The local branch offices of the Bureau located on Indian Reservations are called Agencies, and are headed by a federal employee known as the Superintendent. The Agency is located in a central place on each reservation, usually in the main village or town. Often the name of the town reflects this, as in the case of the Crow, where the central town is named Crow Agency. Often traces remain of the old Army post, such as old brick or frame Army buildings or stables, and the remains of a military parade ground.
Each Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Agency has from about twenty to a hundred federal employees. Due to Indian Preference laws,(which give Indians first chance at BIA jobs), most BIA employees are of Indian blood, although not always from the same tribe where the agency is located. There is usually a medical clinic or small hospital in the area, operated by the Indian Health Service (IHS), a federal agency not part of BIA.
After a very few days in Billings, I traveled with Bill Benjamin to the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, in South Central Montana. We did our work at a federal government office there, in an old remodeled school building, which the locals simply called the Agency.
The word nation where it relates to Indian tribes can be a little confusing, since nation is often misused to mean country or state. The definition of "nation" means a group of people who share common customs and history and who frequently have the same language, race or religion. The term correctly applies to American Indian tribes, and there is nothing negative about that. You should be aware that people who are anti-Indian use "Indian Nation" in a scathing manner, to imply that Indians are foreign or disloyal to the United States. The idea is that they should be eliminated, and the Indian Nation distinction should be abandoned.
"State" refers to a self-governing political body, and since all of our tribes were fully self governing before there was a United States, and many remain at least partly self governing today, they are properly described as nation-states. Neither of these titles were somehow given to tribes by the United States. The are simply terms that correctly define the acknowledged status of Indian Tribes in the United States.
"Country" means place or location, and in that fashion Indians speak of the reservation land as Indian Country.
There are many variations among tribes, at different locations, and within the structure of BIA itself. For instance, in some locations there are BIA schools, in others the State operates schools and receives funding from BIA, and churches also operate religious schools. Rather than list endless details, here is a typical situation for the Billings Area in Montana and Wyoming.
Each reservation consists of several small villages and rural areas. There is a branch BIA office on each reservation (the Agency), usually located not far from the office of the Tribal government (which is elected by the members of the tribe).
In the past BIA provided medical services. There were so many complaints about BIA corruption in health care that this resulted in public outrage. Congress transferred Indian health care to another federal agency. The historical record about this is clear and well documented, but Indian health care remains a disgrace even though BIA is no longer the federal bureau that provides the health care.
Many local government functions are provided by BIA. BIA likely will handle police, fire, highway maintenance, and sometimes schools, public utilities, social services, parks and the like. Tribal government may contract with BIA to provide some of these services, and when this is done BIA reimburses the Tribe for its expenses (within federal limitations). This whole process leaves BIA with tight control over tribal government.
In Montana, Indians have the right to attend public schools, which are reimbursed by BIA since the children live on land which is exempt from state taxation. This was set-up as a specific condition for the former Territory of Montana when it became a State, but that tax exempt situation is the same in most all states that have Indian reservations.
The tribal police are supposed to support both federal and tribal laws. However they do not report to the elected tribal government, but instead (in most cases) report to the BIA Superintendent, which undermines tribal government and law enforcement. It is a routine matter for any government to control its own laws and police, but our Indian tribes are not allowed to do this, in violation of the basic international concepts of the "law of nations."
Tribal courts exist, but are limited to minor crimes, the custody of children, handling of estates and wills, etc. White ranchers don't like the concept of tribal courts or laws, which would (and should) have jurisdiction over them. At the Crow Reservation, where the Court became "uppity" in the eyes of the powerful whites, BIA (through Area Director Richard Whitesell) immediately moved to cancel the tribal court budget, to put it out of business. You can assume there was a phone call to a congressman from the offended whites, then a verbal order to BIA to find a way to defeat the tribal court. That's how things are done; Indian sovereign rights are under constant attack from BIA. The elected tribal governments do not have full control of their courts, laws, or police.
The Crow Tribe is not a "reorganized" tribe, as some are called. I won't go further to explain that legal term, except to say that tribes that were "reorganized" gave up their court jurisdiction over whites on the reservation. Because of this, the Crow Tribal Courts do have (in theory) their original (before there was a United States) complete civil jurisdiction within the reservation over such things as minor crimes, contracts, land titles, etc., which makes their courts feared by whites.
Crow Courts can (in theory) settle disputes between Indians and whites as to land ownership and land leases. This is no different than if those white ranchers had elected to buy land in Canada, which would then have complete jurisdiction over their legal matters, and as non-Canadian citizens, they would have no right to vote in Canadian elections.
You can bet the tribal courts fear to exercise their jurisdiction over white ranchers, and that the white ranchers do their best to undermine and sneer at the tribal courts, through their political influence with federal politicians and BIA. To date, the ranchers are winning and the Crow Tribe is failing in this struggle. Unlike other states, tribal governments do not fully have the power to regulate the behavior of all people within their borders.
All tribes have lost their jurisdiction over major crimes, such as murder, rape, arson, etc. This was accomplished years ago with a federal law called the major crimes act which placed all such crimes under federal (rather than tribal) jurisdiction. That law (which also violates the nation-state concept) still stands. No other American citizens are deprived of their basic civil right to make and enforce their own laws on such intimate local matters - except for Indians.
With no jurisdiction over major crimes, usually no jurisdiction over non-Indians even for minor crimes, and with BIA having a financial veto power over what's left (through the budget for tribal courts and police), you can see the haphazard mess we have made of Indian law and order. This is all to meet the demands of whites who live on or near Indian reservations, and is a form of racial and political discrimination that degrades Indian citizens.
Tourists from the East and from Europe enter Indian Country with curiosity, eager to see an Indian reservation. There are seldom signs, and the land is not marked with gates and fences. I have been asked, "how do you know when you're on an Indian reservation?"
The whites near Indian Country often give a bigoted answer to that question, such as "follow the trail of discarded trash, wine bottles and disposable diapers," but that's not an honest answer. I've been on many reservations many times, and I haven't noticed any difference in trash disposal compared to non-Indian lands. There is trash, but the cause is poverty, and you will see the same in any really poor area, white or Indian.
The difference is poverty. Where there are no fine homes, but only poorly maintained prefab houses crowded with too many people, lacking paint and maintenance with no basements or garages, then you're on the reservation. Many of our Indians preferred round houses such as teepees, and in respect of their strong religious beliefs, the door always faced to the East, the direction that honors nature and greets the morning sun.
The government houses are rectangles facing in random directions, which ignores the Maker of All Things. That simple matter, the shape of houses and the direction in which they are turned, is a slap in the face by an arrogant federal master. It is a daily reminder to Indians of the lack of respect given to their religion, culture and special status. Round houses are designed to keep family members in contact with one another, while square houses have boxes within (rooms) isolating the generations from each other. What's so terrible about a round house that honors the circle of life?
Often the land is poor, and the place where you enter a reservation is marked by where the green grass ends and the desert or badlands start. The good land is almost always owned or controlled by the whiteman, leaving the brush, desert and mountain sides (rocks, sand and ice) for Tribal ownership.
There are no fine cities, just poor villages on badly paved roads where even the dogs are thin. You won't find super-markets. Most stores are small convenience outlets that stock poor quality food, always owned by whites (licensed by BIA) who charge high prices. Recent model cars are rare; most are at least ten years old and Indians themselves speak of "Indian cars" with a certain wry amusement. For two or three hundred dollars you could take your pick of most of the cars you'll see on an Indian reservation. Certainly there are exceptions, and there are a few well off or wealthy Indians, but very few compared to the whites.
The gas-stations are owned by whites, the public utilities are owned and staffed by whites, and the goods purchased by Indians in off-reservation white owned stores are delivered by white employees.
The cattle owned by white ranchers are hauled to auction-yards owned by white investors, and the sugar beets and grain crops raised on white-controlled ranches (on Indian land irrigated with Indian water) are hauled away to non-Indian markets in white-owned trucks driven by white drivers. The money produced on Indian lands invariably goes into white pockets, while the Indians remain in deep poverty. The whites like it that way, and sneer at the Indians for being poor and "worthless."
I've stayed at the motels near Indian country, where white men travel through in nice cars going who knows where. Soon after dark, the parade begins. Young Indian girls, with straight black hair walk from motel to motel. To me they look young, like they belong in high school, but some are old beyond their years. Poverty begets prostitution.
They go in the back doors, and late at night they leave the motels and head for the all-night convenience store, where they buy food and other necessities before heading home.
I think I know what's said, when they are met at home by waiting fathers or husbands. They're greeted with "hi, I was worried about you so I waited up. Are you OK. ?"
The answer must be something like, "I got a bottle of milk for the baby, and we'll have good food tomorrow for the whole family. There's gas in the car, I got some cold beer, here are your cigarettes, and I love you."
The reservation area is similar to a federal "territory," as we understand that term from the days before the western states were admitted to the union. Land titles are held "in trust" by the federal government for the beneficial owners. The beneficial owners are individual Indians, and usually the tribal government owns a large amount of the less valuable land (the rocks and ice) which is held in common for all tribal members.
Critics of Indians claim that tribal ownership of land is communistic. I will tell you now that that view is without merit. Indian tribes are unrelated to communism, and by definition part of the American Way. Communists may have copied some features from tribes, but tribes have copied nothing from communism.
Indian traditional belief about land is neither communistic nor capitalistic. Except perhaps for small individual homesteads, their belief about land is that it is not something that can be owned by anyone. Land is of God and it is beyond price and individual ownership. Land is something to cherish rather than to exploit. Land, like the forest and streams, has it's own right to exist and to not be destroyed. This world-view fits well into that of preserving the environment for future generations.
A person may hunt, but not destroy all the wildlife, cut a tree but not destroy the forest, drink the water but not pollute the stream.
The people of Holland hold their surface lands in private ownership, and yet the oil and underground resources are owned for the benefit of all, by their federal government. We don't call the Dutch communists because some of their property is held in common.
The idea of land being owned by a tribe is simply a defense to protect it from the grasping hand of exclusive white ownership. The traditional non-Indian ethic has been to get what you can, now, with no concern that the land might be forever destroyed in the process. A logger will scream "jobs" while he cuts down the last tree, leaving only an eroded hill for his child's future. This is foreign to the Indian view of life.
There has always been, and still is, white pressure to get this remaining land away from tribal ownership, destroying the tribe in the process. The whites are winning, and you'll soon understand why.
It's a common mistake to assume that all the land on Indian reservations is owned by Indians. In many cases much - or even most - of the land is owned by whites, and usually it is the most valuable land, such as the river bottoms or land where irrigation water is available. Indians are often left with just the sides of mountains and bad-lands, and if these contain minerals or timber, the whites want to get their hands on that also to exploit it. Indians are simply "in the way," a nuisance keeping the capitalist away from some asset not yet fully exploited for a quick return of cash. At the Crow Reservation, 95% of the land is now either owned orcontrolled (leased) by non-Indians, and similar statistics are common to other reservations. That percentage is so well documented from so many reliable sources that I see no need to provide detailed support for the percentage.
Just how the whites got the land is a long story. Historical records describe that most of it was taken through some form of fraud or deception. The federal government used law, force or threat of force to benefit non-Indian voters, friends or special interest groups.
Often it was determined that the Indians had more land than they "should" have, and Congress either gave the land to whites or "sold" it to whites for bargain basement prices. Indian objections were ignored and overruled. Whites simply moved in and took the land, and the federal government then moved to make the actual displacement of Indians "legal" through coerced treaties or agreements.
You've heard about homesteading and the Oklahoma land rush. Oklahoma was originally set aside as Indian Country, a place of refuge for displaced tribes.
Civil war debts were heavy, and the government needed cash. It collected cash by selling what it did not own, the land rights of the Indians. It did not ask Indian permission to do this; the land was taken by military force or intimidation. If you read the treaties, the promise was usually some cleaned-up version of "we won't kill you," but will allow you to live in peace under your existing tribal government, if you simply sign over the land and move away. After the Indians had moved, the process was repeated for the next plot of land where they had moved, and so on, chipping away at the Indian land base which grew smaller and smaller. Some bargain! Very often this was in violation of "the law of the land"; federal treaties agreed to ten or twenty years earlier that had promised "forever."
The U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts cooperated with the politicians in dishonoring treaties and the U.S. Constitution. When it comes to Indians, they still do. Some three hundred treaties (which in our legal system rank second only to the Constitution) have not been enforced (where benefits are due Indians) and are routinely violated by our federal courts. Where benefits are due whites, such as title to the land, the treaties are absolutely enforced to the full letter of the law.
In many cases the various Christian churches urged that the land should be taken from the Indians "for their own good." It was difficult to win converts from people who were self-supporting and happy with their existing religion and way of life.
Indians preferred existing tribal social, ethical and religious values to those offered by their invaders, and to a large extent this is still true. More on that later.
When Indians were brought to the point of mass starvation after the buffalo were all killed, it was much easier to "convert" and "civilize" them. Starvation, and withholding promised rations, was a most effective weapon. Now the message was "you poor things, if you simply change your ways you can be just like us." The word is "ethnocentric," a fancy way of saying be like me or die. Now that we've taken away your land and capital, we'll give you charity, so we can feel good about ourselves.
It's interesting that much of Glacier National Park was owned by the Blackfeet tribe. When that land was taken for a national park, the federal government agreed that the tribe could retain hunting rights and the right to cut timber on the land that was signed away.
Every year or two, a tribal member shoots an elk or moose in the park as allowed under federal treaties. They are of course arrested and fined. The legal rational is that the current use (read popular white demands) of the land supersedes the formal laws, treaties and federal Constitution. Perhaps an attorney could explain it better, but you get the idea. Federal treaties and promises, and the United States Constitution do not mean what they say when Indian are involved.
I suggest the obvious; your rights could be next if you allow the Federal Constitution and Indian treaties to be trashed.
After treaty-making was ended, treaties were replaced with "agreements" to cede land. Herein lies a great problem. In the hurry to grab Indian land, many of the agreements simply specified that the land was to be sold or relinquished, and did not bother to remove the Indian legal jurisdiction that the tribe had over that land as part of it's original reservation. The agreement simply described the land that was sold. In theory, the tribal courts (of non-reorganized tribes, such as the Crow) retain their legal jurisdiction over both whites and Indians on that "ceded" land, which remains part of the reservation. Do Indians fear to exercise their legal jurisdiction over that white-owned land? You better believe it.
In most cases BIA leases the land to whites, and when that is done BIA collects the rent (grazing fees, oil and gas royalties, etc.) in trust. Proceeds from land are then credited to the Indian's Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts and checks are issued to the beneficial Indian land owners. Much money disappears during this process. "Much" means millions, hundreds of millions. BIA supervisors have "sticky-fingers" and simply pocket what they think of as their share. This is described in other chapters, has been done for over a hundred years, and continues today.
BIA sets the price to be charged for land usage, and prepares all contracts for rentals, grazing, oil drilling and the like. Historically BIA discourages or prevents Indians from operating their own land as ranchers or farmers - they are called incompetent.
BIA rents the land to white land operators for a price well below what the land is worth. (No one at BIA disputes the bargain rental rates, which are well documented even by BIA.) These below market prices provide "patronage" or a systematic method of transferring (I call it looting) the value of Indian lands to whites, and has continued with little challenge for a hundred years. Where Indians have the right to lease their own land, still BIA insists upon dividing it among heirs when someone dies, rather than returning it to tribal ownership. By this process, the land is cut-up into ever smaller pieces, an ideal situation for white operators who use divide and conquer tactics. Where white ranchers deal directly with Indian land owners, the "good old boy" network enforces below market lease payments, the whites never, never bid against each other. I have heard many reports of this from Indian friends.
Similar, as to irrigation water provided at the expense of the taxpayers. There are no accurately controlled records kept of billings and payments. In this way large non-Indian ranchers and farmers get water cheap or free, out of the federal budget for Indians. You'll find extensive third-party documentation about that subject in this book.
No comments:
Post a Comment