of Tribal Court Decisions
The U.S. Constitution contains a provision known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which states that:
Article 4, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each state
to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.
Indian tribes are not subject to the U.S. Constitution, so tribal governments are not subject to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. So how can a tribal court order be enforced off-reservation? There is a legal concept known as comity. Comity applies to foreign governments and refers to a court’s voluntary recognition of foreign court orders. For example, if you reside in California, but during a trip to Mexico, you injure someone who sues you, and the Mexican court awards $50,000 to the person you injured, this can be enforced against you in California. The person who has the judgment against you can ask California courts to recognize the judgment, which will allow for wage garnishments, etc.
Courts will not grant comity (will not recognize a foreign judgment, including tribal court judgments) unless there was a fair and impartial trial; the court had jurisdiction; a record was kept of the proceedings; and the parties had a chance to present their side.
Lecture 6
Gaming
In California, Tribes attempted to engage in gaming as early as 1970. In 1979, in Seminole v. Butterworth, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that state bingo laws did not apply on the Seminole Reservation in Florida. California tribes began to consider bingo and card operations.
In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court decided California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians. The court decided that, even in P.L. 280 states, state gambling laws do not apply to Indian gaming. As you may recall from the reading, “the shorthand test is whether the conduct at issue violates the state’s public policy.”
In 1988, spurred by complaints from state representatives that they lost control over gaming in their states, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). IGRA classifies gaming into three classes. Class I gaming is traditional gaming. (Indians have a long tradition of gambling). Most tribes have some type of stick game, which they traditionally played. Tribes have the exclusive responsibility for regulating Class I gaming.
Class II gaming consists of bingo, games similar to bingo, and card games, which are expressly authorized in the state, or are not expressly prohibited. Both the tribe and federal government have the authority to regulate Class II gaming.
Class III gaming consists of all gaming not defined as Class I or Class II. A tribe who wants to offer Class III gaming on their reservation must enter into a compact with the state. Class III gaming is regulated by the state, tribe and federal government.
In California, tribes attempted to negotiate compacts with then Governor Pete Wilson from 1990-1992. Negotiations broke down over the scope of gaming allowed under California law and the tribes and the state of California agreed to go to federal court and litigate the question. Rumsey Indian Rancheria v. Wilson was then filed.
In the Rumsey litigation, the tribes claimed that Cabazon applied to Class III gaming. Tribes argued that Class III gaming was not against the pubic policy of the state, since the state operates dispensers of lottery scratcher tickets, sells lottery tickets from terminals, allows horse racing, and charitable bingo. Under Cabazon, if gambling is not a violation of the public policy of the state, state gambling laws cannot be applied on Indian reservations. Tribes believed that they were clearly entitled to operate modified slot machines, known as video lottery terminals (vlts), and possibly more. (Like scratcher dispensers, the tribal vlts accepted only currency and dispensed only paper).
The trial court agreed with the tribes. Relying on the trial court opinion, tribes across the state opened casinos with electronic gaming, despite the fact that the tribes still had no compacts with the state. On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Cabazon does not apply to Class III gaming. This was a loss for the tribes. The case was sent back to the trial court to determine exactly what games are proper topics for discussion between the tribes and the state. There has been a disagreement as to the question before the court. Tribes believe the question is, “Can the state operate slot machines?” The state believes the question is “Does the state operate slot machines?” This case was finally dismissed in late 2000, after eight years in the court system.
So why did the state allow electronic gaming to continue in California with no compacts? In Sycuan v. Roache, a Southern California case, the local sheriff raided Indian casinos and confiscated gaming devices. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that state and local authorities have no right to enforce the provisons of IGRA. The U.S. attorneys and National Indian Gaming Commission are the only entities that have the authority to enforce IGRA.
California is divided into four federal districts with a different U.S. attorney in each district. U.S. attorneys in California ignored the casinos that were springing up on reservations without compacts, with the exception of San Diego County. In June 1994, in San Diego County, then U.S. attorney Alan Bersin entered into a handshake agreement with tribal leaders from Barona, Sycuan and Viejas, the only tribes in San Diego County operating casinos at that time. Bersin agreed that he would not take action to close the tribal casinos until Rumsey was decided, if the tribes agreed not to add any additional electronic gaming devices to their casinos. The result was that Barona, Viejas and Sycuan were given a tribal gaming monopoly for several years.
While Rumsey was in federal court, Western Telcon v. California State Lottery was filed in state court. Western Telcon was filed by horse racing interests. The horse racing interests alleged that the state lottery’s keno game was an illegal house banked game and used illegal slot machines. Rumsey was put on hold while Western Telcon wound its way through the courts because everyone believed that the court would decide the issue of whether the state could legally operate slot machines. (Which explains why Rumsey was in the courts so long). The court bypassed this issue and decided that the keno game was illegal because it was a house-banked game. The court set out how all games could be modified to fit a pari-mutuel setting.
In 1997, under political pressure to solve the stalemate with California tribes, Pete Wilson finally agreed to negotiate compacts. Pete Wilson adamantly refused to negotiate compacts with tribes engaged in illegal gaming. Governor Wilson therefore selected the Pala Band of Mission Indians in San Diego County to negotiate a compact, which would serve as a model for all tribes in California. At this time, pressure was also beginning to mount from the U.S. attorneys, who never expected the gaming situation in California to go this long without resolution.
Negotiations took place for 18 months. Initially, there were 5 attorneys negotiating with state representatives, one attorney who represented Pala, and four representing other California tribes. Two Pala tribal members were allowed to attend the negotiating sessions and representatives from other tribes in the state were permitted to observe the process. After each session, information was to be shared with all interested tribal leaders.
After several months of negotiations, Pala and the state decided to keep the meetings confidential, apparently as the result of the press publishing information exchanged during the negotiating sessions. This led to a divisiveness of tribes in California.
The Wilson compact required tribes to apply state environmental laws to tribal casinos; waived tribal sovereign immunity for injuries at the casino or on roads leading to the casino; applied the California Environmental Quality Act to tribal casinos; gave the state extensive regulatory jurisdiction; applied many state and local laws to the casinos that were otherwise inapplicable to the tribes; called for the tribes to negotiate with the county in which they are located to mitigate off-reservation impacts of gaming; required tribes to improve roads that lead to state highways; and required a local vote in the county in which the tribe was located as to whether citizens wanted gaming in their county. Any concerns expressed by county residents had to be taken into consideration when negotiating for off-reservation impacts. The Wilson compact also required tribes to allow labor unions at the casinos. The unions were permitted to speak out against management, but casino management was required to remain neutral.
Unlike the games described by the court in Western Telcon, the gaming devices outlined in the Wilson compact had to be played like lotteries with remote video screens showing what prizes had just been won in each game. Devices could not make any noise, have any lights on the top of them, called candles, and required that a card be inserted in the machine each time a game was played. Aside from requiring more restrictive games than the California Supreme Court clearly allowed, each Tribe was given the right to operate only 199 gaming devices. Tribes could operate up to 975 devices, but only if they purchased another tribe’s right to operate the devices.
Many tribes found the intrusions of tribal sovereignty and the machine limits unpalatable, but U.S. attorneys put pressure on the tribes to accept the compact. Tribes were given 2 options: 1) sign the Pala compact, or 2) close their casinos and negotiate their own compact with the governor (which the governor indicated would be materially identical to the compact entered into with Pala). The tribes added a third option, which several tribes accepted: do nothing and let the U. S. attorneys take them to court to shut the casinos down.
A few tribes, faced with closure of their casinos, signed the Wilson compact. U.S. attorneys moved against those tribes operating casinos that did not sign the Wilson compact. Lawsuits were filed, but the tribes’ next attempt at legitimacy was successful in holding off enforcement action.
Faced with the threat of imminent closure, tribes launched the Proposition 5 initiative, and were successful in getting the initiative on the 1998 ballot. Proposition 5 set up funds for non-gaming tribes and local community needs. It protected tribal sovereignty, giving tribal gaming commissions the final decisions in regulatory matters. It did not apply state laws to Indian reservations and contained no labor provisions. Games were to be played using the pari-mutuel format set out by the court in Western Telcon. Proposition 5 was placed on the ballot as a statutory initiative, which means that it changed only a law enacted by the legislature that prohibited certain games. The California Constitution also has a provision that prohibits “casinos of the type operating in Nevada and New Jersey.” Tribes did not believe that their casinos fell into this prohibition since it did not allow for any house-banked games, so they did not attempt to amend the California Constitution.
Proposition 5 was passed by the voters in California and was immediately challenged in the California Supreme Court by the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union and a homeowners’ association which borders a Northern California Indian reservation. In August 1999, the California Supreme Court found that Proposition 5 was unconstitutional.
By the time Proposition 5 was overturned, Gray Davis had taken the place of Pete Wilson as governor and negotiations began once again. The Governor’s representatives suggested that an initiative be placed on the March, 2000 ballot that would amend the California consitution and allow tribes to operate house banked card games and slot machines. (Proposition 1a passed overwhelmingly). Compacts were negotiated on this basis. In late August or early September, during the compact negotiations, the U.S. attorneys once again advised tribes that further closure action would be taken if they did not have a compact in place by mid-September. Facing closure once again, the state and tribes negotiated compacts, which allow each tribe to operate up to 2,000 machines. Like the Wilson compact, tribes must purchase the right to operate machines over and above their initial allocation, which is the number of machines the tribe operated on September 1, 1999, or 350 machines, whichever is greater. The funds from these license fees will be distributed to non-gaming tribes.
The compacts require payments to the state of California based on a percentage of gross revenue. (Pete Wilson asked for no money for the state). The compacts allow labor unions to organize at tribal casinos; require many of the same state laws to apply to tribal casinos as the Wilson compact, but allow the tribes to retain some degree of sovereignty. Rather than adopt state laws, tribes must pass their own laws that are at least equivalent to state and federal laws.
Proposition 1a has also faced legal challenges. Larry Flynt (publisher of Hustler magazine and owner of a card room in Loa Angeles) filed suit as did Artichoke Joe’s card room on the grounds that the compacts gave Indian tribes an illegal monopoly on Blackjack and slot machines. The suits were not successful and Proposition 1a was upheld.
Gray Davis used these legal challenges as grounds not to negotiate compacts with any tribes that did not sign a compact in 1999. Prior to his recall, he relented and signed three new compacts which contained more onerous provisions than the earlier compacts.
Several tribes are currently negotiating with the governor’s office to obtain new compacts or amend existing compacts. Meanwhile, three initiatives have been filed for the November, 2004 ballot, one of which appears in the external links. Additional intitiaves have been filed by both the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and Stand Up for California, an anti-gaming group. Signature gathering campaigns for the initiatives should be starting in the next several weeks.
Gaming doesn’t come without a price, not all of which is monetary. To engage in gaming, California tribes have had to submit to a broader application of state laws on Indian lands than at any time since the Marshall trilogy was decided. At the same time, gaming has given many tribes more resources than they have had since they were placed on reservations.
Lecture 7
Misc. Federal Statutes and the Indian Civil Rights Act
The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants all citizens the right to bear arms. Do you have the right to bear arms when you enter an Indian reservation?
The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution) restrains federal government and guarantees individuals certain rights. The 14th amendment applies the Bill of Rights to state governments but, since tribal governments predate the Constitution, the Bill of Rights does not apply to restrain tribal governments. You therefore have no right to bear arms on the reservation – unless the tribe decides to grant you that right.
What about freedom of religion? Can you practice any religion you want to on an Indian reservation?
There is a pueblo in New Mexico, Pueblo DeJemenez. In 1954, the pueblo allowed only Catholics to be buried in the pueblo cemetery. Protestant missionaries were not allowed in the pueblo and Protestants, whether members of the Pueblo or not, could not build a church within pueblo boundaries. Could the pueblo legally do this? Yes, since the Constitution didn’t apply, there was no law that prohibited an Indian tribe from discriminating based on religion.
In 1968, to fill the void left by this lack of constitutional rights, Congress passed the Indian Civil Rights Act. The act was attached to a housing bill. It received some opposition from those Indians afraid of losing their custom and tradition, but was passed nevertheless.
The 5th amendment to the constitution provides for equal protection of all citizens. Federal law prohibiting discrimination is based on this provision. Does this mean that Indian tribes must not discriminate when hiring employees at their casinos?
In Morton v. Mancari, a non-Indian sued because the Bureau of Indian Affairs gave Indians preference when hiring and promoting employees. The court upheld a statute that gave Indian preference for BIA jobs. The court decided that the preference is political - not racial - since it applies only to members of federally-recognized tribes.
Equal protection claims have also been rejected when applying federal criminal laws on the reservation. In 1977, an Indian charged with a federal crime because it was committed on the reservation, claimed that he was not being treated as fairly as non-Indians because if a non-Indian committed the crime, state law would apply and under state law it would be harder to prove the crime and the defendant would get a more lenient sentence. The court summarily rejected this argument.
The Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) includes most, but not all, of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Some Constitutional rights are not included:
1. There is no right to an indictment by a grand jury for capital or infamous crimes. (This shouldn’t affect most of you)
2. There is no establishment of religion clause.
This is the clause that requires the separation of church and state. Tribal governments have no duty to separate church and state, and many tribal meetings open with a prayer.
3. There is no right to bear arms.
4. There is no right to refrain from quartering troops, so if a tribe decides to have its own army, tribal members do not have the right to refrain from housing them. (This is not likely to be an issue any time soon).
5. There is no right to appointed counsel. This means that if you are charged with a crime and you cannot afford an attorney, you are out of luck and can be forced to represent yourself. Although tribes have no duty to provide public defenders, many do.
The ICRA provides restraint on tribal governments but the only remedy is a habeas corpus action, unless the tribe waives its sovereign immunity to allow enforcement of the act. A habeas corpus action is a petition filed in court claiming that the petitioner is being held illegally. If the action is successful, the individual will be released from jail, but it doesn’t provide for any other relief.
The proper forum for violations of the ICRA is tribal court but if no tribal court is available, an action can be filed in federal court to enforce the act’s provisions but, as noted above, only for habeas corpus actions.
The only restraints on tribal government are provided pursuant to the Indian Civil Rights Act, which is statutory. Unlike the constitution, Congress can modify the act at any time. (It takes 2/3 majority vote of the people in a nationwide election to modify the constitution).
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
“How would you like it if your grandmother’s bones were on display?”
Agua Caliente tribal member
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was enacted in 1990. The act provides that human remains, funerary and cultural objects found on tribal or federal lands must be turned over to the most likely descendants of those objects and remains.
Museums receiving federal funding were directed to inventory their collection within one year of passage of the act and notify the most likely descendants of human remains, funerary and cultural objects in the museum’s possession. If the most likely descendants request repatriation of
the remains and objects, they must be returned to the tribe.
Over ten years later, many museums are still not in compliance with the act. Some museums have limited budgets and claim that they do not have the resources to inventory their complete collection and notify the most likely descendants. The penalty for noncompliance, denial of additional federal funding, only exacerbates this problem. Thus far NAGPRA has not been effective in achieving its goals.
An additional problem is encountered when trying to repatriate remains in that some tribes do not believe that the dead should be disturbed. They therefore do not want their remains returned. Other tribes have divisions within the tribe as to whether to display cultural remains.
In addition to NAGPRA, Califonria has a law that mirrors NAGPRA for all museums and agencies receiving state funds. In addition, California Public Resources Code 5097.5 provides protection on all public lands in the state of California, other than federal lands. It is a crime in California to excavate, remove, destroy, or injure burial grounds, rock art or any other archaeological features and makes violation of this law a crime.
Indian Child Welfare Act
The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was passed in 1978 to end the practice of taking Indian children from their parents by state welfare agencies and state courts. Congress investigated in the mid-1970s and discovered that 1/3 of Indian children had been taken from their homes by state agencies and placed in foster homes, adoptive families or institutions. Most of these residential placements were to non-Indian homes and many were the result of prejudice and ignorance of cultural values on behalf of the state agencies and courts.
ICWA applies to all proceedings terminating parental rights, when there is an Indian child involved. (It does not apply to divorce proceedings). An Indian child is defined as an enrolled member of a federally-recognized tribe, or a child who is eligible to be enrolled and has at least one parent who is an enrolled member. (The books don’t include this second criteria – that at least one parent must be enrolled – but this requirement is included in the Indian Child Welfare Act).
ICWA sets forth minimum federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their homes. When children are removed, the act provides for placement in homes that reflect their culture and values. Unless good cause exists, before a child can be placed in a non-Indian home, the court must look to:
1. The child's extended family
2. Other members of the child's tribe
3. Other Indian families
If an Indian child lives on the reservation, the tribal court on that reservation has exclusive jurisdiction over child dependency proceedings. If the child lives off-reservation, the state and tribal court have concurrent jurisdiction – that is, matters can be filed in either court. If a proceeding is initiated in state court, the court must notify the child’s tribe and the tribe can intervene. If the tribe or a parent requests that the proceeding be moved to tribal court, the state court must do so, unless there is a good reason not to.
In Holyfield v. Missippippi Band of Choctaw Indians, an Indian couple lived on the Mississippi Choctaw reservation. Both parents were enrolled members of the tribe and the child was eligible for enrollment. The couple decided to give the child up for adoption. The nearest hospital was about 100 miles from the reservation. The woman gave birth and the state court accepted jurisdiction over the adoption proceedings. The tribe intervened, claiming that the tribe had exclusive jurisdiction because the parents lived on the reservation. What do you think the court decided? The trial court (a state court) said that the child never lived on the reservation so the state court had jurisdiction, but the case was appealed to the appellate court level and finally to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that the state’s interpretation didn’t make sense. A child resides where the parent resides, so the tribal court had exclusive jurisdiction.
If state court proceedings do not follow ICWA, the tribe, the parents or an Indian custodian can invalidate the court action. Even if the biological parents consent to adoption or foster home placement of an Indian child, and the court doesn't follow ICWA, the tribe can intervene and enforce the act’s provisions. The tribe can overrule the wishes of the parents, but the court should always decide in the best interest of the child.
In re Bridget R. was decided in the California Court of Appeals several years ago. An unmarried couple had twin girls and placed them for adoption. They already had two children, aged 1 and 2 at the time. The father was not exactly a father of the year candidate and at the time of the adoption the mother and children were living in a shelter.
Both parents talked to an attorney about the adoption. The mother, Cindy, was a non-Indian and the father, Richard, initially signed a form stating that he was Indian. The adoption attorney advised him that the adoption would be more complicated because he is an Indian so he signed an amended form claiming that he was Caucasian.
When the adoption proceedings took place, the court did not follow ICWA. The Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians, the tribe in which the father was enrolled, intervened in the case at the insistence of Richard’s mother. Richard and Cindy then withdrew their consent to the adoption and wanted to place the twins with Richard’s sister.
Richard had 3/16 blood quantum but lived several hundred miles from the reservation all of his life. Pursuant to tribal customs and traditions he was a tribal member even though his name did not appear on the membership roll. He was born in 1972 and in 1973, the tribe adopted articles of association that included a provision that members were individuals with sufficient blood quantum who submitted an enrollment application, and were descendants of those named in a 1915 census. After the adoption proceedings took place, Richard’s mother submitted an enrollment application for Richard.
Should ICWA apply?
The court invented a new standard known as the “existing family doctrine.” The existing family doctrine provides that ICWA does not apply unless the tribal member parent has maintained social, cultural or political ties to the tribe. The case was sent back to the trial court to determine if Richard maintained ties to his tribe. Prior to reaching a decision, the matter was settled. Since a California court decided this doctrine, it applies only in California.
The problem with this doctrine is that non-Indian judges are called upon to decide if Indians have ties to their reservations. One of the factors the courts consider is whether the parent(s) attends Pow Wows – traditional Indian dances – on the reservation, but Pow Wows are not a California tradition. California dancers, who may appear to be traditional, are actually dressing and dancing as if they are from Plains tribes. This is just one illustration of the problems inherent in having judges rule about cultural connections that are foreign to them
What about a case in which the mother is a non-Indian and the father is an Indian, but the parents are not married? ICWA applies. In a local case a couple of years ago, a 16 year old non-Indian became pregnant by a 17 year old Indian. The couple agreed to place the child up for adoption and selected a non-Indian couple in Texas to raise the child. The biological parents, as well as the adoptive parents, met with the tribal council and the tribal council agreed to the adoption. During the final days of the girl’s pregnancy, the tribal council changed their mind and decided that they wanted the child placed with an Indian family. The non-Indian mother did not believe that it was in the child’s best interest to be raised by any of the potential adoptive families on the reservation. The young mother and father are no longer together and the mother is now raising the child herself.
ICWA has produced mixed results. Every term for the last few years, Congress has discussed amendments to ICWA. Some will probably be coming soon.
International Issues
Problems have arisen as a result of the creation of international borders. Prior to the arrival of the Europeans, this continent was not divided into three separate countries, each with its own immigration requirements. (Some say that the Indians’ first mistake was not tightening up immigration laws). This artificial creation of international boundaries divided some tribes that lived and hunted along what are now the borders of Canada and Mexico.
In 1783, the Treaty of Paris established the international border between Canada and the U.S. in the middle of Mohawk lands. The tribe currently has 14,000 acres near St. Regis, New York and 24,000 acres in Canada - mostly consisting of 2 islands. Island residents pass through U.S. waters to get to mainland Canada. The tribe has a Canadian Tribal Council and an American Tribal Council with different tribal membership requirements for each. The Canadian Indian Act states that children retain the Indian status of their fathers. To be enrolled in the U.S. Mohawk Tribe, a child’s mother must be enrolled to be eligible for membership. Thus, if a child is born to a Canadian Mohawk mother and an American Mohawk father, the child would be ineligible for enrollment in either tribe, even though he or she is a full-blood Mohawk.
The U.S./Canadian border also separated the Blackfeet Tribe. In the U.S., the federal government placed three separate tribes on a single reservation and renamed the tribes Blackfeet. The Blackfeet is actually comprised of the Piegan, Blood and Blackfoot tribes. In Canada these three tribes each retain separate reservations (known as reserves in Canada).
Jay Treaty
In 1794, the U.S. and Great Britain entered into the Jay Treaty also known as the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation. Article 3 of the treaty permitted Indians to have free passage across the U.S./Canadian border. It also stated that neither country would impose a duty on goods carried by Indians as long as the goods did not exceed what the individual could physically carry.
Beginning in 1795, the U.S. government initiated policies that were contrary to the Jay Treaty. The U.S. implemented a law in 1795 that required Indian traders to get a permit from the federal government. Britain objected to this because it violated the Jay Treaty and disturbed the fur trade. The U.S. conceded that the requirement did indeed violate the treaty but didn’t stop requiring permits.
After the War of 1812, the U.S. government initiated policies to get Indians under federal control and ignored the open border guarantees of the Jay Treaty, but in 1924, the Immigration Act of 1924 was passed in the U.S. that allows Indians free access across the Canadian border. Current U.S. immigration policies allow free access to Canadian Indians whose tribes have been split by the U.S./Canadian border. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 requires, however, that Indians possess at least 50% Indian blood quantum to receive the immigration exemption. Canada does not reciprocate at this time.
U.S./Mexico Border
In 1853, the Mexican/ Arizona border divided the Tohono O’odham tribe, also known as the Papago. The tribe has been trying for many years to get similar immigration exemptions as Canadian tribes who have been split by the border. Thus far, their efforts have been unsuccessful.
Lecture 8
Native Hawaiians
Native Hawaiians are the only group of indigenous people in the United States with which the federal government has made no efforts to settle land claims. The Dept. of Interior (who oversees the Bureau of Indian Affairs) provides Hawaiians with no federal services, but in recent years, Native Hawaiians have been included in federal legislation affecting Indians, and a bill is now in the Senate which would grant federal recognition to Native Hawaiians, as it does to Indian tribes.
Why are Native Hawaiians not on an equal footing with American Indians? One of the reasons is that Hawaii did not become a state until 1959. Remember that this was well into the termination era. Congress did not want to recognize Indian tribes any longer, and certainly didn’t want to add to those receiving federal services, so Congress gave power to the state of Hawaii to deal with Native Hawaiians.
Many Native Hawaiians dream of a day when their sovereignty will be restored, they cede from the United States and once again become an independent nation. A brief history will help you to understand the Hawaiian struggle for recognition and sovereignty.
Captain Cook made the first European contact with the Hawaiians in 1778 – almost 300 years after contact was made on the mainland U.S.
In the early and mid-1800s, Hawaii was treated as a foreign nation. In1826, the U.S. entered into the First Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Hawaii. The executive branch of government creates treaties and the agreements must then be ratified by the Senate. This treaty was never ratified, but the State Dept. considered it an agreement between nations arising under international law.
In 1848, President Tyler assigned a foreign minister to Hawaii and in 1849 the first ratified treaty, dealing with friendship, commerce and navigation, took effect. This was followed by a commercial reciprocity treaty of 1875, but by the 1880s, the U.S. considered Hawaii part of the American system. Attempts by Japan or England to colonize would have been considered acts of war.
Hawaii used to consist of eight islands with four separate chiefdoms. Land was held communally. Commoners worked the land and gave a portion of everything they got to the chiefs. In 1810, the governmental structure of the islands changed and the islands became a single kingdom under King Kamehameha.
The first foreigners to become involved with the king were traders and missionaries. The communally held land system used in Hawaii came under pressure as outsiders came to the island and wanted land. In 1848, the Great Mahele was instituted. Land was divided so clear title could be determined and transferred. King Kamehameha designated 1.5 million acres for chiefs and people of his kingdom and kept 1 million for himself and his family. Commoners got very little of the land.
The Great Mahele, and laws passed soon after it, lifted restrictions on alienation. Some of the best Hawaiian lands went to foreigners. The King sold land as he pleased and chiefs had incurred large debts that they paid with land. Some chiefs tried plantation farming that failed and they lost their land to foreclosure. By 1890, foreigners, mostly Americans, owned over one million acres of land in Hawaii. They controlled another 750,000 acres under leases they got at bargain basement prices from the government and king.
As far back as Ulysses S, Grant, American presidents and other government officials suggested voluntary annexation of Hawaii. Finally in 1887, an opposition group, made up mostly of American businessmen, pressed for adoption of a constitution that would make the monarchy a ceremonial figurehead and give power to a cabinet that was responsible to a newly created legislature. King Kalakaua, the king of Hawaii at this time, asked the U.S. for protection from this opposition group but got none. He was forced to sign a constitution known as the “bayonet constitution”.
The new Constitution left the king with no power and the U.S. dominated cabinet ran the Hawaiian government. The king tried to regain power, but there was already an American military presence in Hawaii. The American and European foreign ministers discouraged the king from trying to recover his governmental power.
King Kalakaua’s successor was Queen Liliuokalani. There was a group opposed to the queen and, with strong encouragement from Washington D.C., they worked hard for annexation of Hawaii. The Annexation Club was a secret group that plotted to overthrow the queen. The Annexation Club had assurances of support from the American foreign minister.
In 1893, American military forces came to Hawaii, claiming that they were protecting the consulate and the lives and property of U.S. citizens, but they positioned themselves between the queen’s palace and the government building. The opposition group occupied the government building and before any takeover of the Hawaiian government was completed, the U.S. minister recognized a new provisional government. The Queen was forced to step down, but did so under protest and subject to later review by the U.S. government. The U.S. military later took custody of the government building and raised the U.S. flag.
President Grover Cleveland called for restoration of the monarchy on the basis that the overthrow was done by armed invasion of the U.S., not by the people of Hawaii. This was in opposition to U.S. foreign policy, morality and international law, but President Cleveland left office in 1887. President McKinley stepped in. He favored annexation and convinced Congress to annex Hawaii in 1898.
Most land stayed the same as it had been prior to annexation, but about 1.8 million acres - crown lands and government lands that were remaining from the original 2.5 million acres controlled by King Kamehameha - had been seized by the provisional government and was now passed to the U.S. government. Congress passed the Organic Act of 1900. The act established a government for the territory of Hawaii and gave management of these 1.8 million acres to a territorial legislature.
In the early 1900s, Congress was aware of deteriorating social and economic conditions among Native Hawaiians, so in 1910, an amendment to the Organic Act was passed. The amendment required that all former crown lands be made available when Hawaiian citizens requested them. Native Hawaiians were pressuring Congress for special legislative attention to their needs and at the same time, long term leases received from the Hawaii kingdom for sugar plantations were about to expire. A compromise was reached in 1921 by passage of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, (HHCA).
By passing the HHCA, the executive branch and congressional leaders apparently planned for the federal government to assume fiduciary responsibilities to Native Hawaiians similar to that of American Indians. In hearings held addressing the legislation, Secretary of Interior Lane told the House of Representatives, “Natives of the islands who are our wards, I should say, and for whom in a sense we are trustees, are falling off rapidly in numbers, and many of them are in poverty.”
Additional congressional comments support this assumption: “Hawaiians were deprived of their land without any say on their part.” “Because we came to this country and took their land away from them…and if we can afford to provide lands in trust for the Indians…why can we not do the same for the Hawaiians?”
The HHCA created a trust of about 200,000 acres of public lands and made these lands available for Native homesteads for Native Hawaiians possessing 50% or more Hawaiian blood. Lands set aside were some of the worst land, lacking water and unsuitable for farming, and the act was poorly carried out.
When Hawaii was admitted to statehood, the state was given the responsibility of holding the 200,000 acres for Hawaiian homesteading plus an additional 1.2 million acres that the government retained, and income from them, as a public trust for support of public schools; betterment of conditions of Native Hawaiians; development of farm and homeownership on as widespread basis as possible; public improvements and provision of lands for public use. State acts passed in 1980 require that at least 20% of the income from public lands be appropriated for programs for Native Hawaiians. Failure to use the land for these specific purposes is a breach of trust. There have been several lawsuits to enforce the trust responsibility with limited success. In 1996, the state court found that the state violated its trust responsibility by leasing Hawaiian homelands to non-natives when there was a long list of Hawaiians waiting for homestead assignments
Over the years, Hawaiian voters have accepted 3 constitutional amendments. In 1978, as a result of these amendments, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was established, which is a Hawaiian board of trustees. OHA receives and expends a portion of all income from trust lands that is allocable to Native Hawaiians and controls state appropriations for Hawaiians.
For state purposes, a distinction is made between Native Hawaiians and Hawaiians. Hawaiians are defined as descendants of the aboriginal people of the Hawaiian Islands who inhabited the islands in 1778, and have continued to reside in Hawaii. Native Hawaiians are Hawaiians with at least ½ Hawaiian blood quantum. HHCA required that OHA trustees be Hawaiian and be elected only by Hawaiians. Suit was filed by a Hawaii resident who was non-Hawaiian challenging that portion of the act that excluded non-Hawaiians from the vote. In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Rice v. Cayetano. The court said that the exclusion of non-Hawaiians from the vote for OHA trustees violated the equal protection clause of the 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (This is the provision that prohibits racial discrimination). The state of Hawaii and the U.S. Dept. of Justice argued that Hawaiians should be considered political entities, the same as American Indians. The court did not accept this argument, primarily because Hawaiians do not have land separate and apart from other residents of Hawaii (due to no fault of their own) and do not have any federally-recognized governments or jurisdiction. The end result of this case is that all residents of Hawaii are now permitted to vote for OHA trustees, even though these trustees only exercise control over Hawaiian assets.
The federal definition of “Native Hawaiian” is all individuals who are lineal descendants of the aboriginal people of the Hawaiian Islands who inhabited the islands in 1778. If the “Federal Recognition Bill” is passed which is summarized in the external links, “Native Hawaiian” will be defined by the new Native Hawaiian government. (A virtually identical bill was introduced in the last legislative session and died when the legislature adjourned).
Until the 2000 census, the census never included a racial category for Native Hawaiians. There are no native Hawaiian governments to collect statistics of their own people, so how can anyone determine if someone is Native Hawaiian, with ½ blood quantum – or Hawaiian, with less than ½ blood quantum? OHA has been given this task, to operate much as the Bureau of Indian Affairs does with American Indians.
Native Hawaiians are worse off economically than any other ethnic group in the state of Hawaii. Much like many Indian tribes, their ancient culture was land-centered. This has been strained by tourism. Native Hawaiians have been squeezed out of the economy, and denied access to aboriginal lands, where only the very wealthy can afford to own property. They have problems gaining access to sacred sites, access to water for taro crops (a native vegetable) and to beaches where fish and other goods can be gathered.
As you can see, the plight of Native Hawaiians is much the same as the plight of American Indians, and as was previously stated, Native Hawaiians are included in most legislation affecting American Indians with the exception of the receipt of federal services, which may change if Native Hawaiians gain federal recognition.
Land Claims
Indian Land Title
There are two types of Indian land title – aboriginal title and recognized title. Recognized title occurs when there is a treaty or statute that states that a particular Indian group or individual owns or controls specific lands.
Aboriginal title is synonymous with the Indian rights discussed in Johnson v. McIntosh – that is, the right to occupy the land. This right can only be extinguished by the federal government, either through purchase or by taking the land.
Indian Claims Commission
What do you need to sue the federal government? Congressional consent. On various occasions, Congress has consented to suit by specific groups for specific claims. Unless there is legislation specifically authorizing a claim, the federal government cannot be sued. This includes suits by Indian tribes for land claims.
The Court of Claims was established in 1855 to hear claims against the federal government. Its jurisdiction was extended to many types of claims, but in 1863, Congress specifically excluded claims based on treaty violations. The only way for tribes to pursue claims against the federal government was if there was an act of Congress allowing the specific claim.
In the 1940s, 142 Congressional acts gave tribes permission to sue the U.S. government for claims based on treaty violations, so in 1946, Congress established a 3 member Indian Claims Commission to hear suits by tribes and other groups of Indians. The act establishing the claims commission required that at least two members be attorneys and no more than two members be of the same political party.
All decisions of the Indian Claims Commission were reported to Congress. The report included how each commissioner voted in each matter. If any party wanted to appeal the decision, the matter could be appealed to the Federal Court of Claims. The Court of Claims could reach a final decision or remand the matter back to the Indian Claims Commission for further proceedings.
All claims were required to be filed by 1951 and it was anticipated that the Indian Claims Commission would be dismantled by 1956. The Commission was finally dismantled in 1978, with 68 cases still on the docket. In 1993, there were still 15 unresolved cases. Why did it take so long to resolve these cases? Typically, 98% of all lawsuits settle without going to trial. In the case of land claims, U.S. attorneys were unwilling to compromise on many claims so a large percentage of the claims went to trial.
The Act allowed suit against the federal government for:
1. Claims arising under the Constitution, laws, treaties, and Executive orders;
2. All other claims where suit would be permitted if there were no sovereign immunity;
3. Revision of treaties or agreements caused by force or duress, unconscionable consideration, mistake or other equitable ground;
4. Claims arising from a taking by the U.S. government;
5. Claims based on fair and honorable dealings not otherwise recognized by law or equity.
Most of the claims paid were for takings of land or unfair land purchases. The federal government paid money for the takings but offsets were allowed for funds expended on behalf of the tribe if the entire course of dealings between the tribe and the federal government warranted it. The act did not allow offsets for costs of removing Indians from their land, but deductions were allowed for attorney’s fees and expenses incurred by the BIA in distributing any funds the Indian Claims Commission found to be owed to the tribe or group.
Some tribes filed claims with the hope that their land would be returned, but the only remedy offered by the Indian Claims Commission was monetary compensation. Once a claim was paid, the tribe could no longer assert that they owned the property in question. Some tribes have not accepted payment for their lands because they learned only after filing suit that they would have to give up their rights to the land.
In determining the level of compensation to be paid for takings of land, the Indian Claims Commission based these amounts on the fair market value at the time of the taking.
There was a case several years ago involving eight Sioux (Lakota) tribes who originally owned the Black Hills of South Dakota both by aboriginal title and by treaty. They filed claims with the Indian Claims Commission in the hopes of recovering their sacred land. The Commission found that the federal government took Sioux lands without just compensation. The government appealed the decision and the Sioux won.
The Indian Claims Commission found that there was a taking in the 1800s. Tribes were awarded $17.7 million plus interest - based on 1800s prices. This sum was subject to an offset for expenses paid by the government in support of the tribes. The tribes disputed the amount of the offset.
The claims took many years to reach completion and the largest of the Sioux tribes notified both its attorney and the court that the attorney’s contract had expired and the attorney was no longer authorized to act for the tribe. In fact, by that time, most of the attorney contracts had expired for all of the groups. The attorneys for the tribes and the court all knew that many tribal members were opposed to the settlement. The Indian Claims Commission and the Court of Claims approved an agreement anyway that was signed only by the attorneys – it included no tribal signatories. The Court of Claims said the settlement of the offset was merely clerical. The tribes did not object for almost 30 years while the claim was being litigated and didn’t offer a substitute attorney so it doesn’t matter that the attorneys didn’t have their client’s consent.
Settlement funds were placed in accounts with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but thus far, the Sioux tribes have refused to accept the money for the Black Hills. It still sits in accounts maintained by the BIA (provided they didn’t lose it).
Torres-Martinez
An interesting case arose in California in the past several years. The Torres-Martinez Reservation is located on the edge of the Salton Sea. In fact, a portion of the Salton Sea is on the reservation. Flooding from two water districts and Mexican agricultural interests created the Salton Sea in 1905. In 1909, the Torres-Martinez Reservation was created. At the time the reservation was created, everyone believed that the flooding would cease and the Salton Sea would evaporate. This didn’t happen and a portion of the tribe’s reservation is still under water.
In 1982, the U.S. Dept. of Justice filed suit against the water districts for damages to the Torres-Martinez reservation. Nine years later, the U.S. attorneys had not interviewed a single tribal member about the suit. The tribe became impatient and filed suit against the water districts for the flooding and the Justice Dept. for failing to protect the tribe’s interests. What result would you expect?
A federal judge found that the tribe suffered $4 million in damages. The water districts were ordered to pay $3 million. The remainder of the damages were uncollectable because they were caused by Mexican agricultural interests that were not named in the suit. The case was appealed by all parties. While waiting for the appeal to be heard (this could take years), the Justice Dept. reached a settlement with the tribe. The U.S. would give the tribe 11,800 acres that were then under the control of the Bureau of Land Management. The land was not quality land, but while the agreement was awaiting presidential approval, President Clinton took over the White House from George Bush and the deal was tabled.
The Clinton administration modified the offer to the tribe. The offer was now 750 acres of land, of a better quality than that originally offered, and $1 million. This was offered in addition to the $3 million that the water districts were to pay.
In the meantime, there is a state highway that runs through the Torres-Martinez reservation. There are many trucks that travel the highway back and forth to Mexico. The road contained many dangerous curves and the state wanted to straighten the highway. To straighten the highway, the state needed to obtain a right-of-way from the tribe. The tribe refused to grant a right-of-way unless they received a settlement of their land claim. The federal government’s settlement offer was then modified. The new offer was $14.2 million (this includes the $3 million from the water districts) and included an easement to be granted to the water districts to allow for permanent flooding on the reservation of that area encompassed by the Salton Sea. In addition, the tribes could purchase 11,800 acres off-reservation and the land would be treated as if it were a part of the reservation created in 1909. The tribe agreed to this settlement.
The portion of the agreement allowing the tribe to buy land off-reservation was controversial. It was easier to get federal approval to operate a casino on tribal lands that were occupied prior to 1988. It requires approval of the governor to operate casinos on land acquired after 1988. (At the time, Pete Wilson was the governor of California). The Cabazon Band of Mission Indians is well connected politically and was strongly opposed to this provision of the agreement. The fear was that Torres-Martinez would buy land closer to the Palm Springs area than Cabazon. This would allow them to “leap-frog” over Cabazon to reach the closest customer base for their casino. The agreement required a congressional act to complete. Congressman Sonny Bono sponsored the bill authorizing this land settlement. Cabazon lobbied Congress against the bill, and Sonny Bono skied into a tree and died, so the bill authorizing the settlement died as well.
Shortly before the end of Pete Wilson’s reign as governor, he advised the tribe that if they did not agree to the road improvements, the state highway dollars allocated to the project would be released and the highway would not be improved. Since tribal members travel the state highway, they wanted the road improved so they finally agreed to let the road improvements proceed without tying it to settlement of their land claim. The tribe decided at one point that they did not want a casino after all. They would rather subsist by increasing agricultural production on the reservation, and gold mining. There is apparently, what the tribe believes to be, a substantial gold mine on their reservation.
On December 27, 2000, HR 5528 was signed by President Clinton, which finally settled this claim. It provides that the water districts pay the tribe $4 million and that the federal government pay the tribe an additional $10,200,000. The tribe may then acquire land, which will be taken into trust and treated as if it were in trust in 1909. The city or county in which the proposed land acquisition is located has an opportunity to object to the acquisition. The tribe attempted to get a compact with the state of California to offer gaming, but the governor refused to meet with the tribe until September, 2003, when he finally reached an agreement with the tribe.
Eastern Land Claims
Many Eastern tribes have an interesting relationship with the federal government. States wanted to reward tribes for siding with them during the American Revolution so they entered into various agreements with tribes whereby the states received land, often in violation of the Trade and Intercourse Act, and tribes received money and goods. In many cases, the states established a trust relationship with the tribes and the tribes, while recognized by the state, were not recognized by the federal government.
Several Eastern Tribes have asserted land claims based on aboriginal title. In 1974, the Oneida Nation brought a land claim against the State of New York for taking Oneida lands without the consent of the federal government. The U.S. Supreme Court said that a tribe relying on aboriginal title had a federal claim, that is, the tribe had a right to sue under federal law. (Note that they were suing the state, not the federal government). After this ruling, many other tribes filed claims based on aboriginal title instead of treaty rights.
When land claims were filed, they clouded title to lands in the state. Some tribes sued county governments and private individuals to avoid any state claims of sovereign immunity. In most cases, the claimant tribes were not federally recognized. Congress passed settlement acts, such as the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act and the Connecticut Indian Claims Settlement Act to resolve these claims.
The Settlement Acts treated land transfers that were done in violation of the Trade and Intercourse Act, as if they were made in accordance with the act. They extinguished all Indian claims to the lands and provided for monetary payments to the tribes. In addition, the acts granted federal recognition to the claimant tribes
In the western states, non-Indian settlers arrived so late, that Indian lands were generally taken by treaty or executive order so there is little litigation outside of the Indian Claims Commission.
Indian Landholding Today
Most Indian lands are owned by the federal government and held in trust for the beneficial interest of individual Indians or tribes. Allotments are the only Indian lands that are held in trust for the benefit of an individual Indian. All other Indian trust lands are owned by the federal government and held in trust for the benefit of a tribe. The deeds generally state that they are held in trust for a particular tribe, but in some cases, mistakes were made and there is no indication of the tribe’s beneficial interest. The deed is merely held by the federal government.
Tribes who have economic development on their reservations have purchased some lands. Most tribes then petition the federal government to have the lands taken into trust. This means the deed is changed from the name of the tribe to the federal government for the benefit of the tribe. Why would tribes want to give the federal government land that they have purchased using their own resources? If Indian land is in trust, that is the federal government owns the land for the benefit of the tribe, the state has no jurisdiction to enforce their laws (civil laws in the case of P.L. 280 states) or tax the land. For land to be taken into trust, it must be within the exterior boundaries of the reservation or contiguous to the reservation. Land located away from the tribe’s current reservation may be taken into trust in some cases, but it is very difficult to get this land into trust. The federal government is not eager to take land into trust in recent years, and the BIA has allocated few resources to processing land into trust applications in California. It has taken most tribes many years to get their trust applications processed.
Communally Held Land
If land is held by the federal government for the benefit of a tribe, no individual tribal member has the right to do anything with the land without tribal government approval. The tribal government usually assigns specific plots of land to individual tribal members for home sites. If an individual tribal member buys or builds a house on an assignment, the tribe generally allows descendants to take the house when the individual dies, provided that the descendants are tribal members.
In communally held land systems, non-tribal members have no right to live on the reservation, and do so after the death of a spouse only in reliance on the tribe’s generosity. Non-tribal members, including non-tribal member spouses, have no right to inherit assignments, unless a tribe specifically allows them to do so. (I am not aware of any such tribes).
Allotments
As you may recall, during the allotment era, tribally held lands were divided into individual farm-sized parcels by the federal government in an attempt to civilize Indians and assimilate them into mainstream American society. Excess land was sold to non-Indians and usually there was at least a small parcel of land that remains in trust for the tribe. Allotment lands are held in trust for the benefit of an individual Indian. They are owned by the federal government in trust and held in perpetuity unless the landowner requests that they be taken out of trust.
Allotted lands can be sold, given away or willed to the person to whomever the allottee chooses, (whether a tribal member or not) subject to approval of the Secretary of the Interior (BIA).
The federal government has no duty arising out of this trust relationship to manage resources on allotments. The individual allottee makes decisions regarding land use.
Canby talks about problems with fractionation of land. Most people die without wills – known as intestate. The individual’s property, including allotments, then pass to his or her heirs in equal shares. For example, if a couple had 5 children, and the couple died without a will, each of the children would own a 1/5 interest in the trust land. If each of those 5 children had 5 children and died without wills, each child (grandchildren of our original couple) will receive a 1/25 interest in the trust land. Taking this example one step further, if each of these 25 people have 5 children, each child (great-grandchildren of our original couple) now has a 1/125 interest in the trust land. These interests are undivided. That means that 125 people have to agree as to what is to be done with the land. This is difficult, and often impossible, so many allotments sit vacant.
Congress has tried to take care of this problem. They passed the Indian Land Consolidation Act that provided that if an individual owned less than 2% of an allotment and
the land yielded less than $100 per year, then the land would be owned by the tribe when the individual died. The Supreme Court said this was a taking without compensation in violation of the 5th amendment of the Constitution.
After the Indian Land Consolidation Act was found to be unconstitutional, Congress amended the act to provide that if an individual owned 2% or less of an allotment and the land earned less than $100 in each of the five years prior to the property owner’s death, then the landowner could will their land to other owners of the same parcel. The amendment also gave the tribe the right to adopt its own laws to take care of the problem, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. In 1997, the Supreme Court once again said this is still a taking because the landowner can’t will the land to whomever they wished.
The latest version of the Indian Land Consolidation Act was passed in November, 2000. It remains to be seen if this version will pass Supreme Court scrutiny.
New Mexico Pueblos
Most pueblos own their land as a result of a treaty with the Spanish and Mexican governments, which the United States has honored. The pueblo lands are held in fee – the U.S. government does not hold title to tribal lands. Fee land means that title is held in the name of the tribe, but they are treated the same jurisdictionally as other Indian reservations. Pueblo land is held communally and cannot be sold or given away without the permission of the federal government.
Alaska Native Lands
Alaskan natives hold their lands under a settlement act with the federal government. The settlement act was passed as a result of Alaskan tribes asserting their aboriginal title to lands that non-Indians wanted to develop. The act eliminated all aboriginal title to Alaska, including hunting and fishing rights. Villages and tribal corporations were formed under state law. Tribal members got shares in the corporations. Specific lands were then given to the corporations in fee. This means that the tribal corporations own the land, not the federal government. The corporations can sell lands but can’t sell stock in the tribal corporation. An additional act was passed that prevented state taxation of undeveloped lands.
Leasing of Indian Lands
Indian lands, whether tribally held or allotted, can be leased. Until 2000, all leases required approval of the Secretary of the Interior. Approval is now needed only for leases that have terms longer than 7 years. Unless there is a specific act of Congress affecting a particular reservation, the maximum term for leases is 25 years with a 25 years renewal period. On some reservations, like the Agua Caliente Reservation, which encompasses most of the Palm Springs area, leases can extend up to 99 years. Downtown Palm Springs, including the major hotels, is located on leased land, as are several housing developments.
Lecture 9
Treaties
A treaty is a contract between sovereign nations. In this context, it is a contract between tribes and the federal government. Treaties are the Supreme law of the land. The U.S. Constitution Article 4, Section 2, clause 2, states that:
This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
So just what does this mean? Treaties, being the supreme law of the land, are superior to state laws and state constitutions - but not federal laws or the U.S. Constitution. So, if a state law is inconsistent with a treaty provision, the treaty prevails. If a federal law is inconsistent with an earlier treaty, the treaty may be abrogated by the later federal law.
As you may recall, in 1831, Chief Justice Marshall referred to tribes as “domestic dependent nations.” Treaties are typically used when dealing with foreign governments. The U.S. government entered into treaties with Indians between 1778 and 1871, which is inconsistent with Marshall’s characterization of tribes.
Remember that treaties are created by the President and ratified by the Senate. There was no role for the House of Representatives in the treaty-making process. Members of the House of Representatives did not like being left out of the process, and Indians were so weakened that the federal government didn’t need to negotiate with them anymore, so the treaty-making process with Indians was ended in 1871.
After 1871, executive orders and statutes took the place of treaties. Executive orders are created by the president acting alone, that is, without congressional ratification. The biggest effect of this change was that Indians no longer had to agree to any terms affecting them. In fact, they could be left out of the process entirely. In many instances, bills adversely affecting Indians have been attached as riders to Appropriations bills, which do not require public hearings.
States cannot legally enter into treaties with Indian tribes or foreign nations, although many of the original colonies did so. This power was reserved for the federal government under the Indian Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
The purpose of entering into treaties with tribes was not to give tribes power, it was to take powers away. Tribes retain any powers that were not expressly extinguished in a treaty or federal law. This is known as the reserved rights doctrine.
Before the war of 1812, tribes and the federal government negotiated as equals. The federal government generally exchanged good and services for land and peace. After 1812, the federal government didn’t need the Tribes as they had before. They were no longer concerned about British intervention. In addition, settlers wanted more land, and treaties became more punitive. Treaties were no longer voluntary agreements, and Indians were often coerced into entering treaties with the federal government.
After 1850, many treaties included an extension of federal authority over tribal internal affairs such as punishing tribal members. Between 1850 and 1871, most treaties contained the following basic provisions:
1. Delineation of boundaries - Indians give up land and U.S. agrees to create a reservation where Indians will remain in perpetuity
2. Many treaties contain provision for goods and services, medical care, etc.
3. Guarantee of peace
4. Guarantee of hunting and fishing rights to the tribe
5. Tribe recognizes the authority of the federal government or placed itself under protection of the federal government
6. Agreement regulating trade and travel of people in Indian country and
7. Provision for punishment of crimes between Indians and non-Indians.
The treaty-making process put Indians at a disadvantage. Treaties were written in English and were often not explained properly. Individuals chosen by federal representatives to negotiate treaties on behalf of tribes often were not tribal leaders. In addition, concepts of land ownership and governmental relations embodied in the treaties were foreign concepts to Indians.
To compensate for these inequities in the treaty-making process, courts developed what are known as the canons of treaty construction. These canons are used by courts when interpreting treaties:
1. Uncertainties are resolved in favor of the Indians
2. Treaties are to be interpreted as the Indians would have understood them
3. Treaty provisions must be liberally construed in favor of the Indians
In the Northwest, the Chinook language was used when Indians were trading with other Indians. The Chinook language was used to negotiate treaties and the treaties were written in English. There were no words in the Chinook language for limiting the taking of fish. When a lawsuit was brought about 100 years later over fishing rights, the court considered the fact that the Indians probably did not understand any language that purported to limit the taking of fish and upheld tribal fishing rights.
If the language of a treaty is clear, the treaty will be applied as written, even if the outcome is unfair and unfavorable to Indians.
Abrogation of treaties
Abrogation of treaties is the repeal of treaty rights. There are two ways that treaties are generally abrogated:
1. Congress expressly refers to a treaty when passing legislation to the contrary and treaty rights no longer apply; or
2. Congress passes a law that is inconsistent with an earlier treaty without mentioning the previous treaty rights and the courts look at the legislative history of the law and decide what Congress intended when passing the later inconsistent law. This method of abrogation is more common.
Treaties have the same footing as federal statutes. They can be repealed or modified by later statutes without approval of the affected tribes, but the U.S. Supreme Court is reluctant to abrogate treaty rights. If a statute does not mention an earlier inconsistent treaty, the court will look at the surrounding circumstances and the legislative history of the statute. It must be clear that Congress actually considered the conflict with the treaty and chose to abrogate the treaty, before the court will consider treaty rights to be abrogated. So, if a treaty is in existence and Congress later passes an inconsistent law, the inconsistent law applies. For example, if there is a treaty granting the right to live on specified lands, and Congress later authorizes the sale of the land, without mentioning the earlier treaty, this later action will be considered an abrogation of the earlier treaty if the legislative history makes it clear that Congress intended to abrogate the earlier treaty. (Of course, money for the land, or additional land must be given to the tribe, or the act will violate the 5th amendment).
The Supreme Court has held that treaty rights still apply even when a tribe has been terminated, unless the termination act specifically abrogated the treaty rights. The Menominee Tribe was terminated in the 1950s. Treaties entered into with the tribe recognized tribal hunting and fishing rights. The U.S. Supreme Court held that descendants of treaty signers retained the treaty hunting and fishing rights, even though the tribe was no longer federally-recognized.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
INTRO TO AMERICAN INDIAN STUDIES 71084/73772...
Required reading
Native American Heritage (Garbarino & Sasso) is your basic text. Reading assignments are in the syllabus. Note that this and many similar texts are limited to covering only North American cultures.
DESCRIPTION:
This introductory course is a multidisciplinary study of Native American people. We will focus on a multicultural perspective with an emphasis of the Native American viewpoint of traditional culture and contact with non-Indians. Case studies of traditional cultures will be used to view the kind of changes that one particular group and individuals went through during various historical time periods.
ASSIGMENTS:
Review Quizzes (Take Home) 4 x 25 100 pts.
1)NA Roots; 2)Trad; 3)Contact; 4) Contemp.
Native American Assessment 100 pts.
Final Exam 100 pts.
Extra Credit-Article, film, or Event Review (1 pg.) +15 pts.
(online option:discussion)
Total 300 pts.
TEXT:
Garbarino & Sasso Native American Heritage (3rd Ed)
EVALUATION:
A letter grade is based upon the following percentage scale accumulated over the term:
Exams 66%
Paper 33%
Extra Credit points (max. 15 pts.) are above and beyond the points for the grade. One extra credit article review is the limit. Make up exams must be scheduled outside of class time and completed before the last exam of the term.
A credit/no credit is available and a performance expectation of a 'C' or better equals the credit evaluation.
The student is responsible for the add/drop process
COURSE OUTLINE:
1. Native American Roots
A. Origins: Myth and Theory
B. Paleo-Indian: Big-Game Hunting
C. Archaic: Pleistocene Extinction
D. Classic Civilizations
G/S Chap 1 & 2
II. Native American Cultures
A. Language Phyla
B. Culture Areas
III. Traditional Cultures
A. The Far North
1. Arctic: Inuit
2. Sub-Arctic
Text Reading: G/S Chapter 3
B. The Far West
1. Plateau
2. Northwest Coast: Tlingit
3. California
4. Basin
Text Reading: G/S Chapter 4-6
C. Southwest: Hopi
Text Reading: G/S Chapter 6
D. Plains: Lakota
Text Reading: G/S Chapter 7
E. Eastern Woodlands
1. Southeast
2. Great Lakes
3. Northeast: Mohawk
Text Reading: G/S Chapter 8
IV. Contact: America As A 'New World'
A. Early Explorations
B. Columbian Exchange
C. European Invasions and Colonization
1. Spanish
2. English
3. French
4. Others
D. American Frontiers
E. US Federal Treaties and Policies
1. Removal: Trail of Tears
2. Reservation System
3. Indians Wars, Rebellions and Religious Movements
4. Assimilation Policies: Agents, Missionaries, Boarding Schools
5. Allotment
Text Reading: G/S Chapter 11
V. Contemporary Native America
A. WWI and US Citizenship
B. Anthropologists
C. Reorganization Act
D. Post WWII: Termination and Civil Rights
E. Contemporary Issues
Text Reading: G/S Chapter 12
Agenda
I. Introductory comments
II. Connect to the course
A. Start Internet Explorer
B. Course URL:
C. Choose your discipline (American Indian Studies), then find
your course and click "Connect to the class"
1. Enter your username--it is your nine-digit student ID
number
2. Enter your password--also your ID number (until you
change it)
III. Blackboard--Palomar's online course management software
A. Main Window
B. Navigation Area
1. Announcements
2. Course Information
3. Staff Information
4. Course Documents
5. Assignments (Tests)
6. Communication
7. External Links
8. Student Tools
C. Control Buttons
1. Resources--ignore this button
2. Course Map--brings up links to all course contents
3. Search--allows search for a particular document
IV. Using the course web site
A. Enter student information
1. Change your information; put in correct e-mail address
(Student Tools)
2. Edit your homepage by putting in some information
about yourself (Student Tools)
3. Upload your photo
B. Look at student dropbox (Student Tools)
C. Communication
1. E-mail
2. Discussion Board
3. Chat Room
V. Course Logistics
A. Text : Garbarino & Sasso
B. Assignments:
4 QUIZZES
Native Am Grp Assessment
I. Origins
II. Traditional Culture (AD 1000 |Dene | |
|Eastern Woodlands |Woodland 1000 BC |Adena |Serpent Mound, Chillicothe |
| | |Hopewell |Mound City, Havana |
|Plains | |Hopewell |Knife River |
|Eastern Woodlands |Mississippian AD 900 |Mississippian |Cahokia, Etowah, Town Creek, |
| | | |Moundsville, Spiro |
|Plains | |Plains Village |Huff Site |
These American civilizations were unique and developed with very little help from other parts of the world. American Corn is indigenous to America and Native Americans hybridized this grain to produce huge ears compared to the grains of the 'Old World'. Other 'New World' developments like the peanut or groundnut, a pea that planted itself in the ground,and the potato continue to be important world crops. Native Americans developed writing, metal and the wheel; but never used the wheel for beasts of burden. In fact Native Americans did not domestic livestock too much and preferred to keep most meat in a wild or semi-wild state. The dog was domesticated thousands of years ago by most people of the world, including Native Americans.
In spite of the differences there were many similarities between the world civilizations. Farming brought its share of problems to include exponential population growth, increased diseases, increased warfare and despotic rulers. Initially there is evidence of harmonious theocratic empires, but eventually these crumble; including those in the Americas. Since Europeans disrupted cultural development so much, we will never know how Native American traditional cultures would have faired. We will next look at some traditional Native American cultures at the moment of European contact..
Copyright © S. J. Crouthamel
II. Native American Cultures
A. Culture Areas
The culture-geographic regions were developed by early ethnologists like Clark Wissler (1870- 1947) to produce a typology based upon human response to environments. Common responses were material cultural elements like housing, clothing, etc.. However, more subtle cultural elements of religion and philosophy were generated by Native American responses to their environment that are reflected in the written and oral traditions expressed in stories and songs.
These regions are the most common way that scholars begin to organize Native American cultures, but language phyla is a more precise measure of the origins of different groups of people.
|Macro Area |Culture-Geographic Area |Cultures |
|North America |Arctic |Inuit; Yupik; Aleut |
| |Subarctic |Kutchin, Hare; Bear Lake; Yellowknife; Kaska; |
| | |Slave; Beaver;Chipewyan |
| |Northwest Coast |Tlingit;Haida;Tsimshian;Bella Bella; Bella |
| | |Coola; Kwakiutl;Nootka; Makah;Salish; |
| | |Quileute;Chinook; Tillamook;Coos |
| |Plateau |Nez Perce;Yakima;Umatilla;Flathead;Spokane; |
| | |Cayuse;Klamath;Walla Walla |
| |California |Karok;Yurok;;Hupa;Pomo;Yana;Maidu; |
| | |Wintun;Yokut;Achomawi;Atsugewi; |
| | |Shasta;Miwok;Oolone;Salinan;Chumash;Gabrielino|
| | |; Cupeno;Cahuilla;Luiseno;Diegueno |
| |Basin |Paiute;Ute;Shoshoni |
| |Southwest |Pueblo (Hopi;Zuni;Keresan;Tanoans);Pimans |
| | |(O'odam);Yumans(Havasupai,Walapai,Yavapai);Den|
| | |e (Apache,Navajo) |
| |Plains |Blackfeet, Gros Venture;Plains |
| | |Cree;Assinoboine;Crow;Mandan; |
| | |Hidatsa;Arikara;Lakota;Cheyenne;Arapaho; |
| | |Iowa;Ponca;Kansa;Omaha;Osage;Witchita; |
| | |Pawnee;Comanche;Kiowa;Kiowa-Apache; Lipan |
| | |Apache |
| |Northeast |Micmac;Abnaki;Naraganset; Wampanoag; |
| | |Pequot;Mohican; |
| | |Iroquois;Huron;Ojibwa(Chippewa); |
| | |Potawatomi,Menominee,Kickapoo, |
| | |Illinois,Sauk-Fox,Ottawa,Miami,Shawnee,Wea |
| |Southeast |Creek;Cherokee;Yamasee;Lumbee;Choctaw; |
| | |Chickasaw;Seminole,Powhatan,Catawba, |
| | |Alabamu,Natchez,Mobile |
|Meso America |Central Mexico |Nahuatl,Otomi,Chontal,Ixcatec, |
| | |Tarascan,Mixtec,Zapotec |
| |Vera Cruz Coast |Totonac,Tamaulpec,Huastec,Popoluca |
| |Yucatan Peninsula |Yucatec,Mazatec,,Mopan |
| |S. Lowlands |Zoque,Tzeltal,Tzotil,Lacandon,,Quiche,Ixil, |
| | |Itza,Misquito,Jicaque |
| |S. Highlands |Pipil,Xinca,Achi,Lenca,Nicaro, |
| | |Nicoya,Ulva,Rama,Boruca,Guaymi, Cuna,Talamanca|
| |Caribbean/Greater Antilles |Ciboney,SubTaino,Taino,Ciguayo |
| |Caribbean/Lesser Antilles |Island Carib, Igneri |
|South America |Northern |Choco,Chibca,Caquetio,Tairona,Gaujiro, |
| | |Mompox,Timote,Achagua,Yaruro, |
| | |Otomac,Guamontey,Guahibo,Saliva, Cumanagoto |
| |Guiana Highlands |Arawak,Warao,Galibi,Tirio, |
| | |Wapishana,Wayana,Taira |
| |Amazon |Bora,Cubeo,Yanomamo,Waiwai, |
| | |Javaro,Barauana,Apalai,Tupinamba, |
| | |Yagua,Shipibo,Canamari,Maue, |
| | |Mundurucu,Kayapo,Amahuaca,Mashco, |
| | |Tacana,Sirono,Chiquito,Paressi, |
| | |Nambikuara,Bakairi |
| |Brazilian Highlands |Shavante,Bororo,Guato,Guarani, |
| | |Tupi,Kaingang,Tupinamba,Botocudo, S. |
| | |Kayapo,Shacriaba |
| |Andes |Cayapa,Manta,Tumbes,Huancavilca, Huambo |
| | |Cajamarca,Huayla Casma,Huacho,Chincha,Huanca, |
| | |Quechua,Aymara,Atacama,Diaguita,Mapuche |
| |Gran Chaco |Chiriguano,Zamuco,Chamacoco, |
| | |Lengua,Toba,Mataco,Chane,Chulupi, |
| | |Mochovi,Tonocote,Abipon |
| |Pampas |Huarpe,Oico,Charrua,Chana-Mbegua, |
| | |Querandi,Chandri,Minuane,Puelche, |
| | |Pehuenche,Poya,Tehuelche |
| |Tierra del Fuego |Chono,Alacaluf,Yahgan,Ona,Haush |
II. Native American Cultures
B. Language Phyla
Human languages are the key to understanding cultures and how humans have responded to their respective environments. Edward Sapir (1884-1939) and Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941 ), Sapir's student, developed theories about the profound influence of language on thought and experience. These findings were based on their research of Native American languages with an emphasis on cultural differences in thinking about concepts like time. However, other scholars lean toward the idea that language is influenced by thought and experience. Today it is becoming accepted that a systemic approach with feedback and feedforward allows a more complex picture with both language influencing culture and being influenced by culture. Also, linguistic research has shown Native American languages to be equally complex as any in the world. There were over 700 languages on the American continent from the Arctic in the North to Tierra del Fuego in the South.
The classification of languages begins to generate origin patterns and relationships between Native People more than environments. Recent studies have shown that language affiliation is reflected in genetic affiliation being constructed in the genome project. Linguistic classification is loosely modeled after Linnean taxonomy with the following hierarchy. English and Luiseno(Native Southern Californa) are used to provide examples
|Language Classification |English |Luiseno |
|Phyla |Indo-European |Aztec-Tanoan |
|Family |Teutonic/Germanic |Shoshonean |
|Subfamily |English |Takic |
|Language |American English |Luiseno |
|Dialect |S. California |SW Coast |
As with many classification system there is considerable debate about the various categories with extremes between those scholars that lump many groups together versus those that split many groups apart. There are also languages that defy classification that we will simply catogorize as UNK/unknown.
NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGE GROUPS
NORTH AMERICA
|PHYLA |FAMILY |LANGUAGE |AREAS |
|PaleoSiberian |Eskimo-Aleut |Inuit(Eskimo), Yupik, Aleut|Arctic |
|NaDene |Haida |Haida |NW Coast |
| |Tlingit |Tlingit |NW Coast |
| |Athabascan |Kaska, Tanana, |Subarctic |
| | |Chipewayan,Kutchin, etc. | |
| | |Hupa ,Tolowa |California |
| | |Navajo, Apache |Southwest |
| | |Kiowa Apache,Sarsi |Plains |
|Macro-Algonkian |Algonkian |Cree,Micmac,Montagnais, |Subarctic |
| | |Naskapi, etc | |
| | |Wiyot, Yurok |California |
| | |Atsina, Arapaho,Cheyenne, |Plains |
| | |Blackfeet | |
| | |Ojibwa(Chippewa) Delaware, |E. Woodlands |
| | |Algonquin,Ottawa | |
| | |Fox-Sauk,Penobscot,Illinois| |
| | |, | |
| | |Kickapoo,Shawnee,Powhatan, | |
| | |Menominee, Potawatomi,etc | |
| |Muskogean |Alabamu,Chickasaw,Choctaw, |E. Woodlands |
| | |Creek,Seminole | |
| |Natchez |Natchez |E. Woodlands |
|Penutian |Chinookan |Chinook |NW Coast |
| |Coos |Coos |NW Coast |
| |Tsimshian |Tsimshian |NW Coast |
| |Klamath-Modoc |Klamath, Modoc |Plateau/California |
| |Cayuse |Cayuse |Plateau |
| |Sahaptin |Klikitat,Nez |Plateau |
| | |Perce,Umatilla, Yakima, | |
| | |Walla Walla | |
| |Maidu-Wintun |Maidu,Nissen,Wintun |California |
| |Miwok-Costanoan |Miwok, Costanoan(Oolone ) |California |
| |Yokuts |Yokuts |California |
| |Zuni |Zuni |Southwest |
|Hokan |Karok |Karok |California |
| |Shastan |Shasta, etc |California |
| |Palaihnihan |Achumawi,Atsugewi |California |
| |Pomoan |Pomo (7grps), Yana |California |
| |Salinan |Salinas |California |
| |Yuman |Diegueno(Kumeyaay) |California |
| | |Cocopa,Havasupai,Yuma, |Southwest |
| | |Walapai,Yavapai,Mojave | |
|Aztec-Tanoan |Uto-Aztecan |Luiseno,Cahuilla, |California |
| | |Gabrielino,Cupeno,etc | |
| | |Paiute,Shoshoni,Ute |Basin |
| | |Hopi,Tohono O'otam(Papago),|Southwest |
| | |Akimel O'otam(Pima),Yaqui, | |
| | |Tarahumara,etc | |
| | |Comanche |Plains |
| |Kiowa-Tanoan |Tewa,Tiwa,Towa(Pueblos) |Southwest |
| | |Kiowa |Plains |
|Macro-Siouan |Siouan |Assiniboine,Crow, |Plains |
| | |Dakota/Lakota,Hidatsa,Iowa,| |
| | |Kansa,Osage,Omaha,Pona, | |
| | |Quapaw | |
| | |Winnebago |E. Woodlands |
| |Caddoan |Arikara,Caddo,Pawnee,Wichit|Plains |
| | |a | |
| |Catabwa |Catabwa |E. Woodlands |
| |Iroquoian |Seneca,Oneida,Onondaga, |E. Woodlan |
| | |Cayuga,Mohawk,Tuscarora,Hur| |
| | |on, | |
| | |Neutral,Tobacco,Cherokee | |
| |Yuchi |Yuchi | |
Meso America
|Hokan |Cochimi-Yuman |Cochimi |Baja CA |
|Aztec-Tanoan |Nahua |Nahuatl(Aztec),Tepehuan, |C. Mexico |
| | |Opata,Pochutec | |
| | |Pipil |El Salvador, Nicaragua |
| |Cora-Huichol |Cora,Huichol |C. Mexico |
|Mayan |Chol-Tzeltal |Chol,Tzeltal,Tzoltzil,Chontal, |El Peten, Guatamalan Highlands, |
| | |Huastec, Chorti |Tobasco |
| |Quiche-Mamean |Quiche,Mam,Poqomam |El Peten, Mexican Highlands |
| |Q'anjobalan |Chuj,Q'anjobal,Motocintlec |El Peten, Mexican Highlands |
| |Yucatecan |Lacandon,Itza,Yucatec,Mopan |El Peten, Yucatan Peninsula |
| | | | |
|Oto-Manguean |Oto-Pamean |Otomi,Pame,Mazahua,Matlatzinca, |C. Mexico |
| | |Ocuilteco,Chichimeco | |
| |Popolucan |Popoloca,Mazatec,Chocho |Isthmus of Tehuantepec |
| |Mixtec-Zapotecan |Mixtec,Zapotec,Zoque,Tapachultec |Oaxaca |
| |Chiapanec-Mangue |Mangue,Nicaro,Nicoya |C. America/Nicaragua |
|Totomac | |Tepehua, Tonac |Vera Cruz Coast |
|Andean-Equatorial |Arawakan |Taino,Sub-Taino, Ciboney |Greater Antilles |
|Ge-Pano-Carib |Carib |Carib |Lesser Antilles |
South America
|Hokan | |Yurumangui |N. Tropics (Col) |
|Ge-Pano-Carib |Panoan |Panobo,Kaxahari,Cashibo,Sharanawa,|Gran Choco |
| | |Karipuna | |
| |Tacanan |Tacana,Araona,Chama |Gran Choco |
| |Matacoan |Chorti,Maca,Mataco |Pampas |
| |Mascoyan |Guana,Sanpana,Lengua |Pampas |
| |Ge (Je) |Bororo,Krenak,Xavante,Kayapo, |Amazon |
| | |Timbira | |
|Andean Equatorial |Arawakan |Taino,Guajiro,Arawak,Paresi,Piro, |Caribbean,Andes,Amazon,Gran Chaco |
| | |Campa,Guana,Chane,Baure,Mojo | |
| |Tupi-Guarani |Tupinamba,Camayura,Mundurucu, |Brazilian Highlands,Gran |
| | |Parintintin,Guarani,Chiriguano,Sir|Choco,Amazon,Andes |
| | |ono | |
| |Jivaroan |Jivaro,Palta |Amazon |
| |Witotoan |Bora,Muinane,Ocaina,Minica,Murui |N. Trop.,Andes |
| |Araucanian-Chon |Araucanian,Chono,Ono, |Pampas.Tierra del Fuego |
| | |Puelche.Tehuelche,Yahgan | |
| |Quechuan |Quechua,Aymara |Andes |
III. Traditional Cultures
Traditional cultures are organized by the culture/geographic areas and refers to Native American cultures before non Indian contact. Some interpret this as pre-Columbian (AD 1492), but in many cases contact could be much later. Many Inuit groups did not come into contact until 1880s or even the 1920s. The reconstruction of these traditional cultures is speculative and based on Native American accounts and Euro American ethnographies done after contact. Native Americans related to the natural world of America for thousands of years and they developed a very intimate connection over a long time based on a greater desire to embrace nature rather than fight nature as the Europeans had. However, it must be understood that the traditional world of Native American was not a wilderness and had been altered considerably by hunting, burning, and farming. As one Native American comedian, Charlie Hill, quipped, 'America did not get wild until the White man came'.
We will discuss each culture area's unique characteristics and then provide a link to a specific case study.
A. The Far North
1. Arctic: Inuit
The Arctic is a virtual cold ,treeless (tundra) environment that required the people to use the land and sea ice to provide subsistence. The people are Native Americans but are not called American Indian. There is no doubt that the people of the Arctic came here from Asia/Siberia 7-9,000 years ago. They include the Yupik and Inuit who were called the Eskimo (an Algonkian word meaning 'eaters of raw meat'); and the Aleuts. The Yupik and Inuit include about 17 groups/languages that lived in Siberia, northern Alaska, northern Canada, and Greenland. Most of the Inuit groups hunted and gathered on the land in the summer, living in sod or skin houses, and struck out across the sea ice in dog sleds in the winter where they had to find the right kind of snow to build igloos. On the sea ice they hunted seal through breathing holes or musk ox. Yupik peoples fished and hunted in the fall and winter, both on land and in the Bering Sea. The Aleuts lived on the Aleutian peninsula and islands, living in stone or sod houses, hunting/fishing and gathering sea mammals, birds, and shellfish.
The Native Americans of the Arctic all speak languages that are of the Paleo-Siberian phyla.
GO TO : Inuit
2. Subarctic
The Subarctic is mostly made up of a relatively flat terrain with an expansive boreal forest and glacial lakes. The people were hunters and gatherers (H&G), but are considered American Indians. In the western regions the people were Na-Dene (N. Athabascan) speakers and in the eastern regions were Macro-Algonkian speakers. Some of the Athabscans are in Alaska, but most of this area is part of Canada. The biggest changes for these people came with impact of the Hudson's Bay Fur Company.
B. Far West
1. Plateau
The Plateau is an intermountain region between the Cascades and Rocky Mountains with a varied environments ranging from semi-arid to lush mountain meadows. Running through both of these environments is two great river systems the Fraser River in British Columbia, Canada and the Columbia-Snake River in Washington/Idaho/Oregon, USA that provided many species of salmon. The people hunted and gathered (H&G) other food resources, especially roots/bulbs like camus (Camassia sp.). By the 1750's some of these intermountain fishing people like the Yakima and Nez Perce had acquired horses and between fishing runs traveled over the Rocky Mts. to hunt bison in the Plains. Unlike other Plains Indians, the Plateau people did not want to abandon their fishing so they returned to their homes along the great rivers, fished again and spent the winters in their milder Plateau homeland. To cross the Rocky Mountains every summer the Plateau people developed a tough horse from N. African desert horses brought by the Spanish into today's Appaloosa breed.
2. Northwest Coast: Tlingit
At the end of the Pleistocene the Northwest Coast changed from glacial tundra to coniferous forest and became one of the richest environments on the planet. This environment has mountains blocking the temperate rains (70 -250 inches/annum) and converting the thin strip of land from the Oregon coast to Alaska into a virtual temperate rainforest. Again, the rivers come through the mountains to the sea for salmon and other species to run. The combination of the rich cedar forests, rivers and the sea provided a spectacular array of food and material once you developed the techniques to harvest those resources. This is a hunting and gathering (H&G) subsistence base but so rich that the people had large populations living on the beach at the mouth of rivers with social hierarchies more typical of horticulturalists. The American Indian people produced an elaborate material culture that took advantage of the great cedar trees to create houses, canoes, boxes, utensils, masks, and most dramatic, the totem poles.
GO TO:Tlingit
3. California
California has unique but highly varied environments. It is the only state that is roughly designated as a culture area. Northern California has ancient ( pre-Pleistocene) redwood forests with some salmon running rivers (possibly as far south as the Salinas River), while Southern California has semi-arid environments with sagebrush and chapparal. Yet, unique and common to most areas of California is riparian oak (both perennial, live, and deciduous) groves that provided the one common staple to most of California, the acorn. California Indian people were hunters and gatherers (H&G), but gathered more vegetable foods, especially seeds, than hunting for game. Some of the people had riverine, lake, or coastal resources to augment their food supply but most of the people harvested the acorns and leeched out the tannic acid to produce a rich staple food made into cakes or gruel (called weewish in S. California). As in the Northwest Coast this wealth of resources produced cultures that were seasonal or sedentary, but with relatively dense populations, especially along coast and in the Great Central Valley (Sacramento V./San Jaoquin V.). Finally, California also had an extremely mild climate that attracted many American Indian groups thousands of years before the 'current rush'.
Since we teach an entire course about California Indian people and culture we do not do a case study in our AIS 100 course. To learn about the Luiseno use of resources you might look at our Luiseno ethnobotany or Luiseno ethnozoology.
4. Basin
The Basin is basically a high desert with alkaline soils and rivers running into the middle into salty or dry lakes. During the summer it took 150 sq. mi. to support one human adult. This area was not conducive to horticulture, in fact the people had experimented with CBS (am. corn, beans and squash) in prehistoric times. However, as the Basin became increasingly arid the people (Aztec-Tanoan; Shoshoni, Paiute, Ute) were able to refine their ability harvest a wide variety of nuts and seeds, like pine nuts. The people also developed communal hunting techniques for jack rabbits and pronghorn antelope that they drove into nets.
As in the Plateau, some of the Basin people acquired horses after 1750 and increased their mobility for trade and migrated into the Plains to hunt Bison.
C. Southwest: Hopi
The Southwest is a variable desert area with a number of features that was more conducive to farming CBS. The desert ranged from high altitude juniper scrub (2500' +) to lower altitude (< 2500') creosote scrub with huge cactus like the saguaro and organ pipe. The enrichment of soil by ancient volcanoes and summer tropical rains provided the right combination to support various strategies of irrigation and dry farming. There were three great Southwest traditions that became or influenced the modern day people in addition to the S. Athabascan migration that brought the Navajo (Dene) and Apache peoples. Here is a basic outline of the Southwest people and an approximation of their origins as revealed by language groups.. It must be remembered that these relationships are speculative and probably far more complex than shown.
|PREHISTORIC |CONTEMPORARY |NATION/TRIBE/ COMMUNITY |LANGUAGE |
|CULTURE |GROUP | | |
|Prehistoric Pueblo Mogollon/Anasazi) |Western Pueblo |Hopi |Uto-Aztecan |
| | |Hano |Tanoan (Tewa) |
| | |Zuni |Penutian ? |
| | |Acoma |Keresan |
| | |Laguna |Keresan |
| |Eastern Pueblo |Taos |Tanoan (Tiwa) |
| | |Sandia |" |
| | |Picuris |" |
| | |Isletta |" |
| | |Nambe |Tanoan(Tewa) |
| | |San Ildefonso |" |
| | |San Juan |" |
| | |Santa Clara |" |
| | |Tesuque |" |
| | |Jemez |Tanoan(Towa) |
|Hohokam |Pimans |Akimel O'odam (Pima) |Uto-Aztecan |
| | |Tohono O'odam (Papago) |" |
|Patayan (Hakataya) |Yumans |Cocopa |Hokan-Yuman |
| | |Mojave |" |
| | |Maricopa |" |
| | |Quechan (Yuma) |" |
| | |Havasupai |" |
| | |Yavapai |" |
| | |Walapai |" |
|Dene (AD 1000-1400) |Navajo |Navajo |S. Athabascan |
| |Apache |Jicarilla |" |
| | |Mescalero |" |
| | |Chiricahua |" |
| | |Western |" |
GO TO: Hopi
D. Plains:Lakota
The Plains is a vast grassland that had various species of native bunch grasses (Gamma and Buffalo grass). From the Mississippi River to the Rockies the environment varied from 300'- 5500', with isolated environs along three major river systems; Missouri River, Arkansas River, Red River. The bison survived and flourished on these Plains and had reached a population of over 60 million head at the time Europeans arrived. The bison of the Plains (Bison bison) was a grazer, while the bison of the Woodlands (Bison athabascae). The ancient people of the Plains were hunting the big game well past the end of the Pleistocene, but Eastern Woodland Archaic and Woodland farming (CBS) cultures moved out into the Plains up the great rivers at about 5500 years ago and continued well past European contact. Between 1650-1750 the horse will be returned to its place of origin as a domestic animal by the Spanish. As Indian people get horses, a bison-horse culture expands throughout the Southern and Northern Plains. This culture is based on pastoralism and many farming and hunting and gathering cultures already on the Plains and others moving to the Plains adopt a variation of the lifestyle. This Plains culture only lasts into the 1880's and is essentially replaced by Euro-American farmers and cowboys/cattlemen. However, most of the American public and world stereotype all Indians as the relatively short-lived Plain's culture. In actually there was considerable variation in the Plains and many cultures did not give up their traditional farming and only acquired small numbers of horses for trade and summer bison hunts; returning to their CBS harvest in the fall. Others like the Cheyenne and Lakota gave up their farming and became fully pastoral in lifestyle.
Many of the traditions like music/songs are distinguished even in modern Plains derived Pow-Wows as Northern vs. Southern songs, drums and costumes.
GO TO: Lakota
E. Eastern Woodlands: Mohawk
The Eastern Woodlands is often divided into three to four different areas (Northeast, Great Lakes/Great Lakes & Prairie, Southeast). Yet CBS farming is common to the entire East (east of the Mississippi R.) while the woodland just varies from semi-tropical cypress swamps in the south, to deciduous hardwoods in the central areas, and birch/ beech forest in the north. Conifers grow in various unique environments including Southern pine piedmonts, sandy pine barrens, and richer pine /fir in the north. The deciduous hardwoods produced some of the best temperate stands of walnut, cherry, hickory in the world, but have been virtually destroyed, even by the 1890's. Native Americans had a much bigger impact on this environment than European Americans realized and or wanted to admit. The concept in the East or anywhere in America of wilderness was and is absurd. We now know that Native American populations in the Eastern Woodlands were far greater than early projections.
The CBS farming groups of the Eastern Woodlands were divided into two linguistic groups: Macro-Algonkian; and Macro-Siouan. The Macro-Algonkians were earliest, but it is not clear how long the Macro-Siouans were in the East and from where they came.
Since European Americans (especially the English) occupied the East longest, many traditions like hominey are derived from eastern Woodland cultures.
GO TO: Mohawk
Copyright © S. J. Crouthamel
INUIT
The Inuit is the original word used by Arctic people who were labeled Eskimo (Algonkian for 'eaters of raw meat'). The term Inuit (trans 'the people') was adopted and has become accepted. Some groups in Alaska changed from Eskimo to Yupik. There were originally 17 different dialects of Inuit and Yupik peoples living around the Arctic Circle from Siberia to Greenland. The Inuit, Yupik, and their neighbors to the south the Aleut are Native Americans, not American Indian. They all came from Siberia about 7,000-9,000 years ago and continued an age old tradition of hunting and gathering in the Far North. The Inuit of Canada lived in the area referred to as the Northwest Territories, which in 1999 was just designated a new name, called Nunavut. Our case study will focus on one Inuit group referred to as the Netsilik or Netsilingmiut (trans 'people of the seal').
I. Origins
The Netsilik area is referred to as the Eastern Arctic and was specifically northwest of Hudson' Bay around Pelly Bay in the Keewatin District. Ancient hunters came into the area from the west about 4,500 BP or 2,500 BC and were referred to as Arctic Small tool Tradition. Later, other influences like Dorset and Thule Tradition combined to form modern Inuit culture.
II. Traditional Culture
What we know of traditional culture for the Netsilik was continuous probably from about 1000 years ago until European whalers came in the 1880s followed by Hudson's Bay Fur Co. and missionaries by the 1920s.
|Inuit/Netsilikimages/inuith.jpgimages/inuith.jpg |< 1880/1920 |
|Language |Paleo-Siberian |Eskimo-Aleut |
|Settlement |NW Hudson' Bay |Pelly Bay, Gjoa Haven, Spence Bay (summer) |
|Economics |H&G: Seasonal, |Summer-caribou,fish/skin or sod house |
| | |Winter-seal,walrus/snow house-igloo |
|Social |Band/Community |Patrilineal lineage group or 'circle of |
| | |relatives' (ilagiit) |
| | |Patrilocal Hunting partneship w/ elder |
| | |(inhumataq) |
| | |Shamans (anagatkoks |
|World View |Northern Shamanic |Personal Soul |
| | |Name soul |
| | |Spirit /soul in animals/geog. place |
|Expressed Forms |Oral Traditions/Stories | |
| |Games | |
| |Utilitarian | |
| |Stone and Bone Carvings | |
III. Contemporary Culture
In the 1960's the Canadian government implemented a permanent settlement plan to place the Netsilik in three settlements in prefabricated housing in order to provide economic, educational and medical services. This essentially ended the seasonal movement including the traditional winter seal hunting on the northern sea ice.
Todays communities are as follows:
|Community |Population |
|Pelly Bay |281 |
|Spence Bay |470 |
|Gjoa Haven |493 |
Links to Inuit:
Nunavut (large site including many Canadian Inuit)
Inupiat (Alaskan Inuit)
Inuit Art Foundation
Eric Schweig- Inuit actor
Copyright © S. J. Crouthamel
Tlingit
The Tlingit are considered the northernmost peoples of the Northwest Coast, along with the Haida. The Tlingit lived along the coast from southern Alaska, U.S. to northern British Columbia, Canada. This region is part of a rich, yet cold, temperate rainforest. The wealth was and is in the sea and the forest with various cedar providing food and material resources. Just recently the people of Sitka provided cedar timber for Polynesian people to reconstruct one of their double-hulled ocean going sailing canoes. The Polynesian later sailed the canoe across the Pacific Ocean to thank the Tlingit people for the wood.
I. Origins
Both the Haida and Tlingit are thought to be from the same language group and to have moved from the interior to the coast over a thousand years ago. However, recent genetic and linguistic research indicates a far more complex picture. Some scholars see the two groups being very distinct. Certainly, the people are initially a riverine hunting and gathering people that become increasingly maritime.
II Traditional Culture
The Tlingit developed one of the richest and most complex hunting and gathering cultures known to exist. The quality and quantity of wealth produced the kind of population density and social hierarchy expected with agrarian cultures. Changes came mostly in the late 19th century and disease took the greatest toll. The Tlingit traditions have not changed as much as many Native Americans. The communities are essentially in place (not relocated) but with increased competition from the outside.
Tlingit 60'
cedar canoes >45'
Social
Geographical Groups (Kons)
Matrilineal clans- see chart >
Moiety (Dual Division)Raven & Eagle
Nobles,commoners,slaves
Raven Eagle or Wolf
frog auk
goose bear
owl eagle
raven dogfish
salmon whale
sea lion wolf
World View Complex cosmology- raven as creator/trickster
Winter ceremonials- potlatch
Potlatch a)world renewal, b) social mobility/giveaway, c.feast
Expressed Forms Oral Traditions/songs
wood,stone, metal,bone
textile,baskets
Cedar totem poles,masks,boxes
Art revival >1940
III. Contemporary Culture
Although the Tlingit were able to remain in their original areas they faced great pressure and competition from European Americans. Russian fur traders, whalers, missionaries, gold seekers and outside fisherman all put pressure on Tlingit peoples but most of all brought diseases and imposed segregation. The Christianized Alaska Native Brotherhood (1912) eventually won desegregation by 1946. In 1962 the Alaska Federation of Natives fought to regain lost rights and resources. These efforts came to fruition with the Alaska Claims Settlement Act of 1971. The Tlingit and Haida formed the Sealaska Corp. to deal with resource management but by the 1980's was running into management problems itself. The United Tribes of Alaska was formed in 1983 to protect tribes/communities from loss of control of lands.
Today the Tlingit live in their traditional geographical groups or kons that include hunting and fishing camps linked to a primary village or sometimes villages. The present kons include:
Yakutat Inland Tlingit (largest area)
Chilkat ( 4 villages) Stikune
Auk Henya
Taku Tongass
Huna Sanya
Killisnoo Kuju
Sitka Kake
Links to Tlingit:
Central Council of Tlingit & Haida Tribes of Alaska
Copyright © S. J. Crouthamel
Luiseño Ethnobotany
Home | Fall | Spring/Summer | AIS | AS | Anthro
The Luiseño are the most Southwestern group of Shoshonean people in the greater North American desert. The name Luiseño came from their having lived in close proximity to the Spanish mission San Luis Rey (1798-1834) which is located in northern San Diego County near Oceanside, California. Originally, the Luiseño may have been called Payomkawichum ('The Westerners') by neighboring people and Ataxum ('The People') by themselves.
The Luiseño occupied parts of north coastal San Diego County and Riverside County in pre-Hispanic (before 1769) Southern California. It is theorized that the Luiseño came into Southern California approximately 5,000-7,000 years ago during severe altithermals (drought periods) from the Basin areas east of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Their Shoshonean neighbors like the Cupeño, Cahuilla, Serrano, Gabrieliño and Chemehuevi were part of this migration. The Southern California environment is dominated by scrub plant communities that include the following :
|COMMUNITY |SLOPE |GROWTH HABITS |TYPICAL PLANTS |
|Coastal Sage Scrub(0-1500') |South-facing |Drought-decidious;small |Ca sagebrush;Coastal |
| | |lvs;phytotoxins |Brittle-bush;monkeyflower;sage |
| |North-facing |Evergreen;larger lvs;succulent |Toyon;Laurel |
| | | |sumac;Lemonadeberry;prickly-pear |
|Lower Chaparral (1500-3500') |South-facing |Evergreen;small lvs. |Chamise;Ca. lilacs |
| |North-facing |oval.spiney lvs;vines |Scrub oak,Holly-leaved |
| | | |redberry;Holly-leaved cherry;wild |
| | | |peas;wild cucumber |
|Upper Chaparral (3500-5000') |South-facing |Evergreen;verticalty oriented |Manzanita;W. Mt. |
| | |lvs;sun tracking |Mahogany;silk-tassel bush |
| |North-facing |Evergreen conifers |Pine;Fir |
|Desert Chaparral |South-facing |Drought-deciduous; succulent |Desert Apricot;Desert |
| | | |Almond;sage;Mormon tea;cholla |
| |North Facing |Evergreen;lge. lvs. |Sugar Bush, Desert Scrub |
| | | |Oak;Manzanita;Jojoba |
Certain limited ecological islands exist within or overlap with the scrub communities in southern California. These include:
|COMMUNITY |ELEVATION/SLOPE |TYPICAL PLANTS |
|Southern Oak Woodland |Lower North-facing slopes with deep soils |Coast Live Oak;Poison Oak |
| |Upper canyons/slopes |Interior Live Oak, Engelmann Oak;Poison |
| | |Oak;Three-leafed Sumac |
|Riparian Woodland |Lower elevations |W. Sycamore; Willow;Cottonwood |
| |Upper Elevations |White Alder;Ca. Laurel |
|Coniferous Forests |4500'+ |Jeffery Pine;White Fir;Black Oak; Sugar Pine; |
| | |Incense Cedar |
The Luiseno lived in or used all of the communities. Major villages were in the Coastal Sagebrush Scrub and Lower Chaparral plant communities with major trips into the Upper Chapparal and Coniferous Forest plant communities for many important resources with Black Oak being the most important. The Desert Chaparral was visited, but mainly to trade with the Cahuilla people. These plant communities were radically altered by European colonization and the full range of some of the native plants is not clear in each of these plant communities. As might be expected the Coastal Sagebrush Scrub has suffered the most. To find out more about the botanical aspects of the Coastal Sagebrush Scrub plant community see Wayne's World.
The Luiseño were intimately aware of this environment and used most of the plants and animals for food, shelter, utilitarian products, medicine, and religious ceremony. This environment has been heavily impacted by EuroAmerican intrusions and is in danger of disappearing in Southern California. The original oak trees of the coastal environs are all but gone and were replaced by eucalyptus trees in the 1880's. It is estimated that in pre-EuroAmerican times that mule deer numbered 60 head /sq. mile and that mountain lion, grizzly bear, elk, pronghorn antelope, bobcat, ringtail, woodrat, quail, coyote, and many birds like the California condor abounded in the Southern California area. Of course the sea life provided an additional natural resource that also has been depleted. The Luiseño actually used more plant foods than animal foods, too include over 17 species of native bunch grasses. Acorns of various deciduous and perennial species of oak trees were by far the most important staple to the Luiseño and most California Indians.
Food Use
COASTAL INLAND
Acorns 15-25% 25-45%
Seeds 20-40 20-40
Greens 5-10 10-12
Roots/Bulbs 10-15 10-13
Game 5-10 15-20
Fish/Shellfish 20-35 0-05
Here is a sample of the plants used by the Luiseno from the various plant communities. Some of these are still being used or are in the process of being revived as the Luiseño seek to preserve the natural resources that they consider to be cultural resources as well.
NOTE: Plants are identified with Genus/ species first, the common name second, the plant family in parentheses and ending with -ae, and if available the Luiseno name in parentheses and italics. Botanical information can be checked with the CA Flora Data Base. Cultural plant and use comparisons can be accessed through the Native American Ethnobotany Database
FOOD
|NUTS |
|Acorns/Oak: Quercus sp. (Fagaceae) A primary staple; at least 7 species used with Quercus kelloggii, Black Oak ( kwiila) acorns being the |
|most important. Other known species in which the acorns were used are Q.agrifolia, coast live oak (weahsahl), Q. chrysolepis, canyon live |
|oak, Q. engelmannii, Engelman oak, Q. wislizenii, interior live oak. |
|Pine Nuts: Pinus coulteri, Coulter pine and Pinus monophylla, Pinyon pine (Pinaceae) (Yoela) nuts were gathered or traded for. |
|SEEDS |
|Sunflower: Helianthus annuus, Bush sunflower (Asteraceae)(ahpahokel) |
|Sage: Salvia columbariae, chia sage; S. carduacea, thistle sage; S. mellifera, black sage; S. apiana, white |
|sage(Lamiaceae)(Luiseno:quaashil). Chia sage seeds were one of the most important seed sources. All of these seeds are high in protein |
|(>15%). |
|Holly-Leaf cherry: Prunus ilicifolia (Rosaceae) |
|California Goosefoot: Chenopodium californicum, goosefoot or pigweed (Chenopodiaceae). C.album, Lamb's Quarter, is common in recent times, |
|but is introduced. |
|Grass: Bromus carinatus, California brome (Poaceae) is one of many native and non-native grasses whose seeds were used. Panicum urvilleanum|
|is one species of panic grass used, but has been replaced by numerous old world grasses during the Mission/Rancho Periods with the |
|introduction of domestic livestock. |
|Redmaids: Calandrina ciliata, redmaids (Portulacaceae). Also used were C. breweri, Brewer's redmaids and C. maritima, seaside pussy paws, |
|which is very rare, today. |
|Mugwort: Artemisia douglasiana, Ca. mugwort (Asteraceae) (pa'aku) and A.dracunculus, wormwood seeds were harvested and used as food. |
|Cactus: Opuntia littoralis, coast prickly pear (Cactaceae) is the native, seeds also taken from the South America cactus introduced Opuntia|
|ficus-indica, Indian fig or tuna cactus. These two cactus species will hybrid and cause some confusion. |
|Clover: Trifolium ciliolatum, foothill clover (Fabaceae). T. willdenovii, tomcat clover. |
|Peppergrass: Lepidium nitidum, common or shinning peppergrass (Brassicaceae). |
|Melon: Cucurbita foetidissma, coyote melon or calabazilla (Cucurbitaceae). The melons are rather small and bitter, but the seeds were dried|
|and roasted. |
|Daisy: Layia glandulosa, white daisy tidytips (Asteraceae) |
|Dandelion: Malacothrix californica, California dandelion (Astercaceae) |
|Gilia: Gilia angelensis, chaparral or blue gilia (Polemoniaceae). G. capitata ssp. staminea, bluehead or globe gilia. |
|GREENS (Leaves and Stems) |
|Mallow: Sidalcea malvacflora, checker mallow (Malvaceae) |
|Celery: Apium graveolens, wild celery (Apiaceae), a non-native or alien plant. Commonly confused with water hemlock,Cicuta maculata; which |
|is very poisonous. |
|Miner's Lettuce: Claytonia parviflora, narrowleaf miner's lettuce and C. perfoliata, miner's lettuce (Portulacaceae) were eaten raw. |
|Tule: Scirpus californicus, California tule (Cyperaceae)(piveesac). |
|Goosefoot: Chenopodium californicum, California goosefoot (Chenopodiaceae) |
|Redmaids: Calandrinia caulescens, Brewer's redmaids(Portulacaceae). |
|Yucca: Yucca whipplei, Chaparral yucca or Our Lord's Candle (Liliaceae)(pan'aal). Stalk roasted in earthen ovens. |
|Agave: Agave shawii, Shaw's agavi or coastal agave(Agavaceae). Stalk roasted in earthen ovens. Plant is rare today. |
|Pea/Lotus/Lupine: Psoralea orbicularis, scurf-pea (Fabaceae); P. lanceolatum. Lathyrus laetiflorus, wild sweet pea. Lotus strigosus, Bishop|
|lotus. Lupinus hirsutissimus, stinging lupine; L. truncatus, chaparral or collared lupine. |
|Clover: Trifolium ciliotum, foothill clover (Fabaceae). T. gracilentum, pinpoint clover; T. microcephalum, maiden clover; T. obtusiforum, |
|clamary clover |
|Poppy: Eschscholzia californica, California poppy (Papaveraceae) |
|Violet: Viola pedunculata, Johnny jump-up or Ca. golden violet (Violaceae) |
|Phacelia: Phacelia ramosissima, branching phacelia (Hydrophyllaceae). P. cicutaria, caterpillar phacelia; P. grandiflora, large-flowered |
|phacelia; P. parryi, Parry phacelia; P. minor, wild Canterbury bell. |
|Leatherroot: Roundleaf leatherroot, Hoita orbicularis (Fabaceae) plant was used for greens. |
|Mushrooms: |
|ROOTS/BULBS/CORMS |
|Brodiaea: Brodiaea californicum, Ca. clusterlily or brodiaea (Lilaceae) was much more abundant in aboriginal times and extensively used. |
|Luiseno women used digging sticks, often weighted, and only harvested larger corms, while turning under smaller ones to propagate for |
|future harvest. Such management, with controlled burning, actually increased such crops. |
|Broomrape: Orbanche californica, California broomrape (Orbanchaceae). This is a parasitic plant growing in association with a number of |
|other plant communities. |
|Soaplily: Chlorgalum parviforum, soaplilly or amole (Liliaceae). This important lily was cooked for food, but the bulb was also used as a |
|shampoo and as a neurotoxin to stun and catch fish. |
|Goldenstar: Bloomeria crocea, common goldenstar (Liliaceae). A number of bulbs were used from various lilies. |
|Bulrush/Cattail: Scirpus acutus, common tule and S. californicus, California tule (Cyperaceae) (piveesac); S. microcarpus, paniculed |
|bullrush (patcxayal). Typha latifolia, common cattail and T. domingensis, southern cattail (Typhaceae). All were used as young shoots for |
|food. |
|BERRIES/FRUIT |
|Manzanita: Arctostaphylos parryana, Parry manzanita (Ericaceae) (koolul) and Xylococcus bicolor, mission manzanita (muukul). Ripe berries |
|were bruised and soaked overnight in cold water to produce a cider-like drink. |
|Prickly Pear Cactus: Opuntia littoralis, coastal prickly pear (Cactaceae). Later, O. ficus-indica replaces the native prickly pear. |
|Lemonade Berry: Rhus integrifolia, lemonade berry (Anacardiaceae). R. trilobata, three-leaf sumac (sawvel) and R. ovata, sugarbush produced|
|similar fruits that were used. |
|Cherry: Prunus virginiana var. demissa, Western chokecherry (Rosaceae) ('aatut) ; P. ilioifolia, hollyleaf cherry. |
|Christmas Berry: Heteromeles arbutifolia, Christmas berry or toyon (Rosaceae) ('aatcawut). |
|Elderberry: Sambuscus mexicana, blue elderberry (Caprifoliaceae) (kootah). |
|Wild Grape: Vitis girdiana (Vitaceae), desert wild grape. |
|Gooseberry: Ribes speciosum, fuchia-flowered gooseberry (Grossulariaceae). |
|Thimbleberry: Thimbleberry, Rubus parviflorus (Rosaceae) (povlae). |
|Blackberry: Wild blackberry , Rubus vitifolius (Rosaceae) (picwla). |
|Wild Rose: Rosa californica, California wildrose (Rosaceae)(ushla). |
|OTHER: |
|Tea fern: The tea fern or birdfoot fern, Pellaea mucronata (Pteridaceae) fronds were steeped as beverage. |
UTILITARIAN
|CORDAGE: This includes fine string to rope that was made mostly from the vegetal fibers below, but sometimes animal sinew or hair would be |
|used. Vegetal fiber tended to perform better in wet applications and conditions. However, sinew was stronger with fine strands. |
|Nettle: Urtica dioica ssp. gracilis, Am. stinging nettle or Ca. nettle (Urticaceae) (sakicla). The least prized for cordage purposes. |
|Yucca/Agave: Yucca schidigera, Mohave yucca (Liliaceae) (pan'aal) and Agave deserti, desert agave(Agavaceae) . Fiber from these plants were|
|used for a variety of applications, including woven sandles. Coastal groups also used yucca for nets and snares. Various nets were used, |
|including fish nets (tciiwanac), rabbit nets (waanal) and carrying nets (iikat) |
|Dogbane: Apocynum cannabinum, Indian hemp or dogbane (Apocynaceae) (pishkwut). Used for toughest cordage applications, including as a |
|substitute for sinew bowstrings (three to four ply). |
|Milkweed: Asclepias eriocarpa, woollypod milkweed (Asclepiadaceae) (pa'atamkat). Used for finer string, including the women's inner |
|apron/skirt( pishkwut). Nets and snares were most commonly made with milkweed or dogbane (above) by inland groups. |
|Cottonwood/Willow: Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa, black cottonwood (Saliaceae) ('avaaxut). Salix lasiolepis, arroyo willow (saxat). |
|Inner bark of either was used to make women's outer aprons/skirts (shehevish). |
|BASKETS/MATS |
|Willow: Salix lasiolepis, arroyo willow (Saliaceae) (saxat). Used as foundation for twined baskets, cradleboards,seed beaters, and various |
|traps/snares. Both stems and roots were used in these various applications. |
|Juncus: Juncus effusus, juncus (Juncaceae) (shoyla). Used as wrap in open twined baskets that functioned as sieves and closed twined |
|baskets that were used to stone boil various foods. Also, used for various special mats in the household. |
|Grass: Muhlenbergia rigens, deer grass (Poaceae) (yuulalac). Used as foundation for coiled baskets. |
|Three-Leafed Sumac: Rhus trilobata, three-leafed sumac (Anacardiaceae)(shooval) is used as the wrap in coiled baskets and in other |
|applications such as the seed beater. |
|SHELTER: Houses were semi-subterranean 2-3 feet and peaked (smaller: kish)) or a conical (larger: kiitca mukat) with the roofing variable |
|upon material available. Cooking was often under an outdoor open willow shelter (noylac or Sp. ramada). A sweat house was almost |
|subterranean and eliptical. Finally a large open enclosure for ceremonial purposes (wamkish) was elliptical and measured about 38'x58' and |
|was constructed with Rhus laurina, laural sumac (Anacardiaceae) (naqwut). |
|Cedar: Calocedrus decurrens, incense cedar (Cupressaceae) (tovoomal) wood was used for house posts and beams. Inland people used bark for |
|roofing. |
|Tule: Scirpus californicus (Cyperaceae) (piveesac) was used by coastal people for various roofing/thatch applications. |
|Willow: Salix lasiolepis, arroyo willow (Saliaceae) (saxat)was used for construction, roofing, and thatch. |
|TOOLS/OTHER: |
|BOWS: Various lengths and weights (lbs pull) were made of the wood of Salix lasiolepis, arroyo willow (Saliaceae) (saxat); Sambucus |
|mexicana, blue elderberry (Caprifoliaceae) (kootah); Fraxinus velutina, velvet ash(Oleaceae) (kuttipic);Cornus sericea, Am. Dogwood |
|(Cornaceae)(taawumal); Sorbus scopulina, mountain ash (Rosaceae);Juniperous californica, Ca. Juniper (Cupressaceae) (waa'at). |
|ARROWS: A compound arrow, with or without stone points were made of Elymus condensatus, Canadian wildrye (Poaceae) (backshaft) |
|(paaxalkic)and Adenostoma fasciculatum, chamise or greasewood (Rosaceae) (foreshaft) ('u'ut). Simple, one-piece arrows were made of |
|Heterotheca grandiflora, telegraphweed (Asteraceae), Artemisia californica, coastal sagebrush (hulvul), A.douglasiana,Ca. mugwort (paaku), |
|Cornus sericea, Am. Dogwood Cornaceae) (taawumal) and A. dracunculus,wormwood. A special long arrow, possibly for fishing or birds (with |
|special ends) was made of Pluchea sericea, arrow-weed (Asteraceae) (hanla). |
|BOWSTRING: Sinew was commonly used in 3-ply and Apocynum cannabinum, dogbane or Indian hemp (Apocynaceae) (pishkwat) was the preferred |
|vegetal fiber used in 3-4 ply cords. |
|FIRE DRILL: Baccharis douglasii, saltmarsh baccharis (Asteraceae) (morwaxpic). |
|GUM/GLUE: Gum was made from various species of pine, Pinus sp.(Pinaceae) or Adenostoma fasciculatum, greasewood or chamise (Rosaceae) |
|('u'ut). |
|DYE/PIGMENT: Tatooing dye was made from Solanum douglasii, black nightshade (Solanaceae) (takavshic). Leatherroot, Hoita macrostachya |
|(Fabaceae) roots produced a yellow dye.Wild Cucumbers, Marah macrocarpus (Cucurbitae) (puwiimawic) was used as a grease base for paints. A |
|red was produced from pond scum bacterium, Leptothrix ochracea (mooshic) that was dried , burned and added to the grease base. Mineral |
|pigments were derived from hematite Fe2O3, red or yellow (navyot); charcoal, black, (tuula); manganese oxide MnO2, black; kaolin, white, |
|(toovic). Also, various colors were derived from different wood ashes. |
|RATTLES: The seeds of the following were used in box turtle or gourd rattles.Great berried Manzanita, Arctostaphytes glauca(Ericaceae) |
|(koolul), Constricted-seed Mazanita, A. bicolor (muukul), Western Chokecherry, Prunus demissa (Rosaceae) ('aatut) or Ca Fan Palm, |
|Washingtonia filifera (Palmae) (maaxul). |
|:CLEANING: Dodder, Cuscuta californica (Cuscutaceae) and horsetail or scouring rush, Equisetum sp. (Equisetaceae) were used to scrub |
|utensils and containers. |
MEDICINES
|TOPICALS |
|Baccharis:Baccharis douglasii, saltmarsh baccharis, (Asteraceae) (morwaxpic) was used as an infusion made by boiling the entire plant to |
|irrigate sores. |
|Yerba Mansa: The bark around the roots of Yerba Mansa, Anemopsis californica (Saururaceae) was used as a wash for various external sores, |
|ulcers, and small wounds. |
|Leatherroot: Large leatherroot, Hoita macrostchya (Fabaceeae) was used by pulverizing the root for a topical salve or poultice. |
|Fern: The giant chain fern, Woodwardia fimbriata (Blechnaceae) was used as a wound pack or poultice, often in combination with spider web |
|to act as a blood coagulant. Pellaea mucronata, bird'sfoot fern (Pteridaceae) was used in the same way. |
|Oak gall: Insect larvae construct round galls on the branches of scrub oaks, Quercus dumosa (Fagaceae). These galls are dried and ground up|
|to concoct an infusion for sores or small cuts. |
|EYE |
|White Sage: The seeds of white sage, Salvia apiana (Lamiaceae) (qaashil) were used as an eye cleanser and foreign object remover. When the |
|seed is placed in the eye it becomes glutinous, picks up any foreign material, and is easily removed. |
|Nightshade: The berries of the greenspot nightshade, Solanum douglasii (Solanaceae) (takavshic) were used to place drops in sore or |
|inflamed eyes. The primary drug in the berries is atropine which is still being used. |
|Oak Gall: The galls of the scrub oak, Quercus dumosa (Fagaceae), were also (see topical) used as an eye wash and is known to have boric |
|acid as an active ingredient. |
|UPPER RESPIRATORY |
|Yerba Santa: This is one of the most famous medicinal to come out of California and was listed in the U.S. Pharmacopia. The leaves of |
|Eriodictyon trichocalyx, Yerba Santa, (Hydrophllaceae) (pahlwut) are used to produce an infusion that is principally an expectorant. |
|White Sage: Salvia apiana, white sage, (Lamiaceae) (qaashil) leaves were chewed or smoked as a decongestant. |
|Datura: The leaves of datura or Jimeson weed, Datura meteloides, (Solanaceae) (naqtumuc) are steamed to produce a vapor that acts as a |
|decongestant. |
|Sagebrush: Leaves from California coastal sagebrush, Artemisia californica (Asteraceae) (hulvul) were chewed or smoked in combination with |
|tobacco to relieve colds. |
|Mugwort: A tea was prepared from the leaves of Ca. mugwort or Douglas sagewert, Artemisia douglasiana, (Asteraceae) (pa'aku) that acts as a|
|bronchial and sinus decongestant. A. dracunculus, wormwood, and A. furcata, mugwort, served the same purpose. |
|Yerba Mansa: The strong peppery roots of Yerba Mansa, Anemopsis californica, (Saururaceae) were prepared as an infusion to act as a |
|decongestant . This plant was sometimes combined with mugwort or Yerba Santa to create a more comprehensive action. |
|Yerba Buena (Spearmint): Leaf tea of this mint, Satureja douglasii, (Lamiaceae)(Luiseno: huvamel) was also an effective cure for colds with|
|headache and fever reducing qualities. The same action is attributed to black willow, Salix nigra (Salicaceae), inner bark and elderberry |
|flowers, Sambucus mexicana (Caprifoliaceae). This action is due mainly to the presence of salicylic acid in these herbs. |
|Gentian:A tea was made from the leaves of Centaurium venustum,gentian or canchalagua (Gentianaceae) to reduce fevers. |
|CIRCULATORY |
|Ephedra: The stems of the joint-fir, Mormon tea, or ephedra; Ephedra californica (Gnetaceae) were used to boil up for 'wine red' colored |
|infusion or tea to thin the blood and flush the kidneys. It is not as potent as its Asian counterpart, but does contain some relative of |
|the ephedrine alkaloid that acts as adrenalin-mimic; such that long term usage was not recommended by Luiseno healers. |
|Rue:An infusion was made from the leaves of Cneoridium dumosum, bush rue (Rutaceae) that had 'bood thining' action that included diuretic |
|action. |
|DIGESTIVE/GI/URT/GYN |
|Ca. Buckwheat: The leaves of older plants, Eriogonum fasciculatum (Polygonaceae) was used to prepare a rather strong decoction for stomach |
|disorders. This decoction was also effective as a diuretic and to effect uterine shrinkage in cases of dysmenorrhea. |
|Sagebrush: A tea from the boiled plant, Artemisia californica, California coastal sagebrush Asteraceae) (hulvul) and administered to induce|
|menstrual activity and for childbirth, especially post-natal. |
|Buckthorn: Buckthorn or Cascara Sagrada, Rhamnus californica (Rhamnaceae) was also very famous since it was used and still is used in |
|American pharmacopoeia. The dried bark is used principally to cure constipation with laxative/purgative action. |
|Blue Eyed Grass: Blue eyed grass, Sisyrinchium bellum (Iridaceae) roots were used as a purgative. |
|Four O'Clock: The leaves of the Ca. four o'clock, Mirabilis california (Nyctaginaceae) were used to make an infusion that acts as a |
|purgative. |
|Mint: Like most mints a tea from Yerba Buena, Satureja douglassi (Lamiaceae) is effective in settling an upset stomach. Monardella villosa,|
|coyote mint (Luiseno: havawut) and M. lanceolata, Mt. Balm were also used. |
|Yerba Mansa: The bark or roots of Yerba Mansa, Anemopsis californica (Saururaceae), were used to cure GI. ulcers |
|Ragweed: Ambrosia acanthicarpa, flatspine or burr ragweed (Asteraceae) along with introduced ragweeds (A. artemisiaefolia) (pa'atcivat) |
|were used as emetics. |
|Croton: The plant , Croton californica, California croton (Euphorbiaceae) was used as an abortive. |
|Bird's Beak: Both maritime bird's beak, Corylanthus maritimus, and Orcutt's bird's beak, C. orcuttianus (Scrophulariaceae) plants were used|
|as an emetics. |
|Mallow: Sphaeralacea emoryi, Emory's globe mallow and possibly S. ambigua, apricot mallow (Malvaceae) leaves were used as an emetic. |
|Wooly Blue-Curls: Trichostema lanatum, wooly blue-curls, the leaves and flowers were steaped in a tea for unspecified stomach ailments. |
|CEREMONIAL |
|Tobacco: Tobacco was considered sacred and was primarily used in ritual as smoke for blessings and purification. Certain blessings included|
|the sprinkling of dried tobacco leaves. Shamans used tobacco in curing, dreaming and ritual. The various species used by the Luiseno |
|included Nicotiana trigonphylla, N. attenuata (coyote tobacco), N. bigelovii (now called N. quadrivalois) (piivat), and N. clevelandii (a |
|rare coastal species)(Solanaceae). N. glauca, tree tobacco is an alien introduced from South America. Tobacco was also used for medicinal |
|purposes in curing , but is rather toxic with powerful alkaloids and was usually administered topically as a wound infusion or even smoke |
|to relieve pain of ear infections or rheumatism. A liquid infusion with water only acted as an emetic since the alkaloids do not do well in|
|the GI tract. Young girls used an infusion of tobacco as a purge for purification during their puberty rites. Smoking produced a relaxing |
|euphoric and hallucinogenic experience and was used as a form of ritual for stressful activity such as war or hunting larger game. |
|Jimeson Weed/Datura: Datura or Jimeson weed, Datura meteloides (Solanaceae) (naqtumuc) was also a powerful plant with powerful alkaloids. |
|The quantity and effect of the alkaloids in datura was unpredictable and the ancient shaman new this and had to be careful with this plant.|
|The dried roots were generally used to produce a hallucinogenic effect for shaman and young boys puberty rites. Leaves were used to produce|
|pain alleviating ointment or in a hot poultice. Vapor from leaves was used for severe cases of congestion and contains atropine as an |
|active ingredient. The hallucinogenic effect was long term and would produce the will and strength for all night ritual performances by |
|shaman. |
|Sagebrush: Coastal sagebrush, Artemisis californica (Asteraceae) (hulvul) and white sage, Salvia apiana (Lamiaceae) (qaashil) were used to |
|build a ceremonial fire before hunting. |
|OTHER |
|Sandmat: Sandmat or Yerba Golondrina, Chamaeayce polycarpa (Euphorbiaceae) was used to make a poultice for rattlesnake bites. |
|Currant: Both white flowering currant, Ribes indecorum and chaparral currant, R.malvaceum (Grossulariaceae) were used for toothaches. |
|Poppy: The Ca. poppy flowers, Eschscholzia californica ( Papaveraceae) were chewed with chewing gum which was originally made from the |
|woolypod milkweed, Asclepias eriocarpa (Asclepiadaceae) (pa'atamkat) sap. |
|Soap Plant: The soap plant or amole, Chlorogalum pomeridianum (Liliaceae) was a common lily that has a bulb that produced saponin that |
|served as an excellent soap or shampoo. This bulb also can be chopped up and thrown into ponds or streams to stupefy fish; and the |
|neurotoxin does not harm the flesh of the fish. The hairs surrounding the underground bulb were also used to make a variety of brushes. |
|Goosefoot: The Ca. goosefoot's, Chenopodium californicum (Chenopodiaceae) roots were ground up to produce a soap. |
|Wild gourd: The wild gourd or coyote melon, Cucurbita foetidissima (Cucurbitaceae) fruit was used to clean various utility items. |
|Recorded, but unknown medical use: Tauschia arguta, southern umbrellawort Apiaceae); Turricula parryi, common turricula (Hydrophallaceae); |
|Ericameria parishii, Parish goldenweed (Asteraceae). Listed, but no synonym in Cal. Flora: Houttuynia californica; Deweya arguta; Bigelovia|
|parishii; Artemisia heterophylla (Sparkman 1908; Kroeber 1925). |
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PLANT KEY
LINKS:
CA Flora Data Base
Native American Ethnobotany Database
The Luiseño are the most Southwestern group of Shoshonean people in the greater North American desert. The name Luiseño came from their having lived in close proximity to the Spanish mission San Luis Rey (1798-1834) which is located in northern San Diego County near Oceanside, California. Originally, the Luiseño may have been called Payomkawichum ('The Westerners') by neighboring people and Ataxum ('The People') by themselves.
The Luiseño occupied parts of north coastal San Diego County and Riverside County in pre-Hispanic (before 1769) Southern California. It is theorized that the Luiseño came into Southern California approximately 5,000-7,000 years ago during severe altithermals (drought periods) from the Basin areas east of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Their Shoshonean neighbors like the Cupeño, Cahuilla, Serrano, Gabrieliño and Chemehuevi were part of this migration. This Southern California environment was and is a mild coastal desert environment dominated by the Coastal Sagebrush Scrub plant community that is often referred to as chaparral, a word derived from the Spanish "chaparro", scrub oak. The Luiseno gathered and used a great deal of plants ; but also hunted and used animals in this environment. Traditional views saw the plants as a sacred link to the earth producing nutients directly for herbivores and indirectly for carnivores. Meat of herbivores, like deer, was seen as sacred since they ate the plants.
The Luiseno also recognized the interaction of various factors, such as water, disease, predator/prey, and natural burns that impacted the population of game animals on land and in water. At times they figured out ways of improving game animal populations through techniques such as controled burning. Such management usually increased population of rodents and grazing animals due to the post burn growth surge of herbacious plants, but it could prove risky if heavy rain followed purposeful set burns. Evidence indicates that varying climates and human use was usually less detrimental to environments than today's developmental impact. Southern California abounded in deer, elk, antelope and numerous rodents, birds, reptiles, etc. on the land with fish, turtles, crustacea, mollusks, and mammals in the fresh and salt water. The Luiseno devised a seasonal pattern of hunting and gathering that started with the ocean and lowland lagoon/rivers in the spring; and worked there way up into the mountains by fall for great acorn gathering feativals. The peoples biggest competition for most of these resources was the California grizzly, which pretty much followed the same seasonal pattern. The animals like humans overlapped the more fixed plant zones,but due to the semi-arid climate many would not be visible in the day. The coyote was one of the most successful animals of the chaparral/scrub communities, but it like humans consummed more plant material than meat.
We will examine the Luiseno use of animals (Kingdom: Animalia), but due to multiple uses the species will be listed by taxonomy, rather than by use.
CLASS: MAMMALIA
ORDER: CARNIVORA (Flesh-eaters)
|FAMILY |Genus/species |Common name |Luiseno name |Use |Notes |
|Ursidae |Ursus horribilis |grizzly bear |hunwut | |Ca. ssp. extinct |
|Canidae |Canus lupus |grey wolf |iswut | |reduced/extinct |
| |Canus latrans |coyote |anno |bow case/quiver | |
| |Urocyon cinereoargenteus |gray fox |kawawish |bow case/quiver | |
| |Vulpes macrotis |kit fox | | | |
|Felidae |Felis onca |jaguar | | |reduced/extinct |
| |Felis concolor |mt. lion,cougar,puma |tookwut |bow case/quiver | |
| |Lynx rufus |bobcat | |bow case/quiver | |
|Procyonidae |Procyon lotor |raccoon |pahyammel | | |
|Bassariscidae |Bassariscus astutus |ringtail cat | | | |
|Mustelidae |Mustela frenata |longtail weasel |wiskonla | | |
| |Taxidea taxus |badger |hoonul | | |
| |Spilogale putorius |spotted skunk |pahlakoomul | | |
| |Mephitis mephitis |striped skunk |pallakut | | |
| |Enhydra lutris |sea otter |tukval |bow case/quiver |reduced |
ORDER:PINNIPEDIA (Sea Lions & Seals)
|Otariidae |Zalophus |Ca. sea lion | |food/blubber | |
| |californianus | | | | |
| |Arctocephalus |Guadalupe fur seal | | | |
| |philippi | | | | |
| |Callorhinus ursinus |Alaska fur seal | | | |
|Phocidae |Phoca vitulina |harbor seal | |food/blubber | |
| |Mirounga |elephant seal | | | |
| |angustirostris | | | | |
ORDER: INSECTIVORA (Insect-eaters)
|Soricidae |Sorex ornatus |ornate shrew | | | |
| |Notiosorex crawfordi |gray shrew | | | |
|Talpidae |Scapanus latimanus |Ca. mole |pahmumkul | | |
ORDER: CHIROPTERA (Bats)
|Phyllostomidae |Macrotus californicus|leafnose bat | | | |
|Vespertilionidae |Myotis californicus |Ca. myotis/Little brown|tahvahlukma | |M.evotis;M.tysanodes; |
| | |bat | | |M. yumanensis; M. |
| | | | | |subulatus similar range|
| |Pipistrellus hesperus|Western pipistrel | | | |
| |Lasiurus cinereus |hoary bat | | |L. borealis, red bat |
| | | | | |similar/smaller |
| |Eptesicus fuscus |big brown bat | | | |
| |Plecotus townsendi |Western big-eared bat | | | |
| |Antrozous pallidus |pallid bat | | | |
|Molossidae |Tadarida brasiliensis|Mex. free-tailed bat | | |T. molossa, big |
| | | | | |free-tailed bat similar|
ORDER: RODENTIA (Gnawing mammals)
|Castoridae |Castor canadensis |beaver | |food |reduced range |
|Sciuridae |Citellus beecheyri |Ca. ground squirrel |kanish |food | |
| |Eutamias merriami |Merriam chipmunk |wiskun |food | |
| |Sciurus griseus |Western grey squirrel |sokahwet |food |interior/mts. |
| |Glaucomys sabrinus |N. flying squirrel | | |interior/mts. |
|Geomyidae |Thomomys bottae |valley pocket gopher |mawtah |food/belts | |
|Heteromyidae |Perognathus |little pocket mouse | |food /belts | |
| |longimembris | | | | |
| |Dipodomys merriami |Merriam kangaroo rat |pa'ac |food | |
|Cricetidae |Reithrodontomys |Western harvest mouse | |food | |
| |megalotis | | | | |
| |Peromyscus |Ca. mouse |pahahs |food |P.eremicus,cactus |
| |californicae | | | |m.;P.maniculatus, deer |
| | | | | |m., similar |
| |Onychomys torridus |S.grasshopper mouse | |food | |
| |Neotoma lepida |desert woodrat |kowla |food/secondary |N. fuscipes, |
| | | | |food/roots |dusky-footed woodrat |
| | | | | |similar |
| |Microtus californicus|Ca. vole |yovish |food | |
|Leporidae |Lepus californicus |blacktail jackrabbit |sooish |food/winter robes |a hare |
| |Sylvilagus audubani |desert cottontail |tositut |food | |
| |S. bachmani |brush rabbit |tovit |food | |
ORDER: ARIODACTYLA (Even-toed hoofed mammals)
|Cervidae |Cervus candensis |Elk, Wapiti |pa'ashukut |food/skin/sinew |reduced |
| |Odocoileus hemionus |Mule Deer |sookut |food/skin/sinew/hooves | |
| | | | |used for rattles | |
|Antilocapridae |Antilcarpa americana |Pronghorn, Antelope |tunlah |food | |
|Bovidae |Ovis canadensis |Bighorn Sheep |pahaht |food/sinew/horns | |
ORDER: CETACEA (Whales, Dolphins, Porpoises)
|Ziphiidae |Mesoplodon stejnegeri|Pacific Beaked Whale | | | |
|Delphinidae |Tursiops gilli |Pacific Bottlenose | |food | |
| | |Dolphin | | | |
| |Lagenorhynchus |Pacific White-Sided | | | |
| |obliquidens |Dolphin | | | |
|Eschrichtiidae |Eschrichtius gibbosus|Gray Whale |kuyoowut |food, vert. seat,house | |
| | | | |frame | |
|Balaenidae |Balaena glacialis |Pacific Right Whale | | | |
CLASS: REPTILIA
|Testudinidae |Clemmys marmorata |Western Pond Turtle |paa'ila |food | |
| |Terrapene ornata |Western Box Turtle |pahelah |food/shell used for | |
| | | | |rattles | |
| |Gopherus agassizi |Desert Tortoise | | |reduced range |
|Gekkonidae |Coleonyx variegatus |Banded Gecko | |food | |
|Iguanidae |Callisaurus |Zebra-tailed Lizard | |food | |
| |draconoides | | | | |
| |Crotaphytus collaris |Collared Lizard | |food |reduced range |
| |Sceloporus |Western Fence lizard |kahselah |food | |
| |occidentalis | | | | |
| |Phrynosoma coronatum |Coast Horned Lizard |challakkah | | |
|Scincidae |Eumeces skiltonianus |Western Skink | |food | |
|Teiidae |Cnemidophorus tigris |Western whiptail | | | |
|Leptotyphlopidae |Leptotyphylops |Western blind snake | | | |
| |humilis | | | | |
|Boidae |Charina bottae |Rubber boa | | | |
| |Lichanuria trivirgata|Rosy boa | | | |
|Colubridae |Coluber constrictor |Western Racer | | | |
| |Diadophis punctatus |Ringneck snake |pahhah | | |
| |Pituophis |Gopher snake |sethe | | |
| |melanoleucus | | | | |
| |Lampropeltis getulus |Ca. Kingsnake |tettenglah | | |
| |californiae | | | | |
| |Thamnophis elegans |Western garter snake | | | |
| |Tantilla planiceps |Western black-headed |pawvekut | | |
| | |snake | | | |
| |Trimorphodon |Ca. Lyre snake | | | |
| |vandenburghi | | | | |
|Viperidae |Crotalus ruber |Red Diamond rattlesnake|me'qush | | |
| |C. viridis helleri |S. Pacific Rattlesnake |sowat | | |
| |C. mitchelli |Speckled rattlesnake |laxwalxwic | | |
CLASS: AMPHIBIA
|Salamandridae |Taricha torosa |Ca. newt | | | |
| |Batrachoseps |Ca. Slender Salamander | |taboo | |
| |attenuatus | | | | |
|Pelobatidae |Scaphiopus hammondi |Western Spadefoot toad | | | |
|Bufonidae |Bufo boreas |Western toad | | | |
|Hylidae |Pseudacris triseriata|Chorus frog | | | |
| |Hyla regilla |Pacific treefrog | | | |
|Ranidae |Rana aurora draytoni |Ca. Red-legged frog |wahawut |taboo | |
CLASS:AVES
|Cathartidae |Cathartes aura |Turkey vulture |allowwahkah | | |
| |Gymnogyps |Ca Condor |yuna'avaywut | | |
| |californianus | | | | |
|Elaninae |Elanus leucurus |White-tailed kite | | | |
|Acciptrinae |Accipiter cooperi |Cooper's hawk | | | |
|Buteoninae |Buteo jamaicensis |Red-tailed hawk |kwahlah |feather/cerem. | |
| |Buteo lineatus |Red-shouldered hawk | | | |
| |Buteo swainsoni |Swainson's hawk | | | |
| |Aquila chrysaetos |Golden Eagle |ahswut |feather/cerem. | |
| |Haliaeetus |Bald Eagle |pame | | |
| |leucocephalus | | | | |
|Circinae |Circus cyaneus |Marsh hawk/Harrier |tokavit | | |
|Falconinae |Falco mexicanus |Praire Falcon | |feather | |
| |Falco sparverius |Sparrow hawk |kallokalliikme | | |
|Tytonidae |Tyto alba |Barn owl |chaht | | |
|Strigidae |Otus asio |Screech Owl |ammummul | | |
| |Bubo virginianus |Great Horned Owl |mootah |taboo | |
| |Asio otus |Long-eared Owl |muutamimal | | |
| |Speotyto cunicularia |Burrowing Owl |kookkool | | |
|Corvidae |Corvus corax |C. Raven |kahweah | | |
| |C. brachyrhynchos |C. Crow |ahlwut | | |
| |Pica pica |Black-billed magpie |tookoopoo | | |
| |Aphelocoma |Ca. Scrub Jay |chahish | | |
| |coerulescens | | | | |
|Cuculidae |Geococcyx |Roadrunner |pooepooe | | |
| |californianus | | | | |
| |Coccyzus americanus |Yellow-billed Cuckoo | | | |
|Phasiaianidae |Lophortyx |Ca./Valley quail |kahahl |food/feathers | |
| |californicus | | | | |
| |Oreortyx pictus |Mt. Quail |kahhahwit |foodfeathers | |
|Columbidae |Columba fasciata |Band-tailed pigeon |mahawut |food | |
| |Zenaidura macroura |Mourning Dove |mahel | | |
|Caprimulgidae |Phalaenoptilus |Poor-will |pallakwis | | |
| |nuttallii | | | | |
|Alcedinidae |Megaceryle alcyon |Belted Kingfisher | | | |
|Picidae |Colaptes cafer |Red-Shafted Flicker |tahvis |feathers | |
| |Melanerpes |Ca./Acorn Woodpecker |sawlah |feathers | |
| |formicivorus | | | | |
| |Sphyrapicus varius |Red-Breasted Sapsucker | |feathers | |
| |ruber | | | | |
| |Dendrocopus villosus |Hairy Woodpecker |kahwankul | | |
| |D. pubescens |Downy Woodpecker | | | |
| |D. nuttalli |Nuttall's Woodpecker |'iven'xal |feathers | |
|Trochilidae |Calypte anna |Anna's Hummingbird |tooshmel | | |
| |C. cotae |Costa's Hummingbird | | | |
|Icteridae |Sturnella neglecta |Western Meadowlark |esahl |feathers | |
| |Agelaius phoeniceus |Red-Winged Blackbird |pahhemal |feathers | |
| |Xanthocephalus |Yellow-Headed Blackbird| |feathers | |
| |xanthocephalus | | | | |
| |Icterus bullockii |Bullock's Oriole |tookoopul |feathers | |
| |Euphagus |Brewer's Blackbird |pahhemal | | |
| |cyanocephalus | | | | |
| |Molothrus ater |Cowbird | | | |
|Fringillidae |Pheucticus |Black-Headed Grosbeak |pahhah | | |
| |melanocephalus | | | | |
| |Carpodacus purpureus |Ca. Purple Finch |yowyellah | | |
| |Spinus tristis |Goldfinch | | | |
| |Pipilo fuscus |Brown Towhee |topnel | | |
| |Amphispiza belli |Sage Sparrow | | | |
| |Melospiza melodia |Song Sparrow | | | |
| |Zonotrichia |Golden-Crowned Sparrow | | | |
| |atricapilla | | | | |
|Thraupidae |Piranga ludoviciana |Western Tanager | | | |
|Tyrannidae |Tyrannus verticalis |Western Kingbird |chakamel | | |
| |Empidonax minimus |Least Flycatcher | | | |
|Alaudidae |Eremophil alpestris |Horned Lark | | | |
|Hirundinidae |Hirundo rustica |Barn Swallow |palismel | | |
|Paridae |Parus gambeli |Mt. Chickadee | | | |
| |P. inornatus |Plain Titmouse |yohwihwal | | |
|Sittidae |Sitta aculeata |Nuthatch | | | |
|Chamaeidae |Chamaea fasciata |Wrentit | | | |
|Troglodytidae |Campylorhynchus |Cactus Wren | | | |
| |brunneicapillum | | | | |
| |Catherpus mexicanus |Canon Wren | | | |
|Mimidae |Mimus polyglottos |Mockingbird |tahmahwit | | |
| |Toxostoma redivivum |Ca. Thrasher | | | |
|Turdidae |Hylocichla guttata |Hermit Thrush | | | |
| |Sialia mexicana |Western Bluebird | | | |
|Vireonidae |Vireo bellii |Bell's Vireo | | | |
|Parulidae |Dendroica petechia |Yellow Warbler | | | |
| |Icteria virens |Yellow-breasted Chat | | | |
|Sylviidae |Polioptila caerulea |Gnatcatcher | | | |
|Gruidae |Grus canadensis |Sandhill Crane |quaruut |1st Dancer,whistle | |
|Ardeidae |Areda herodias |Great Blue Heron | |whistle | |
| |Butorides virescens |Green Heron | | | |
| |Casmerodius albus |C. Egret | | | |
| |Nycticorax nycticorax|Black-Crowned Night | | | |
| | |Heron | | | |
|Anserinae |Branta candensis |Canada Goose |la'la |food | |
| |Chen hyperborea |White Brant/Snow Goose |weesal | | |
|Anatinae |Anas platyrhynchos |Mallard Duck |qaatqat |food | |
| |Anas acuta |Pintail | |food | |
| |Anus discors |Blue-Winged Teal | |food | |
| |Anas cyanoptera |Cinnamon Teal | |food | |
|Aythyinae |Bucephala clangula |C. Goldeneye | |food | |
| |Melanitta |Surf Scooter | | | |
| |perspicillata | | | | |
|Oxyurinae |Oxyura jamaicensis |Ruddy Duck | | | |
|Rallidae |Rallus longirostris |Ca. Clapper Rail | | | |
| |Fulica americana |Am. Coot |shayla |food | |
|Charadriidae |Charadrius vociferus |Killdeer | | | |
| |Arenaria |Black Turnstone | | | |
| |melanocephala | | | | |
|Scolopacidae |Totanus melanoleucus |Greater Yellowlegs | | | |
| |Ereunetes mauri |Western Sandpiper | | | |
|Recurvirostridae |Recurvirostra |Am. Avocet | | | |
| |americana | | | | |
|Larinae |Larus californicus |Ca Gull | | | |
|Sterninae |Sterna albifrons |Least Tern | | | |
|Podicipedidae |Aechmophorus |Western Grebe | | | |
| |occidentalis | | | | |
|Pelecanidae |Pelecanus |Brown Pelican | |robes,food | |
| |occidentalis | | | | |
|Phalacrocoracidae |Phalacrocorax auritis|Double Crested | |food,eggs | |
| | |Cormorant | | | |
CLASS: OSTEICHTHYES (Boney Fishes)
|Salmonidae |Oncorhynchus kisutch |Coho Salmon | | |S. CA range uncertain |
| |Salmo gairdneri |Rainbow Trout | |food | |
|Catostomidae |Catostomus commersoni|White Sucker | |food | |
|Atherinidae |Leuresthes tenuis |Ca Grunion | |food | |
| |Atherinopsis |Jacksmelt | |food | |
| |califoriensis | | | | |
|Percichthyidae |Morone saxatilis |Striped Bass | |food | |
| |Paralabrax clathratus|Kelp Bass | |food | |
|Embiotocidae |Amphistichus |Barred Surfperch | |food | |
| |argenteus | | | | |
|Mugilidae |Mugil cephalus |Striped Mullet | | | |
|Dasyatidae |Myliobatis |Ca Stingray |wollumal | | |
| |californicus | | | | |
PHYLUM:MOLLUSCA (Mollusks)
|Haliotidae |Haliotis cracherodii |Black Abalone |'ayla |food,jewelry, dishes | |
| |H. rufescens |Red Abalone |qexl |food,jewelry, dishes | |
|Cypraeidae |Cypraea spadicea |Chestnut Cowrie | | | |
|Olividae |Olivela biplicata |Purple Olive | |beads,jewelry,money | |
|Mytilidae |Mytilus edulis |Common Blue Mussel | |food,utensils | |
|Pectinidae |Argopecten circularis|Pacific Calico Scallop | |food | |
| |Leptopecten |Kelp-weed Scallop | |food | |
| |latiauratus | | | | |
|Ostreidae |Ostrea lurida |Ca. Oyster | |food | |
|Mactridae |Tresus nutalli |Pacific Gaper Clam | |food | |
|Donacidae |Donax californicus |Ca Donax | |food,jewelry | |
|Veneridae |Tivela stultorum |Pismo Clam | |food | |
|Turbinidae |Astraea undosa |Wavy Turban | | | |
|Acamaeidae |Fissurella volcano |Volcano Limpet | |food | |
| |Megathura crenulata |Great Keyhole Limpet | |food | |
|Cephalopoda |Octopus dofleini |Pacific Octopus | |food | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
CLASS:INCECTA (Insects)
|Danaidae |Danaus plexippus |Monarch | | | |
|Nymphalidae |Euphydryas chalcedona|Checkerspot | | | |
| |Nymphaltis antiopa |Mourning Cloak | | | |
|Pieridae |Colias eurytheme |Orange Sulfur | | | |
|Papilionidae |Papilio polyxenes |Black Swallowtail | | | |
|Hesperiidae |Eparrgyreus clarus |Silver-spotted Skipper | | | |
|Sphingidae |Manduca sexta |Sphinx moth | |cocoon rattles | |
| | |Ceanothus Silkmoth | | | |
|Tenebrionidae |Coelocnemis |Broad-necked Darkling | | | |
| |californicus |Beetle | | | |
|Coccinellidae |Adalia frigida |Two-spotted Ladybird | | | |
| | |Beetle | | | |
|Formicidae |Pogonomyrmex |Harvester Ant |'aanat |Boys' puberty | |
| |californicus | | | | |
| |Camponotus sp. |Black Carpenter Ant |lamaqqat | | |
| |Limotopum |Tree Ant |wiyawic | | |
| |occidentalis | | | | |
| |Dorymyrmex pyramicus |Black lion Ant |tuumalum | | |
|Pediculidae |Pediculus humanus |Body Louse |salat | | |
|Belostomatidae |Lethocerus americanus|Giant Water Bug |tcorwumal | | |
|Andrenidae |Andrena transnigra |Burrowing Bee |suka | | |
|Sphecidae |Sphex sp |Digger Wasp | | | |
| |Hemipepsis formosa |Tarantula Hawk Wasp |pu'ulakwic | | |
|Gryllidae |Gryllus pennsylvancus|Field Cricket |sulkal |food | |
| |Oecanthus |Ca Tree Cricket |shulkul | | |
| |californicus | | | | |
|Gryllotalpidae |Gryllotalpa sp |Mole Cricket | | | |
|Tettigoniidae |Microcentrum |Ca Katydid |sulqual | | |
| |californicum | | | | |
|Gerridae |Gerris sp |Waterstrider | | | |
|Calliphoridae |Calliphora vomitoria |Blue Bottle Fly/Blow |sariiwut | | |
| | |Fly | | | |
| |Phaenica sericata |Green Bottle Fy | | | |
CLASS: ARACHNIDA (Arachnids)
|Araneidae |Argiope trifasciata |Orb Weaver |kuye'eewut | | |
|Theridiidae |Latrodectus mactans |Black Widow |kuyximic | | |
|Scorpiones |Centruroides sp |Scorpion |suyla | | |
|Ctenizidae |Bothriocyrtum |Ca Trap-door Spider |naavayut | | |
| |californicum | | | | |
|Theraphosidae |Dugesiella sp |Am Tarantula |monnawut | | |
CLASS: CHILOPODA AND DIPLOPODA (Centipedes and Millipedes)
| | |Centipede |waqpic | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
CLASS: OLIGOCHAETA (Earthworms and Freshwater Worms)
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
HOPI
The Hopi see themselves at the center of the world and rightly so, since they have been on their four mesas for well over 1000 years. They are one of the Pueblo people and represent the western most group. To live in the arid environment they have chosen was considered a choice that as a people they made many ages ago to be humble and work hard; physically and spiritually. The word Hopi means 'one who follows the right path' and continues to represent an ideal and goal.
I. Origins
Hopi language, Aztec-Tanoan (Shoshonean) indicates that the core of the culture has very ancient connection to the American desert. Hopi traditions indicates a broader influence of origins, but how widespread is a more speculative.
II. Traditional Culture
Various factors contributed to the fact that Hopi have remained in their homeland and relatively intact traditionally. One factor is that the place they chose was rather arid and was not coveted as much by others until Anglos discovered coal and uranium. This is the case with many desert dwellers. So traditional cultural features such as the annual Kachina cycle ceremonies are still in place throughout much of the Hopi villages. Since some changes have occurred from Hispanic and Anglo pressures we will still refer to traditional culture as pre-Hispanic. The central feature of Hopi cultures is the Kachina Cycle where from the Winter Solstice (Dec 21) to the Summer Solstice (Jun 21) ancestral spirits called Kachinas come from their cloud homes among the people in the form of dancers to renew powers of fertility and rain. The clans and phratries take on the responsibility of maintaining the kivas (sacred underground structures) altars and other sacred paraphernalia. From the Summer Solstice to the Winter Solstice non-Kachina ceremonies are conducted. In effect the Hopi have maintained a rigorous ceremonial calendar as a strategy for adapting to their desert environment. Hopi < 1540
Language Aztec-Tanoan Shoshonean
Settlement 1st Mesa Walpi,Sichomovi, Sikyatki,Polacca
2nd Mesa Sipaulovi,Mishongnovi, Shungopavi, Payupki
3rd Mesa Oraibi, Bacavi, Hotevilla,
Antelope Mesa Awatovi , Kawalka, Chakpahu,Nesuftonga, Kokopnyama,Jeddito, Lululongturque
Economics CBS dry agriculture, clan owned,
Social Clan, Phratry(two+ clans, Village Matrilineal Totemic Exogamous Clans
Matrilocal/focal
Phratries
World View Emergence Myth
Kachina Cycle and Ceremonies
Hopi Directions
7 Creator
6 Organizer
5 Kachina
4 Actualization
3 Maturation
2 Emergence
1 Origins
Expressed Forms Kachina Traditions
Weaving
Pottery
Jewelry
III. Contemporary Culture
Two dramatic and traumatic periods of change have taken place for the Hopi people. First was the invasion of the Spanish, who attempted to enforce labor service and religious conversion. After the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 the Spanish were removed but numerous towns, especially on Antelope Mesa were abandoned. Some Tewa escaped Spanish revenge and were allowed to settle in Hano on First Mesa. When Anglos invaded they tried various phases of relocation and enculturation with the removal of Hopi children to government schools at Keam's Canyon.
Hopi > 1949
Antelope Mesa Jeddito mostly abandoned >1680; Keams Canyon settlement is US govt/trading post
First Mesa Walpi, Sichomovi, Polacca, Hano Hano is Tewa pueblo people
Second Mesa Shongopavi, Mishongnovi, Shipaulovi
Third Mesa Oraibi, Bacabi, Hotevilla, off mesa in wash is New Oraibi New Oraibi (Kyakotsmovi) is post WWII
Moenkopi Wash Moenkopi, Keams Canyon Trading settlement
The Hopi continue to struggle to maintain their initial dictate of a humble and responsible lifestyle in spite of tremendous pressure from the outside society. Their real goal is to maintain their values and commitment as the respond to the many modern changes. They also are seen by many Native Americans and non Indians as a model of values lost by modern changes.
Links to Hopi
Hopi Nation
Hopi Cultural Center
Hopi Preservation Program at NAU
Copyright © S. J. Crouthamel
LAKOTA
The Lakota are part of the great Siouan farming groups from the Great Lakes and represent the most Western expansion of Macro-Siouan peoples. The Lakota were originally called the Western Sioux and arrived in the Plains around 1690. The original people of the Great Lakes called the Sioux (French abbreviation Nadowesioux which is Ojibway/Chippewa for 'Little Snake or enemy') referred to themselves as the Oceti Sakowin (Seven Council Fires). These seven make up what the Europeans referred to as the Great Sioux Nation or Eastern, Central and Western Sioux.
OCETI SAKOWIN
Language Group Nation/Fireplaces
Dakota (Santee/E. Sioux) Mdewakanton (spirit lake dwellers)
Wahpeton (leaf dwellers)
Sisseton (fish scale dwellers)
Wahpekute (leaf shooters)
Nakota (C. Sioux) Yankton (end dwellers)
Yanktonais (little end dwellers)
Lakota (W. Sioux) Teton (praire dwellers)
The Lakota Tetons broke away the most from their original farming roots in the Great Lakes and adapted to Plains buffalo-horse complex pastoral lifestyle that has so typified images of Plains culture and even American Indians in general. The Tetons were themselves organized into seven divisions. Lakota/Teton
Oglala (scatter their own)
Sicangu (burnt thighs) (Fr. term :Brule)
Hunkpapa (camps at the edge)
Mnikoju (plants beside the water) (also called Miniconju)
Sihasapa (black foot) (also called Blackfoot Sioux, but not the same as Algonkian grp of the same name)
Oohenunpa (two boilings) (also called Two Kettle)
Itazipco (no bows) (Fr. term San Arcs)
Our case study is basically focused on the Oglala group because of the leaders we study at various historical time periods and ethnographic documentation.
I. Origins
Originally the Oglala were Woodland CBS farmers in the Great Lakes. The intrusion of French and English settlement began to cause a chain reaction of displacements eventually affecting the Great Lakes by the 1670's. The Oglala moved into the Plains ca 1700, acquired horses by 1750, and rose to power as other farming groups were decimated by European disease first in 1770s, and later in the 1840s. By 1850 the Lakota reached their largest population of over 40,000, and in 1852 the effects of European American westward expansion came to the Plains and was followed by ever increasing settlement after the Civil War and with the introduction of the railroad.
II. Traditional Culture
Therefore, traditional culture for the Oglala is their Plains adaptation of about 1850, which will be quickly eroded by continued expansion by Euro-American frontiers moving out beyond the Mississippi River in the mid 19th century. As the people moved into the Plains and acquire horses the farming practices were dropped and they adapted to the buffalo/bison-horse complex. This involved a transformation of focus on the powers of fertility of CBS to the fertility of the Plains Bison. This meant shifting the winter solstice renewal ceremonies and the three sisters (CBS) to the summer solstice in late June and White Buffalo Calf Woman. This shift is exemplified in the Sun Dance Ceremony that occurs at the time of the summer solstice in conjunction with the bisons fattening up, winter coats coming in and was followed by a great communal bison.
Lakota/Oglala 1800-1890
Language Macro Siouan Lakota
Settlement Powder River/Black Hills Oglala Bands (7)/Leaders
Payabya (cause to go forward) Old Man, Young Man Afraid of His Horses, Crazy Horse
Tapisleca (split liver) Yellow Bear, White Bird
Kiyaksa (cut off)
Wajaje (snake people)
Itesica (bad faces) Red Cloud
Oyuhpe (thrown down) Red Dog,Big Road
Wagluhe (loafers) Smoke
Economics B-H Complex, Tipi Hunting and Gathering
Horse pastoralism
Communal Late Summer Bison Hunts
Social tunwan nation
oyate tribe
tiyospaye band
wicoti camp
tiwahe family
Birth Order Naming, Matrilineal,Patrilocal residence, levirate/sororate,dream societies Leadership/Flexible Camp Circle: Tezi Tanka (big bellies) Chief Society (7)
Wicasa Yatanpi (men they praise) Shirt Wearers (4)
Akicita (soldier) Soldier Society
Wakan people various ritual and healing specialists
Witansna (virgins) ritual assistants
World View Emergence mythic motiff
Wakan = sacred; Wakan Tanka= Great Sacred or Mysterious
Lakota Ritual: Inikagapi sweat lodge
Hanbleceya vision quest
Wanagi Yuhapi ghost keeeping (mourning for one year0
Wi Wanyang Wacipi sun dance (world renewal)
Hunkalowanpi making relatives
Isnati Awicalowan-hey girls puberty (honoring white buff. calf woman)
Tapa Wankayeyapi throwing the ball (unk.)
Expressed Forms Hide and Painting
Quill work
Stone pipes (red claystone from Pipestone, MN)
Singing and drum, northern style reflected in today's pow wows
Winter count buffalo hide pictographic histories; later in ledger books
III. Contemporary Culture
Todays Lakota (W. Sioux) live in small reservations reduced from the Great Sioux Reservation established in the Ft. Laramie Treaty of 1868 that consisted of 60 million acres and encompassed western South Dakota, North Dakota, eastern Wyoming and parts of Nebraska and Montana. The Custer expedition of 1874 and invasion of 1876 violated the Treaty of 1868. Eventually the Sioux Agreement of 1889 continued to erode the reservation to 2.8 million acres with subsequent reductions leading to the current reservations. Some Nakota (C. Sioux) and even Dakota (E. Sioux) are mixed in the reservation populations.
Contemporary Lakota Communities/Reservations
Reservation Culture Group
Cheyenne River Reservation,SD Itazipco (San Arc); Mnikoju (Miniconjou); Oo'henumpa (Two Kettle); Siha Sapa (Black Feet Sioux)
Lower Brule Reservation, SD Kul' Wicasa ( Brule/L. Burnt Thighs band)
Rosebud (Upper Brule) Reservation, SD Sicangu (Brule/Burnt Thighs
Pine Ridge Reservation, SD Oglala
Standing Rock Reservation, SD Hunkpapa ( some are still in Canada)
Contemporary Nakota Communities/Reservations
Reservation Culture Group
Crow Creek Reservation, SD Yankton; Yanktonai
Standing Rock Reservation, SD Yanktonai
Yankton Sioux Reservation, SD Yankton
Contemporary Dakota Communities/Reservations
Reservation Culture Group
Flandreau Santee Sioux Reservation, SD
Lake Traverse Reservation, SD/ND Wahpeton;Sisseton
Devil's Lake Sioux Reservation, ND Wahpeton; Sisseton
Lower Sioux Reservation, MN
Praire Island Community, MN Mdewakanton
Upper Sioux Reservation, MN Sisseton, Mdewakanton
Shakopee or Prior Lake Reservation Mdewakanton
Pine Ridge Reservation, home of the Oglala, continues to have problems from a traditional vs progressive civil war that only became diminished by 1980. However, underemployment continues to be a problem at Pine Ridge. There is also continued efforts to regain federal lands in the Black Hills. The Lakota were offered money for land that they were cheated out of, but refused payment and insisted on return of such land which is supported by the Reorganization Act of 1934. The Lakota, although justified, are not asking for privately owned land or state controlled land. It is not unreasonable to speculate that it would be a beneficial move for this country to return control of Dept. of Interior/ Federal lands to Native Americans, including the Oglala.
LINKS TO LAKOTA:
Lakota Dakota Information Page
Eyapaha Institute
A Study and Timeline of the Lakota Nation
Voice of Lakota Nation
Copyright © S. J. Crouthamel
MOHAWK
The Mohawk are one of the original five nations to form the League of the Iroquois or the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. This confederacy or league was formed around A.D.(C.E.) 1450 - 1580 to establish peace between the five nations and with other nations in the Northeast. A spiritual leader, Dekanawidah (Huron by birth living with the Seneca) and Hiawatha (Onondaga living among the Mohawk) are the legendary leaders to work out the alliances and establish the Great Binding Law: Gayanashagowa. This pre-European unification was used by Franklin and Jefferson as a preliminary model for the unification of the original 13 colonies that becomes the United States. In 1722 a sixth nation, the Tuscarora. Today this group is referred to as the Six Nations, especially since Iroquois is a French derivation of the Algonkian term for 'adders'.
Haudenosaunee /League of the Iroquois
Seneca People of the Great Hill Keepers of the Western Door
Cayuga People of the Mucky Land Keepers of the Pipe
Onondaga People of the Mountains Keepers of the Fire and Wampum
Oneida People of the Standing Stone or Granite
Mohawk People of the Flint Keepers of the Eastern Door
Tuscarora Shirt Wearing People taken in by the Oneida ca 1722
I. Origins
The origins of the original five Iroquoian nations that formed the League of the Iroquois is quite controversial in archaeological circle. Certainly, they have considerable antiquity in the area of upstate New York, possibly more than 4,000 years. Some scholars feel that the linguistic relationship to the Cherokee indicates and ancient connection, but the question remains who broke off from whom and when. In the Finger Lakes region of upper New York State the Owasco tradition and representative sites have many traits are felt to represent earlier Iroquoian traditions. Owasco tradition flourished from A.D. (C.E.) 900 - 1400 with large palasaded villages, longhouses, and increasingly sedentary CBS farming practices. This created a landscape of forested upland hunting areas and cleared lowland agricultural areas that were managed with controlled/seasonal burning. European settlers seemed to have either not understood that they were looking not at a wilderness, but at a better managed landscape; or they just simply lied. Eastern Woodland Indian people were all CBS farmers with cultivated fields/ villages the domain of women and forests the domain of men.
II. Traditional Culture
Tradtional Iroquois culture with the formation of the League of the Iroquois would have been in place between A.D. (C.E.) 1450 and 1650, when impact from French, Dutch and English began to bring changes. However, the Iroquois were able to maintain there power longer through the Covenant Chain trade alliances between various Native American groups and Europeans. Wampum shell was a medium of exchange for a considerable time on the frontier. Traditional cultural breakdown really comes more with the changes brought on by the United States.
Mohawk < 1650
Language Macro- Siouan Iroquoian
Settlement upper New York Mohawk Valley
Economcs CBS Farming,hunting/fishing
Longhouse, birch and elm bark; wampum money
Green Corn;Ripe Corn; Beans;Squash
deer,bear,moose,turkey, bass,smelt,pike
hickory,walnut,chestnut, berries,maple syrup
Social Organization Fireside Family
Longhouse Family
Clan/Clan Group
Tribe
Nation/League
Fireside / Longhouse/Clan: Matrilineal totemic exogamous: Bear, Turtle, Wolf matrisibs,kinterms parallel
Tribe/League: Sachem (Counselor of the People);10 from each tribe to League ; Pine Tree Cheifs (judicial)
World View Myth: Earthdiver ; Creator Twins; Three Sisters (corn/ beans/squash); Thunderers; Wind Spirits Calendrical Ceremonies
JAN Midwinter Ceremonies The Four Sacred Rituals:Feather, Thanksgiving, Personal,Bowl Game
Our Life Supporter Dances:Corn ,Beans,Squash
March-May Bush Dance, Maple, Sun,Thunder,Seed Planting
June- Strawberry
August Bean
Sept-Nov Little Corn
Green Corn: Our Life Supporter Dances & The Four Sacred Rituals (Again)
Nov Harvest
Non Calendrical Ceremonies
Society of Medicine Men (Shake the Pumpkin)
Little Water Society
Little People Society
Company of Mystic Animals:Bear,Buffalo, Eagle,Otter Societies
False Face Society
Husk Face Society
Other: Ten Day Feast, Feast of the Dead
Expressed Form Shell, Bark, Quill, Bead Woodcarving
Pottery, Woven cloth
Wampum belts; Bark housing, canoes an containers w/ quill work; masks, clubs
Utilitarian ware,capes/shawls
III. Contemporary Culture
The Iroquois Confederacy was a powerful force in the struggle for the fur trade and frontier of colonial and post colonial America. The Covenant Chain establish competitive trade relations with Native American Nations and invading European powers (French, English and Dutch), but also brought resentment and jealousy. Even when the various Iroquois nations tried to maintain neutrality in conflicts like the Revolutionary War, Americans constantly eroded traditional land holdings often pressuring various groups to move to Canada, Wisconsin and even West to Indian Territory (Oklahoma). A revitalization movement to restore traditional ways under Handsome Lake after 1799 continues to have an effect and is generally referred to as the Longhouse Movement.
Even with the many conflicting influences of European Americans such as missionaries and non-Indian schools the Six Nation people have held on to traditions like lacrosse and elements of the Longhouse Movement. Modern traditions have also emerged such as the tradition of Mohawks working the high steel workers on bridges and skyscrapers.
The Iroquois communities are all listed to include the Mohawk (in bold):
Country/State/Prov. Community Cultural Affiliation Statistics
New York, USA Allegany Reservation Seneca pop: 7312
Cattaraugus Reservation Seneca pop: 2,183
Cayuga Reservation Cayuga
Morris Reserve Canawagus Res.
Big Tree Res.
Little Beard's Town Res.
Squaky Hill Res.
Gardeau Res.
Caneadea Res.
Oil Springs Reservation Seneca pop: 0
Oneida Reservation Oneida
Onondaga Reservation Onondaga pop: 1,600
St.Regis Reservation Akwesasne Mohawk pop: 1,974
Tonawanda Reservation Seneca pop: 448
Tuscarora Nation Tuscarora pop: 353
Oklahoma, USA Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma Seneca, Cayuga (Mingoes) pop: 2,500
Wisconsin, USA Oneida Reservation Oneida pop: 2,450;enr.: 12,000
Quebec, Can Caughnawaga Mohawk
St. Regis Reserve Akwesasne Mohawk
Oka Reserve Mohawk
Ontario, Can Grand River Reserve Six Nations (all)
Tyendinaga Reserve Mohawk
Gibson Reserve Mohawk
Oneida Reserve Oneida
Mohawk Links:
Akwesasne Mohawk
Kahon:wes's Mohawk
Kahnawake Mohawk
The Wampum Chronicles
The Iroquois Constitution
Copyright © S. J. Crouthamel
IV. Contact: Intruder's New World
A. Early Explorations
Native Americans were the first explorers in America regardless of controversies surrounding origins. Native Americans out of necessity and sheer curiosity explored the continent. Even the Hopi note that rock art in various areas outside of their current area indicates their clans coming from different areas and people more than 1000 years ago to settle in today's NE Arizona location. We know that other small groups of 'Old World' peoples occasionally reached American shores before Columbus (AD 1492). Chinese, Japanese, Viking, and Portuguese came before Columbus but the evidence is minimal and not well documented in written records. Columbus didn't discover anything and was not even sure where he was (go to: Truths and Lies). Subsequently, Columbus' name is not used by Europeans to label the continent. Instead, the Italian navigator, Amerigo Vespucci gets his first name used; probably because he is the first to label America as "New World" on a map.
A more interesting question is why do Europeans begin leaving their homeland and invade the world. The Chinese started before Europeans but withdrew about 40 years before Columbus. The compass (from China) or 'wind rose' was certainly one of the most important tools to help Europeans out of the Mediterranean Sea. One stimulus, ultimately driven by greed, was to find a Northwest Passage. This was certainly the motivator for the Spanish and their competitors the English and the French, since the Pope in Rome gave the Portuguese the Eastern route around Africa, while the rest had to find their way west.
B. Columbian Exchange
The arrival of Columbus in AD 1492 was significant in many ways to the last 500 years here in America and the rest of the world. To Native Americans Columbus is simply one of many invaders to exploit and later displace Native American people and culture.
To explore the significance of those changes go to my interest area: Columbian Exchange
C. European Invasions and Colonization
Ultimately the 'New World' became new battleground for the Europeans powers struggling for land, gold and other resources. Initially, Spain was the dominant power in most of the New World. Portugal complains enough to get a Papal Bull giving them Brazil. In 1521 Hernando Cortez' ultimate defeat of Moctezuma II and the Aztecs was greatly aided with virulent diseases and Indian allies. Similarily invasion of the Inca and murder of their leader Atahualpa by Pizzaro in 1531 led to the pillaging of tremendous quantities of gold and silver for the Spanish treasury. England, France and other European powers covetted the wealth and developed various strategies, including piracy, to get the wealth of the 'New World'. Elizabeth I (ERI) was the most successful and launched England's naval might that eventually eclipsed Spain and France's power that led to the British Empire of Queen Victoria.
Spain sent secondary expeditions to find more gold in North America and the fabled Northwest Passage. Later, Spain will attempt to establish colonial footholds in the southern areas of North America, while England and France battled over the northern forests. Here is a summary of Spain's expansion into what is now the United States:
|AREA/DATE |SPANISH |NATIVE AMERICANS |SETTLEMENTS |
|Southeast 1539 |Desoto |(Tunica,Calusa, Creek, Cherokee, | |
| | |Chickasaw, Natchez) | |
|1565 |Menendez |Carlos I (Calusa) |St. Augustine, FL |
|Southwest 1540 |Coronado |Zuni,Lipan Apache,Comanche, | |
| | |Kiowa,Osage | |
|1598 |Onate |Pueblo |Sante Fe, NM |
|Alta California 1542 |Cabrillo |Kumeyaay,Gabrielino,Chumash | |
|1769 |Portola/Serra |Kumeyaay (Diegueno) |San Diego, CA |
The English became more bold after the defeat of the Spanish Armada, with the help of the Dutch and a storm off the Hebrides in 1588, begin to establish colonial experiments along the east coast of North America with Jamestown and Plymouth barely succeeding.
|AREA/DATE |ENGLISH |NATIVE AMERICANS |SETTLEMENT(S) |
|Southeast 1607 |Capt. J. Smith |Wahunsonacock (Powhatan) |Jamestown, VA |
|Northeast 1620 |E. Winslow (Pilgrims/Puritans) |Massasoit (Wampanoag) |Plymouth, MA |
The English expand their Eastern Seaboard settlements into13 colonies, but in conjunction with constant wars, mostly with France to the north and west, and Spain to the south.
France established trading forts in the St. Lawrence and expanded west through the Great Lakes and eventually down the Mississippi. At one point France will attempt to invade from the 'back door' (Ohio River) and establish Ft. Duquesne, but eventually looses it with the opening battle of the French and Indian War 1754-1763. With the English reestablishment of control of the Ohio Valley, Ft. Duquesne becomes Ft. Pitt; later Pittsburgh, PA.
|AREA/DATE |FRENCH |NATIVE AMERICAN |SETTLEMENT |
|Northeast/Maritimes 1534-1543 |Cartier |(Micmac), Donnacona (Iroquois) | |
|Southeast 1562 |Huguenots(Protestants) |Creek, Calusa |Ft. Caroline(destroyed 1566) |
|Northeast 1603 |Champlain |(Algonkian,Micmac, Iroquois) | |
|1608 |Champlain |(Algonkian) |Quebec |
|1615 |Champlain/Jesuits |(Huron) |Trois Riveres/Montreal |
|Southeast 1682 |LaSalle |(Osage,Chickasaw,Choctaw) |N. Orleans |
|Great lakes 1701 |Cadillac |(Ottawa,Huron,Chippewa, |Ft. Pontchartrain/Detroit |
| | |Potawatomi,Miami,etc) | |
The seeds of ideas derived from the Iroquois at treaty councils in Pennsylvania and Albany, New York in 1753-54 formed the basis to the Articles of Confederation of 1777 and the U.S. Constitution in 1789. At the same time the United States developed various strategies of displacing Native Americans through illegal land acquisition, treaties, and overt genocide. This basic pattern expanded what is termed as 'Frontier' that initially was anything west of the original 13 colonies or west of the Appalachian Mts. The first treaty was at Ft. Pitt in 1778 with Little Turtle of the Delaware. The Western frontier moved from western Appalachia over the Cumberland Gap to the Far West and eventually the Pacific. Pioneers generally followed trappers or 'Mountain Men' and included scientific expeditions, miners, farmers and herders.
D. American Frontiers
The American Frontier has a powerful effect on non-Indians and created a culture of 'limitless' opportunity and individuality. In turn this effect produced an innovative and pragmatic people trying to live up to democratic ideals, while trying to control rampant greed and destruction of Native America.
Native Americans are often portrayed as posing minimal resistance. Nothing could be further from the truth. Eastern Woodland peoples were established farmers and resisted in many ways. Like all cultures that have been invaded, people will resort to various forms of assimilation, fight or flight. In many cases fighting was combined with complex religious/cultural revitalization movements.
|Revitalization Movement/Conflict |Time |Cultures |Leaders |
|Pueblo Revolt |1680 |Pueblo (Tewa) |Pope' |
|San Diego Revolt |1774-80 |Diegueno (Kumeyaay) |Carlos, Francisco |
|Inca Revolt |1780 |Quechua (Inca) |Condorcanqui |
|Pontiac's Rebellion |1762 |Ottawa, Delaware,+ |Delaware Prophet |
|Longhouse Movement |1799 |Iroquois |Handsome Lake |
|Shawnee Prophet |1805 |Shawnee,Miami, Illinois |Tenskwatawa, Tecumseh |
|Kickapoo Movement |1819 |Kickapoo |Kanakuk |
|Sauk-Fox Wars |1838-52 |Sauk-Fox, Winnebago |Patheske |
|Ghost Dance I |1869 |Paiute, Yokut, Pomo |Tavibo |
|Smohalla Movement |1870-75 |Wanapum, Umatilla (Warm Springs) |Smohalla |
|Nez Perce Breakout |1875-77 |Nez Perce |Smohalla influence:Toohulhulsote |
|Yakima Shaker Movement |1880-90 |Yakima |Kotaiaqan |
|Salish Shaker Movement |1881 |Squaxin (Salish) |Squsachtun (John Slocum) |
|Apache Revolt |1881 |White Mt Apache |Nakaidoklini (murdered) |
|Potawatomi Prophet |1883 |Potawatomi |Potawatomi Prophet |
|Crow Uprising |1889 |Crow |Cheeztahpaezh (The Sword Bearer) |
| | | |(murdered) |
|Ghost Dance II |1887 |Paiute |Wovoka (Jack Wilson) |
|Plains Ghost Dance |1890 |Arapaho,Cheyenne,Lakota,etc. |Short Bull, Sitting Bull |
| | | |(murdered) |
|images/BHawks.jpgimages/BHawks.jpg| | | |
|Black Hawk & son | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
Most of these revolts were a combination of spiritual revitalization that were based on prophetic visions that instructed the people to return to traditions, how to bring back the dead, and even brought powers of invincibility in conflict with European Americans. Sometimes this brought disaster, but in many cases it brought hope and supported traditional revitalizations that shunned the worst vices of European American culture.
E. U.S. Federal Treaties and Policies
1. Removal
As the English win the war for the forest against the French the 13 colonies also break away in the American Revolution. As the United States begins it takes over some the same treaty strategies as the English, but also employs other techniques of displacement of Native American people. A conflict between the authority of federal vs. state produces a breach of federal treaty promises that initially results in segregation and ultimately removal and further segregation to what are referred to as reservations. In 1830 the Indian Removal Act begins by the federal government masking the need/greed for land under the guise of protecting the Native American people by removal to the Indian Territory (parts of Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Arkansas) east of the Mississippi River. Native American groups reacted in different ways with some fighting and others leaving on their own, being sick of being harassed by intruding European Americans. Some of the Five Civilized Tribes and others in the Eastern Woodlands hoped for federal protection and justice only to be forcibly removed in the Trail of Tears. The 19th century marks one of the greatest mass migrations in history but at the expense of the displacement of Native peoples.
2. Reservation System
As the Indian Territory filled up with Eastern Woodland people, Prairie/Plains people were also put into reservations in the western part of the territory but the government began to run out of room and so the U.S. government began to create reservations in the desert areas of the Plains and Far West (Basin, Plateau, Northwest Coast, California). Also, in California the state legislature blocked removal of California Indians to Indian Territory so as to retain a cheap labor force in California ranchos.
3. Native American Response
Native American response to the invasion and relocation at times became increasingly violent as treaties were broken and promises of payment in goods and services for land taken were not fulfilled by the government. Some of the wars were coupled with new religious movements (see Revitalization Movements) , while others were just attempts to stop invasion or retribution for broken promises.
|Remington's Rescueimages/Remrescue.jpgimages/Remrescue.jpg |Crook's Apache Scoutsimages/crooksc.jpgimages/crooksc.jpg |
The Plains Wars 1851-1890 and Apache Wars 1851-1886 are the most notorious but are only a small part of the conflicts from the Columbus' landing until the end of the 19th century- 400 years. There is a tendency for most Native American groups to be tolerant and or assimilate to European American culture.
4. Assimilation Policies
Some non-Indian immigrants were clearly in favor of displacing American Indians through various forms of genocide, but the majority of the public were for some form of assimilation. This attitude is based upon a manifest destiny combined with the notion that Western European culture was superior to Native American/American Indian cultures. Thus if you had some compassion you advocated converting or assimilating Native people. This did not necessarily advocate integration. The reservation succeeded in segregating Native Americans, but non Indian America felt obligated to assimilate Native Americans, which also became a means of controlling tribal governments and eventually a new technique of taking more land. The initial Indian Agents on the reservations were lazy, filthy and corrupt, so the government assigned missionaries to Indians already missionized by different denominations. This caused further conflict and was compounded by taking away the children to boarding schools that were not only corrupt and abusive, but taught that Euorpean American culture was superior but only taught domestic tasks to the girls and manual labor to the boys. Farming implements and training were never realized and in many cases would had been very productive. The Allotment Act was another method of assimilation by taking away tribal trusts and introducing privately owned allotments, but in reality the policy was designed to take away Indian owned lands and resources. The Dawes Commission was sent out to reservations to implement and enforce the Allotment Act after 1880 into the 1900s. When resources, like oil, were found non-Indians went into a frenzy of developing ways to dispossess Indians from resources and wealth, from murder to fraud. Some non-Indians felt that Native Americans were not worthy of the wealth as part of their justification for their own jealousy and greed.
The 19th century brought the displacement and assimilation of Native Americans, the closing of the frontier, and the destruction of 90% of America's original forests. The reservation effected the segregation of Native Americans. However, the loses were being felt and will launch anthropologists and conservationists in an attempt to recover cultural and natural resources. This begins in the late 19th century but really picks up before WWII. The cultural resources were of course Native American people and their traditional cultures. Some anthropologists saw this as an opportunity to gain fame and/ or preserve cultures that were quickly disappearing. Some Native Americans agreed and became informants or even anthropologists themselves. Others found anthropologists just as arrogant and greedy as other non-Indians. In some cases elders felt that some traditions included knowledge that embodied power that should not be abused and that the people no longer were capable of safely dealing with such matters, essentially entropy. This produced an even more radical view; with some merit at times, that some anthropologists were in the business of stealing cultures. Preserving traditional culture is a difficult task but it requires the preservation and recovering of traditional language. As we will see first basic citizenship and sovereignty are necessary in the 20th century, but traditional culture has begun to return as an issue today.
Copyright © S. J. Crouthamel
Truths & Lies
Home | Fall | Spring/Summer | AIS | AS | Anthro
Native American Truths & Lies Painting: J. Cooday (Tlingit)
I . Columbus didn't discover anything and wasn't first.
American Indians were here first.
Other cultures may have been here before A.D. 1492 ,e.g. Asian, Afro-Phoenician, N. European.
II. Columbus was not just curious and noble in motive.
Columbus wanted gold, wealth and power.
Columbus exploited and exterminated Native Americans.
III. Columbus and his crew nor Native Americans saw the earth as flat.
This was started by the American novelist, Washington Irving, in 1828.
It was and is used to create an image of a bolder and smarter Columbus with a primitive crew and Native Americans.
Native Americans and the Columbus crew were quite aware of the roundness of the earth as seen when a ship disappears over the horizon.
IV. The population of the Americas was not a few 'roving bands' in a wilderness.
George Catlin (1840) estimated that North America had 14 million people in 1492; but James Mooney (1921) and other anthropologists concluded that only 1 million Native Americans lived in North America.
Current figures (A.D. 1492) are:
North America 14 million
Meso-America 46 million
South America 43 million
V. Native Americans were not backward and primitive.
The implication that few Native Americans lived here contributes to
the'primitive image'.
Native Americans of the Caribbean were not naked simpletons in awe of
Columbus.
When the Santa Maria was wrecked off Haiti, Columbus elicited the aid of
the nearest native American leader, Guacanagari, who resupplied
Columbus and unloaded the wrecked Santa Maria before it sank.
Native Americans made many contributions to Europe and the world during tha last 500 years. The exchange of ideas and technology is now called the Columbian Exchange.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Indian Studies Topics
Luiseno Ethnobotany:
|Bean, Lowell John and Katherine Siva Saubel 1972 Temalpakh: A Cahuilla Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Banning CA: Malki Museum Press. |
|Clarke, C.B. 1977 Edible and Useful Plants of California. California Natural History Guide:41. Berkeley: U. of Ca.Press. |
|Harrington, John P. 1934 A New Original Version of Boscana's Historical Account of the San Juan Capistrano Indians of Southern California. |
|Smithsonian Misc. Collection 92 (4):1-62. Smithsonian Institution, Wash. D.C. |
|Munz, P.A. 1968 A California Flora. Berkeley: U. of CA Press. |
|Schoenherr, Alan A. 1992 A Natural History of California. California Natural History Guides:56. Berkeley : U. of CA Press. |
|Sparkman, Philip S. 1908 The Culture of the Luiseno Indians. U. of CA Pub. in Am. Arch. and Ethnology 8 (4): 187-234. Berkeley & Los |
|Angeles. |
|White, Raymond C. 1963 Luiseno Social Organization. U. of CA Pub. in Am. Arch. Ethnology 48 (2): 1-194. Berkeley: U. of CA Press. |
Truths and Lies:
|Dobyns, H. F. 1983 Their Numbers Became Thinned. Knoxville: U. of Tenn. Press |
|Gordon, Cyrus 1971 Before Columbus. N.Y.:Crown. |
|Las Casas, Bartlome' de 1971 History of the Indies. N.Y.: Harper & Row. |
|Pairwonsky, M. 1991 The Conquest of Eden:1493-1515. Chicago: Academy. |
|Russell, J.B. 1991 Inventing the Flat Earth. N.Y.: Preager. |
|Sale, Kirpatrick 1990 Conquest of Paradise. N.Y.: St. Martins |
|Thornton, R. 1987 American Holocaust and Survival:A Population History Since 1492. Norman: U. of OK Press. |
|Von Wuthenau, A. 1975 Unexpected Faces in Ancient America. N.Y.: Crown. |
|Wahlgren, Erik 1986 The Vikings & America. N.Y.: Thames & Hudson. |
Columbian Exchange:
|Barreiro, Jose (Ed.) 1988 Indian Roots of American Democracy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. |
|Crosby, A.W. 1988 The Columbian Exchange. N.Y.: Greenwood Press. |
|Fuson, Robert H. (Trans.) 1987 The Log of Christopher Columbus. Camden, Maine: International Marine Publishing. |
|Jennings, Francis 1975 The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest. Chapel Hill: U. of NC Press. |
|Morison, Samuel E. 1942 Admiral of the Ocean Sea. 2 vols. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. |
|Todorov, Tzvetan 1984 The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other. N.Y.: Harper & Row. |
|Viola, Herman J. & C. Margolis 1990 Seeds of Change: A Quincentennial Commemoration. Washington & London: Smithsonian Institution Press. |
|Weatherford, Jack 1988 Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World. N.Y.: Crown. |
Repatriation:
|Bieder, Robert E. 1986 Science Encounters the Indian, 1820-1880: The Early Years of American Ethnology. Norman. U. of Oklahoma Press |
|Deloria, Vine 1995 Red Earth, White Lies, Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact. Scribners, New York. |
|Echo-Hawk, Roger C. and Walter R Echo-Hawk 1994 Battlefields and Burial Grounds: The Indian Struggle to Protect Ancestral Graves in the |
|United States. Lerner Pub. Co. Minnesota. |
|Gould, Stephen J. 1981 The Mismeasure of Man. N.Y. W.W. Norton & Co. |
|Jaimes, M. Annette (Ed.) 1992 The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonization and Resistance. South End Press. Boston. |
|Meighan, Clement W. 1992 "Some Scholar's Views on Reburial". American Antiquity. 57:704-710. |
|Swidler, Nina; et al (Eds.) 1997 Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground. Alta Mira Press and Society for |
|American Archaeology |
|Trigger, Bruce 1980 "Archaeology and the Image of the American Indian". American Antiquity 45:662-676. |
|Vecsey, Christopher (Ed.) 1991 Handbook of American Indian Religious Freedom. Crossroads Pub. Co. N.Y. |
|Willey, Gordon and J. Sabloff 1980 A History of American Archaeology. 2nd Ed. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco. |
Columbian Exchange
Home | Fall | Spring/Summer | AIS | AS | Anthro
In 1992 there was an international recognition of the Quincentennial of Columbus' voyage to America. This 500th(1492-1992) anniversary was viewed with disdain and downright hostility by Native American communities. However, before the planned events various academic and government institutions in the Americas and abroad met with scholars and Native American leaders to seek ways to celebrate in a more sensitive spirit to all people. Ultimately, by the time the celebrations took place considerable diffusion and compromise resulted in an emphasis of the effects of one of the most dramatic and influential events in human history. The emphasis tended to focus on the 'Columbian Exchange', a phrase and concept taken from a book written in 1972 by social historian Alfred W. Crosby. The Columbian Exchange was both biological and cultural. This exchange and its effects on the world became the focus of the quincentennial. Subsequently, the Columbian Exchange has become a part of many history texts and courses.
The five hundred years since Columbus arrived in the Caribbean brought many changes to America and the entire world. The most significant change was the the dispossession of Native Americans from most of their native land yet not their total disappearance. It is necessary to make it clear to the public and students that Native Americans are still here and that Native American cultures were as diverse as in the entire world . Further, many of the effects of the Columbian Exchange were not well known or understood, especially contributions made by Native American people.
The exchange of specific things are the most tangible and were narrowed down by historians to the most important five in terms of their biological and cultural impact. Many scholars debated about which should be included on this list, but finally settled on the following as having the most significant impact:
|American Corn (Maize) |
| |omar.edu/scrout/images/cmaidens.jpg |
|Potato |
| |lomar.edu/scrout/images/potatopot.jpg |
|Horse |
| |ar.edu/scrout/images/horse1.jpg |
|Disease |
| |.edu/scrout/images/med1.jpg |
|Sugar |
| |ar.edu/scrout/images/sugar1.jpg |
The exchange of ideas is more difficult to document and generates more controversy. However various ideas certainly came into their own during the Columbian Exchange and had a considerable impact on the world that is becoming more globally integrated based on the following ideas:
|Liberty |
| |mar.edu/scrout/images/liberty.jpg |
|Corporate Structure |
| |lomar.edu/scrout/images/Corporate.jpg |
|Ecology |
| |ar.edu/scrout/images/BEagle.jpg |
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Revised 2003
Plains Wars 1851-1890 PCheyws.jpgPCheyws.jpg
Plains warfare between various American Indian groups; and various European American groups was influenced and precluded by changes in technologies and military strategies in the Eastern Woodlands and Southwest from earlier colonial contacts of French, Dutch, English, Spanish and others from the late 1500's into the mid 1800's. Even during the peak conflicts (1851-1890) the American army tactics and techniques of warfare change, as well as the Plains cultures.
Warfare has many aspects and analysis begins with the reasons and goals humans propose for engaging in such futile and wasteful action. Tactics and Techniques are the terms military historians use to refer the methods of conducting war. It is generally accepted but not readily admitted that warfare is magnified and intensified in conjunction with the development of agriculture/civilization and further with industrialization. This created a contradiction when the term civilization is used since cultures became more violent with the never ending competition for resources as agriculture produced increased populations. In our own arrogance we see pre-industrial cultures as being inferior and less civilized; when in fact from the crucial perspective of human behavior and relationships contemporary culture is mired in cultural regression.
American Indian cultures of the Eastern Woodlands, Plains and Southwest had developed a more competitive agricultural lifestyle with intensification of warfare. Europeans by the 1600s were also agriculturalists but had moved more quickly in industrial pursuits of metal and gunpowder acquired from China. European warfare was certainly more organized and pervasive in the idea of conquest by destruction of property and slaughter of men, women and children. Certainly American Indians were equally ruthless but tended to conduct smaller scale raids and captured women and children for adoption to replace their own losses. Initial conflicts in the East and Southwest indicate that American Indians were impressed with firearms, metal, and horses; but that the bow and arrow had a greater rate of fire. It also was recognized by European Americans that disease was the more effective weapon for the removal of Indian populations. Further, the use of Indian mercenaries could be effective in tracking, guerilla warfare and even in conventional battles (e.g. B. of Horseshoe Bend).
As both sides fought as allies or enemies, tactics and techniques changed as the gun began to be more effective. In the 1600s the matchlock and flintlock were rather inaccurate and had a slow rate of fire. From 1750-1840 the muzzle loading flintlock musket (smooth barrel) evolved to the much more accurate flintlock rifle (rifled/grooved barrel) that is sometimes referred to as the 'Kentucky Rifle'.
Pennsylvania/Kentucky Rifle
From about 1840-1851 the percussion breech loading rifle was common like the famous Hawkins Rifle which was effective in the slaughter of the Plain's Bison.
Just after the time the frontier that had jumped from St. Louis/ Independence, Missouri to the Far West via the Oregon Trail, California Trail, Immigrant Trail and Sante Fe Trail settlers began to covet land and resources in the Plains around 1850 the cartridge and breech loading weapons were developed such as early Spencer and Springfield rifles and carbines in the US. Plains tribes had acquired horses between 1650 and 1750, which they adapted in hunting and warfare. They had acquired early flintlock and percussion weapons but retained traditional weapons for back up and greater reliability. In fact Plains Indians kept up with the advancement of weapons and at certain times they had more modern weapons than the US Army.
Springfield 45-70
At the time of Red Cloud's War 1866-1868 early Henry and later Winchester repeating carbines and rifles came out. It was also clear that the small scale and individualistic tactic of counting coup by young warriors was no longer effective with the US Army sustaining a fire fight. The increased amount of ammunition that could be carried and fired contributed to this with the additional determination to drive the European American settlers out the Bozeman Trail area. This was an arrogant and aggressive violation of the Treaty of Ft. Laramie for Northern Plains Lakota (Sioux), Cheyenne and Arapaho and threatened some of the last existing northern herds of bison. Red Cloud (Lakota) began to sustain engagements and stop young men from going ahead to count coup and gain traditional honors. The Fetterman Fight (B. of the 100 Slain) was the best and most successful example of these changes.
Fettfight.gifFettfight.gif
Subsequent leaders like Crazy Horse continued these strategies during the Little Bighorn Campaigns. By 1876 the Plains Indians had a substantial number of firearms including repeating Winchester rifles/carbines and Colt revolvers. The US Army was still equipped with the single shot Springfield rifle/carbine. For this short moment in history American Indians had the skill, will and technological edge that gave them victories. However, the US Army command knew that their best weapon was to destroy the life blood of the people, their food base, the bison. The humiliation of defeat gave uninhibited freedom for the US Army to launch a new winter campaign 1876-1877 that would bring in most of the people to the forts/reservations and drive some , like Sitting Bull, to Canada.
The later part of the 19th century (1880-) was limited to various acculturation policies to include reservations, boarding schools, allotment and missionaries. In 1890 some of the northern Plains people became so despondent that they tried to effect change through the Ghost Dance Movement. The US government Indian agent and military panicked and tried to suppress the movement which ended with the massacre at Wounded Knee on Dec 29, 1890. By this time smokeless cartridges and howitzers with explosive shells were part of the US armies issue weapons. The Lakota victims were poorly armed and this resulted in heavy casualties (300+), including women and children. Many of the soldier casualties were from their own crossfire, reflecting on the loss of control on the part of the 7th cavalry.
Native Americans and Anthropologists
Home | Fall | Spring/Summer | AIS | AS | Anthro
bow case & quiver
When Europeans first set foot on American shores they were amazed at a unique landscape that included stange creatures like the hummingbird and opposum; as well as an unknown, exotic, people. The strangeness was somewhat due to the relative isolation and ignorance of the Europeans in early times, but also due to the fact that early writers were not primary observers and manipulated images for their audiences. Yet, America did not easily fit into known Biblical or antiquarian notions about the world. During the colonial period and in the early days of this nation various scholars began to speculate about Native American people. Most of the early 'armchair' scholars in Europe tended to skew their perception of America to be inferior in people and environment. Since 18th century European thinking saw the environment as the primary deterministic factor in molding culture, it was even assumed that an inferior American environment would have a degenerative effect on European immigrants and that further explained the rebellious attitude among the colonists. Although influenced by such European 'Enlightenment' early Euro-Americans began to react, with Thomas Jefferson defending the American environment and its inhabitants in his report to the French, Notes on the State of Virginia (1787). Other Americans like Winthrop Jordan, Benjamin Smith Barton, and Benjamin Rush followed suit. However, as more land and resources were coveted by colonists at the end of the 18th century, it became more convienent to question the rights of Native Americans. A debate had also emerged as to what people were responsible for the construction of over 100,000 mounds and earthworks throughout Eastern North America. The place that American Indians filled in emerging questions about human evolution were complicated by Euro-American arrogance and racism coupled with increasing pressure to expand a frontier as one of the greatest mass migrations of people to America was building to a peak in the late 19th and early twentieth centuries. Some scholars were beginning to criticize the Biblical concept of the unity of mankind or monogenism and explain cultural differences and Native American rebelliousness as evidence that Native Americans and other cultures were derived from a separate species or polygenism. One can also see that some of this leads to further justification of inservitude and slavery. Even monogenists felt that Native Americans and other cultures should be taught and expected to convert to 'civilization' or Euro-American culture. The early American scholars involved in such debates set the stage for the development of the American versions of the anthropological fields such as ethnology, linguistics, craniology, and archaelogy. These early scholarly writings appear relatively reasonable in some cases and very wrong in others. Some, like Dr. Samuel Morton,have been shown to have purposely falsified measurements of human skull volumes to generate a false picture that Europeans were superior based on the equally false notion that cranial capacity is a measure of relative intelligence (see also, Repatriation). Most of these early scholars reflected the bias of the inevitability of the displacement of the American Indian and their conversion to a predominantly European cultural ideal. Here is a list of some of these early scholars of Native American people and culture.
|NAME |DATES |THEORETICAL |AFFILIATIONS |
|Thomas Jefferson |1743-1826 |monogenist |American Philosophical Society, Univ. of |
| | | |Virginia, U.S. Pres. 1801-09, surveyor,etc. |
|Albert Gallatin |1761-1849 |monogenist |U.S. Senate1793,Sec. of Treas. 1801, Bur. of|
| | | |Indian Affairs, Am.Antiquarian |
| | | |Soc.,linguistics |
|Samuel G.Morton |1799-1861 |polygenist |physician, Phila,PA, Am. Philosophical |
| | | |Soc.,Acad. of Nat. Sciences, craniology |
|Ephraim G. Squier |1821-1888 |polygenist |Am. Antiquarian Soc.,Am. Ethno. |
| | | |Soc.,surveyed mounds |
|Henry R. Schoolcraft |1793-1864 |polygenist |U.S. govt. geologist and local Indian Agent,|
| | | |ethnology, folklore |
|Lewis H. Morgan |1818-1881 |monogenist |Am. Assoc.for the Adv. of Science,Ely S. |
| | | |Parker (Seneca), NY Hist. Soc.,ethnology esp|
| | | |kinship |
|John W. Powell | |monogeneist |1st Dir. of US Geological Survey and Bur. of|
| | | |Amer. Ethnology (BAE) |
John Wesley Powell with his vision of the Bureau of American Ethnology(BAE) and its establishment in 1879 ecame the primary link for the development of professional anthropology in America. The initial contributors were a mix of amateurs, antiquarians, early professionals. It became clear to Powell and others that methods of archaeological field excavation required controlled stratigraphy and documentation. As the Smithsonian Museum and the Bureau of American Ethnology developed the expectation of university trained staff a mutual incentive for the formation of the early departments of anthropology at American universities was established.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CONTEMPORARY NATIVE AMERICA
WWI and U.S. Citizenship
The overall effect of the First World War was dramatic in terms of global politics, economics and demographic patterns. Certainly it was the end of the 'Gilded Age' in the U.S. or 'La Belle Epoch' in Europe. For the men and women that experienced this war there were far more severe psychological repercussions than any previous war resulting in 'the Lost Generation'. Native Americans fought in the 'Great War' with a greater ratio of participation than any other ethnic group in America (16% in Armed Services vs. 1% in the U.S. population). For many ethnic groups and women, participation in the war effort accentuated the inequality back home and stimulated action. Civil rights demands required multiple attempts, but women got the vote in 1920 (ratification of 19th Amendment) and Native Americans got the vote and became citizens in 1924. Before this the status of Native Americans varied, but in general they were considered wards of the government. So after 1924, if a person was of a federally recognized tribe/nation, one essentially became a dual citizen. Further, if you were a veteran of the U.S. Armed Services, a third set of rights applied.
Anthropologists
Initially the interest of anthropology was focused on physical comparisons (see Repatriation), but by the 1880's and into the first half of the 20th century ethnography became a primary concern of anthropology. By 1900 Native Americans reached an all time low population of 375,000 in North America, coinsided with the peak immigration into the United States. Language and traditional cultural activities had all but disappeared or went underground. In the name of science many ethnologists were frantically conducting interviews of the last elders with memory of their traditional cultures. Unfortunately most of these researchers did not even bother to share the information they gleaned resulting in subsequent surviving generations having very little to pass down. Also, with the passage of the Antiquity Act (1906) archaeologists intensified accumulating artifacts on behalf of museum collections and university laboratories. During the depression, with huge public works projects like TVA, archaeological excavation became part of the New Deal. Native Americans were loosing people and cultural traditions; and in some cases during the depression whole families were loosing land with the enforcement of the Allotment Act of a 1880. In Oklahoma, American Indians were being swindled in and out of the courts, and murdered for oil rich land.
Reorganization Act
As part of the New Deal the Indian Reorganization Act was passed in 1934 as a measure to rectify the damage of the Allotment Act (1880) and the hard times of the depression. The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) attempted to restore land, revitalize traditional art and culture, and to strengthen tribal governments. Some of these goals were modestly implemented, but WWII severely rerouted funds and drained the leadership among tribal members.
Post World War IIimages/JQutoseeIHorse.jpgimages/JQutoseeIHorse.jpg
As in the Great War (WWI), Native Americans served their country by a population ratio of 16:1 and this continued in subsequent conflicts thru the Gulf War. The effect of this was to accentuate inequities in the home front and ultimately fuel new civil rights movements by many disparate groups in American society. Then the Eisenhower Administration ushered in a new Indian policy called Termination. This policy was actually precluded by a "Job Relocation Program" and followed with a House Concurrent Resolution 108 in 1953 which in effect terminated the trust relationship with many federally recognized tribes. The effect was a massive migration of Native Americans to major cities where it was obvious that the promise of economic opportunity and any semblance of equality was not going to be achieved by relocation from reservations to cities. Such disparity in conjunction with the increased loss of cultural ties from being away from traditional community and lifestyles produced grass roots movements from the urban Native Americans. As the Civil Rights Movements and Vietnam War protests revealed a greater willingness toward rebellion, urban Native Americans formed organizations like American Indian Movement (AIM) in 1968 . Also, because of media attention, older grass roots organizations like the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) formed in 1944 continue to be active but are less visible to the public.
In 1972 AIM drew national attention with a protest march to Washington, D.C. called 'The Trail of Broken Treaties'. After a 6 day siege of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) offices the press and other Native American groups like members of the National Tribal Chairman's Association (NTCA) claimed that the militants had done considerable damage to property and removed records. Such attention and accusations escalated the reputation of AIM as being violent and dangerous thus bringing in full FBI scrutiny and activity directed to separating political factions of Native American groups. This was played out with AIM returning to rural roots with seeking spiritual guidance from traditionalists at the Pine Ridge community of Ogallala in South Dakota. However, AIM's presence brought confrontation with less traditional elements of the current tribal council. In 1973 AIM occupied the small town of Wounded Knee which lasted 70 days with Federal Agents escalating the incident to an armed siege. In effect a civil war continued conflicts for three years. In 1975 a shootout erupted on Pine Ridge at Ogallala that resulted in 3 deaths, including 2 FBI agents and one Native American. Leonard Peltier was arrested and convicted for the murder of the FBI agents. Later, evidence revealed that he was not the perpetrator yet no retrial or pardon has been effected. AIM was effective in drawing attention to injustices and problems Federal Indian policy, but its reputation has also alienated both non-Indian and some American Indians.
One effect of the general shift with the civil rights movement generated policy changes by 1975 that have been referred to as Self-Determination. Certainly these shifts produced changes in three specific areas: health, economic development, and resource management. For federally recognized Native Americans the treaties supposedly provided for the future needs of Native Americans. However, the U.S. government lied and /or simply avoided their trust responsibilities. Civil rights tended to focus on equal rights in society, but for Native Americans it included the keeping of treaty promises for land and resources taken by non-Indian immigrants. When protest groups like AIM arose they were arguing mainly for recognition of treaty rights. Most Americans do not know about this and assume that the government is providing Native Americans with a special form of welfare, which is not the case. This difference and lack of understanding of the treaty relationship gives the wrong impression that the Native Americans are getting preferential treatment or that non-Indians are being treated unfairly. Americans like an equal playing field, especially in their own self interest, and such equality was designated in the treaties. It could be argued that the provisions of the treaties were woefully inadequate and further it is clear that the government has reneged on those original promises. Self determination was taken seriously by many Native American leaders and it was clear that improvement would only come with greater sovereignty and economic independence. Initially tribal governments began building their own health care clinics, daycare/schools, and support services like fire and security. The federal government and local state governments did little in these areas as evidenced by numerous government reports and census statistics in the 1960's- 1980's. Many Native American grassroots organizations emerged in the same time period. Certain tribal council/governments recognized one advantage to doing business or production on a Indian reservation is the fact that a reservation is within federal jurisdiction. This eventually led to gaming and the boom of Indian Casinos. At the same time more Native American lawyers were working diligently to protect cultural resources and desecration of graves, which led to Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1990. The casino business allowed the tribes to provide what the federal government continues not to and is giving the means to also preserve and revitalize cultural resources including people. The gaming justified and legal but also has generated a fair amount of jealousy and greed from all corners. The positive and negative effects on Indian Gaming will become clearer in the 21st century. Native American communities have also opened up into global issues and have become active in world movements of indigenous people such as WIPCE. Issues of cultural resources and sovereignty are focused on.
Copyright © S. J. Crouthamel
Repatriation
Home | Fall | Spring/Summer | AIS | AS | Anthro
For Native Americans repatriation has always been an issue, since non-Indians,especially European Americans, have consistently attempted to take or destroy everything in the name of progress. It appears that a double standard was part of our emerging nation in many respects, especially in regards to human rights. In respect to grave goods and human remains in burials, laws were initiated in 1788 for European American burials but not extended to include Native Americans. Even Thomas Jefferson had his slaves dig a trench through a burial mound on his Monticello plantation. Dr. Samuel Morton, a Philadelphia doctor collected over 1000 human skulls in the mid-19th century to measure cranial capacities to determine brain size which was viewed as the criteria for human intelligence. Many of the skulls were of Native Americans recently dispossessed by the 1830 Indian Removal Act which caused the removal of most of the Eastern Woodland people west of the Mississippi. Morton has been discredited, but in his day his conclusions that African Americans and Native Americans were 'inferior races' influenced attitude and policies regarding slavery, human remains, and religion.
. Samuel Morton
After 1868, the Army Medical Museum in Washington, D.C. embarked on its own study of Native American skulls from battlefields and even from recently buried individuals on reservations. These were collected by Army surgeons, Indian agents, anthropologists, and locals.
An 1892 letter by Army surgeon Z.T. Daniel reveals how he obtained skulls from the Blackfeet,stating "I collected them in a way somewhat unusual : the burial place is in plain sight of many Indian houses and very near frequented roads. I had to visit the country at night when not even the dogs were stirring...The greatest fear I had was that some Indian would miss the heads, see my tracks & ambush me, but they didn't." There are a number of documents indicating that skulls were taken not only from battlefields, but from 'fresh' graves and from bodies of Native Americans that died in the hands of government agents. It became a common concern for Native American people and often bodies had to be taken away from non-Indian authorities because of such rampant desecration. The most famous might also sold to carnivals for exhibit. Chief Crazy Horse's body was fortunately taken by Lakota people and secretly interred.
Other museums joined in and even sent out their own expeditions to plunder Indian burials. The largest collections in the United States ended up at the following:
|Smithsonian Institution, Wash. D.C. |18,500 Native American remains |
|Peabody Museum, Harvard U. |10,500 Native American remains |
|American Museum of Natural History, N.Y.,N.Y. |8,000 Native American remains |
|Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL |3,000 Native American remains |
|San Diego Museum of Man |1,110 mostly Ca.; some cremations |
|Museum of Cultural History, UCLA, Los Angeles,CA |1,300(mostly Ca. tribes) |
|Lowie Museum of Anthro., UCB, Berkeley,CA |8,000 remains (many diff. groups) |
|Anthro.Dept., Stanford U.,Palo Alto, CA |550 remains ( N. Ca. Tribes) |
The displacement of many Native American people and the general 19th century perception that Native Americans would disappear led to many prehistoric sites being pillaged or used as a tourist attraction, including burial mounds. The Antiquities Act of 1906 protected federal lands from being looted by pot hunters, but did not prevent desecration of graves and patriation of human remains by public and private museums. In the early part of the 20th century Native American populations, especially in North America reached their lowest numbers (~100,000 in the U.S.) but steadily increased to 2 million by the 1990's. After World War II, the Civil Rights Movement, and Vietnam the combination of Native American cultural revitalization, increased challenges to the erosion of Native American sovereignty, and the questioning of ethics in the academic community brought on a number changes leading to the Repatriation Movement. During the 1970's a number of cases concerning Native American burials and human remains were brought to the courts resulting in reburial and even changing the law to, after 200 years, protecting the graves of Native Americans. Since the Federal Government would not defend Native American civil rights, many Native American groups were formed to become advocates to such issues. One organization called American Indians Against Desecration (AID) has worked in conjunction with the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), Native American Rights Fund (NARF), and others to repatriate. Many anthropologists opposed the actions of the Native American groups arguing that science has precedence over religious beliefs and that living Native Americans did not always have claim to prehistoric remains that are difficult to trace thousands of years. An organization known as American Committee for Preservation of Archaeological Collections (ACPAC) has become a strong advocate for combating the reburial movement.
State and Federal governments and agencies have enacted a number of pieces of legislation allowing for repatriation, protecting burials and cultural resources, and protecting sacred sites.The Federal Acts are listed as follows:
|Legislation |Passed |Notes |
|Antiquities Act |1906 |some protection of archaeological resources |
| | |for arch. science |
|National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) |1966 |consultation with Native Americans and public |
| | |in reference to national registry sites |
|National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) |1969 |natural and cultural resource assessments |
|Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) |1979 |consultation and confidentiality about arch. |
| | |resources that requires federal permit |
|American Indian Religious Freedom Act (ARFA) |1979 |not well enforced, esp. in courts |
|Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) |1990 |consultation and repatriation with Native |
| | |Americans in reference to human |
| | |remains,funeral objects, and sacred objects in|
| | |public agency control |
| | | |
The legislation referred to as NAGPRA has had the most sweeping effects and set into motion a process that requires public institutions to report their holdings of human remains, grave goods, and other sacred objects. Native Americans have gotten some resolution to the recovery of human remains and objects that hold religious or sacred import. Unfortunately, some anthropologists and some Native Americans use such legislation as a pure political tool and do not seem to be willing to communicate or empathize with differing points of view. Some Native American groups have sincere traditional beliefs and some scientists sincerely seek knowledge and scientific inquiry. Also, this legislation is not a means to recovering all valuable art and cultural resources as some opponents claim. Native American cultures have different beliefs about human remains, mortuary customs and sacred objects. Some Native American groups, nations, and communities have and continue to work cooperatively with anthropologists in studying their past.
Corn Dance
BIBLIOGRAPHY
LINKS:
Kumeyaay Cultural Resource Committee
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- american indians and settlers
- american indians and european settlers
- american indians in south carolina
- what does the u in math mean
- the u s bill of rights
- american indians crossword
- the u s constitution and amendments
- god in the u s constitution
- latest news in the u s
- indians and europeans relationship
- battles between indians and settlers
- should the u s attack mexico