Native American activism

Tribes affected: Pantribal

Significance: In the mid-1960s, American Indians embarked on a new phase in their relationship with the U.S. government. This was characterized by a proactive insistence that the United States honor the terms of previous treaties.

During the Eisenhower Administration (1953-1961), the official U.S. government policy toward American Indians was called “termination.” Under this policy, the government sought to end the special legal status of American Indians and to encourage the assimilation of native people into the U.S. citizenry. Under these terms, the government sought to end the special legal status of American Indians and to encourage the assimilation of native people into mainstream society. Alongside termination was a similar strategy called “relocation.” Under this plan, American Indians were to be taken off tribal lands and relocated to urban areas for training and employment. The necessary complement to termination and relocation, in the government’s view, was the abolishing of treaty rights for all the tribes. By the beginning of the Civil Rights movement, however, some American Indians were beginning to adopt tactics and strategies used by Civil Rights protesters. Because many American Indians believed that most treaties had been violated repeatedly, the route of active protest seemed a natural one.

Northwest Fish-ins

In 1964, the National Indian Youth Council (NIYC) organized a fish-in in Washington State. Tribes there had increasingly been prohibited from fishing in waters granted to them by treaty. Sportspeople and commercial fisheries believed that native fishers were interfering with their ability to fish for profit and fun. The native fishers, however, were most often fishing either in observation of tribal ritual or for subsistence. The fish-ins attracted widespread notice, including the appearance of celebrities such as actor Marlon Brando and Civil Rights activist Dick Gregory, and managed to bring the fishing controversies to the national headlines. Case after case was adjudicated in the following years, from the Northwest to the upper Great Lakes. Many times the decision came down on the side of the tribal treaty rights. These successes, especially between 1964 and 1966, galvanized many young American Indians. This was especially crucial because many of the elders of different tribes distrusted the course of activism. The success of NIYC leadership in the fish-in controversy legitimated more active protest.

Cornwall Bridge Blocked

Activism was not confined to the West and Midwest. In 1968, a group of Mohawks blocked the Cornwall Bridge linking Canada with New York. Their complaint was simple: Mohawks were granted free movement between Canada and the United States by treaty with Great Britain, a treaty Canada had pledged to honor. Nevertheless, Canadian police had been interfering with free transit. The Mohawks barricaded the bridge, resulting in the arrest of several of their leaders. The case was brought to trial, but the treaty issue was found to be beyond the court’s jurisdiction. All charges were dropped, and the police were advised to become more conciliatory.

Birth of the American Indian Movement (AIM)

In the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, in 1968, native residents had noted the extremely high rates of arrest of American Indians relative to other groups. They also heard many stories of rough and sometimes brutal police treatment of American Indians. Some Minneapolis American Indians began to follow police cruisers on weekends to document what happened. During the next ten months, police arrests of American Indians dropped to almost zero, demonstrating at least that having witnesses and advocates on the scene helped matters. This was the beginning of the American Indian Movement (AIM) organization.

The Occupation of Alcatraz

None of these events was as dramatic as the November 1969 occupation of Alcatraz Island, formerly the site of a federal penitentiary. The immediate reason for the seizure of Alcatraz was that the San Francisco Indian Center had burned to the ground. This left a visiting group, the American Indians United, without a place to stay. Fewer than twenty American Indians landed on Alcatraz and declared it Indian Territory under the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, a treaty that granted federal land to American Indians if it was no longer in use by the federal government. Alhough the island was empty two years later, the call for the restoration of land by lawful treaty was once again established. Though there were successes in land restoration (for example, the return of Blue Lake to the Taos Pueblos and the return of Mount Adams to the Yakimas), the issue of land and treaty rights brought into the spotlight the U.S. government’s history of treaty abridgment and effectively ended the policies of termination and relocation. There was as yet, however, no movement toward what many activists wanted—a policy of self-determination for American Indians.

Early 1970’s

These were watershed years for American Indian activism. In 1970, more than 150 Pit River tribespeople occupied parts of Lassen National Park and Pacific Gas and Electric land in Northern California. Other demonstrators took over Ellis Island in New York to protest treaty violations. Lakotas briefly occupied Mount Rushmore, a sacred site to their tribe.

It is the year 1972 that claims most notice. Early that year, Chippewas had won back their rights to police fishing inside their reserve. That spring at Cass Lake, Minnesota, AIM convened to help decide how those rights would be allocated. During the convention, roads were blocked and guns were in evidence; the atmosphere was tense as AIM members battled what they saw as overly conservative traditionalists. The situation so unnerved local resort owners that they acceded to demands for absolute Chippewa control.

Shortly after the Cass Lake convention, an older Pine Ridge Sioux, Raymond Yellow Thunder, was murdered in Gordon, Nebraska, by five white men. Gordon officials did nothing about the situation. In response, the AIM convened one thousand American Indians, who descended on the town in protest. AIM also protested the murders of American Indians in California and Arizona. After the apparent public relations successes of these protests, AIM leaders began to plan a nationwide caravan, the Trail of Broken Treaties, for the fall of 1972, before the presidential elections.

The caravan had several purposes. First, it was hoped it would create favorable public sentiment for the cause of treaty enforcement. Second, the participants hoped, by their timing, to force the U.S. government to deal with them. Third, they hoped to convert the national media to their cause.

About midway through the caravan, the group stopped in Minneapolis to release their agenda for Washington, the “Twenty Points,” to the media. Among the demands were a repeal of the 1871 ban on further treaty-making, the end of state court jurisdiction over American Indians, and a review of U.S. treaty violations of the past and redress for those violations.

Once in Washington, D.C., on November 3, the caravan had grown to numbers well exceeding expectations. There was also a high percentage of participants from reservations (about 80 percent), something most media had not predicted, since AIM was regarded primarily as an urban group. There were also a high number of eastern tribes represented, perhaps not surprising since one of the Twenty Points demanded federal services for the eastern tribes not currently receiving service.

Unfortunately, the number also exceeded what organizers had expected, with the result that there were no accommodations for many of the travelers. Eventually the Department of the Interior’s auditorium was booked as a place for the activists to stay. As people began to leave the Bureau of Indian Affairs building, overzealous guards began to push people out through the doors. Believing that they might be turned over to a police riot squad on the outside, activists rushed back into the building and barricaded themselves in, breaking apart furniture in order to board windows and fasten doors.

For six days they remained inside, despite occasional police attempts to breach their security. Finally, on November 9, negotiators reached a settlement of the problem. There would be no prosecution of the Indians involved, and $66,000 was appropriated for return transportation. The Twenty Points would be considered, and a response would be made.

When the Nixon Administration replied to the Twenty Points in January, 1973, the response was disappointing to the tribes. In essence, the administration rejected any notion of treaty enforcement or treaty reform. The response noted the first Nixon Administration’s accomplishments, and promised more positive action. Still, the hope represented by the drafting of the Twenty Points was dampened.

Wounded Knee II

In January, 1973, a Sioux, Wesley Bad Heart Bear, was killed under uncertain circumstances. When a white man was charged with manslaughter instead of murder, Dennis Banksand Russell Meansled AIM supporters first into Buffalo Gap, South Dakota, and then into Rapid City, demanding justice. Though tension filled the air for several days, a promise of justice was finally extracted, and Banks addressed the South Dakota legislature, promising a new era in race relations between whites and American Indians.

Banks and Means returned to the Pine Ridge Reservation to celebrate. This was unfortunate, because Tribal Chairman Richard Wilson had declared (after the Raymond Yellow Thunder celebration and the occupation of the BIA office) that Means, Banks, and the AIM were never to celebrate on Pine Ridge again.

When they arrived, tribal police began to harass them. Events escalated so much that tribal officials finally called in federal marshals to control the situation. On February 28, AIM occupied the Wounded Knee site on the reservation and announced political independence of Pine Ridge and Richard Wilson. More marshals arrived, and a number of AIM supporters from outside Pine Ridge arrived at the Wounded Knee compound, including a number of traditional holy people and a contingent from the Mohawk Nation.

The government issued several sets of ultimatums, culminating in an order during the second week that everyone leave Wounded Knee by six o’clock that day, or federal marshals would come in shooting. The National Council of Churches had representatives there, and they vowed that should such an order be implemented, they would stand between the marshals’ gunfire and the activists. The ultimatum was rescinded.

On March 11, Russell Means announced to a national television audience that the Oglala Sioux Nation had been formed and declared its independence from the U.S. He described the borders of the new nation and promised to shoot anyone who crossed those borders. This action seemed finally to shift the gears of the situation toward settlement. Hank Adams, a fish-in veteran who had helped negotiate the BIA occupation, met with high-level administration officials to bring about some of the changes desired by AIM. What had begun as a local controversy between AIM and Richard Wilson ended up having national effects. The occupation lasted seventy-two days.

Legislative and Judicial Activism

American Indian issues have frequently been adjudicated, and these decisions have played a large role in how American Indians are or are not allowed to govern themselves. Because so much of American Indian activism gets its energy from the desire for self-determination, it is helpful to understand U.S. courts’ actions.

The principle of tribal sovereignty was established between 1823 and 1832 in a series of cases: Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia (1832). In all these cases, the operative phrasing was that tribes were “dependent, domestic nations.” Though this doctrine was never challenged by subsequent courts, there was still no question of who held the power over native nations. In United States v. Kagama (1886), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal branch of the U.S. government, specifically the Congress, held ultimate sovereignty over tribal nations. This solidified the “plenary power” of Congress, meaning that it could legislate American Indian affairs in any way it saw fit, without regard to constitutional review (in other words, what would be unconstitutional for other Americans might well be considered appropriate for American Indians). Similarly, in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress may abrogate at will any treaty with any tribe.

The tide in adjudication turned somewhat in the early 1900s. In United States v. Winans (1905), the Court recognized that tribes (specifically the Yakima) have rights reserved for them (in this case, game) even if those rights are not specifically named in a treaty. In Winters v. United States (1908), the Court held that water rights are included even if not named in treaties.

These decisions form the basis of law on which modern activism is based. The acknowledged beginning of the modern era of American Indian law is the landmark case Hitchcock v. Lee (1959). In that case, the reserved rights by treaty were held to include the right of the Navajo to try a case in their own tribal courts. The state of Arizona’s position, that it alone had the right to try cases, was rebuffed.

By the 1960s, there were numerous organizations dedicated to pursuing the rights of American Indians through the courts. These included the Indian Rights Association, the Association on American Indian Affairs, the Legal Services Corporation, and the Native American Rights Fund. As described earlier, one of the persistent cases was the battle over fishing rights. This issue came before the Supreme Court three times during the 1960’s. This series of cases became known as the Puyallup Series. In United States v. Washington (1973), the Supreme Court upheld the American Indian right to share equally in the salmon harvest in the Northwest. A subsequent case, Washington v. Fishing Vessel Association (1979), modified the earlier ruling somewhat by granting American Indians only a “moderate” fishing livelihood.

During the 1970s, American Indians increasingly won judicial approval for many tribal and self-determining activities. These included education, taxes, tribal governance, adoption, and revenue-generating operations of all kinds. Two particular landmark cases are United States v. Mazurie (1975), in which tribal courts gained the right to try a non-Indian, and Fisher v. District Court (1976), in which it was held that the state of Montana could not intervene in a Northern Cheyenne adoption. Finally, in 1977, the decision in Delaware v. Weeks ended the doctrine of plenary power, as the Court applied constitutional review to an act of Congress regarding American Indians.

Since then, three important congressional acts have been passed that seem to many to mark a new attitude toward American Indians. The 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act extended to American Indians the same religious freedom enjoyed by other Americans. The 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act opened the door to tribal generation of revenue through the gaming industry, a boon to many tribes’ coffers. The 1990 Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act began finally to address a problem most American Indians believed to be a symbol of American lack of respect for the First Nations.

Dakota Access Pipeline

An example of more recent Native American activism have been protests over the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). This structure is also referred to as the Bakken pipeline. In 2014 a consortium of oil producers announced plans for the construction of a 1200-mile pipeline that would originate in the state of North Dakota and run through Illinois. The $4 billion project has the capacity to daily transport more than half a million barrels of crude oil. In 2014 the proposal met with immediate opposition from the nation of the Standing Rock Sioux. A major point of contention was that the pipeline would traverse underneath the Missouri River and other freshwater reservoirs essential to Standing Rock Sioux and other Native American tribes. Also, according to activists, the pipeline violated the Fort Laramie Treaty, which stipulated the undisturbed use and occupation of Native American reservation land. Supporters maintained the pipeline was the most environmentally safe option for transporting this volume of petroleum across the continental United States.

The controversy over DAPL prompted a series of protests beginning in August 2016. many of which involved Native American tribes and members. In the ensuing months, incidents of violence were reported, as well as the arrest of protestors. In September 2016, the North Dakota Army National Guard was deployed to assist with law enforcement activities.

In January 2017, the presidential administration of Donald Trump approved the construction of the project, which was completed six months later. In 2020, the Standing Rock Sioux tribe garnered a legal victory that rescinded the federal permit while the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers undertook a comprehensive environmental study. In February 2022, the United States Supreme Court rejected a legal bid by oil producers that sought to negate the 2020 ruling. In 2023 the DAPL continues in operation pending the completion of the environmental study.

Bibliography

Blakemore, Erein. "The Radical History of the Red Power Movement's Fight for Native American Sovereignty." National Geographic, 25 Nov. 2020, www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/red-power-movement-radical-fight-native-american-sovereignty. Accessed 24 Mar. 2023.

Deloria, Vine, Jr. Behind the Trail of Broken Treaties: An Indian Declaration of Independence. 2d ed. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987. Examines the Trail of Broken Treaties and the siege at Wounded Knee in the context of American Indian history.

Eligon, John. "Occupy Alcatraz: Native American Activism in the Modern Era." The New York Times. 22 Oct. 2019, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/22/us/occupation-alcatraz. Accessed 24 Mar. 2024

Indigenous Leaders and Activists. The University of Washington, faculty.washington.edu/jlreid/wordpress/category/currentevents. Accessed 24 Mar. 2023.

Josephy, Alvin M., Jr. Red Power: The American Indians’ Fight for Freedom. New York: American Heritage Press, 1971. Contains contemporary accounts of the Red Power movement.

Lakhani, Nina. "United States Supreme Court Rejects Dakota Access Pipeline Appeal." The Guardian, 22 Feb. 2022, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/22/us-supreme-court-dakota-access-pipeline#:. Accessed 24 Mar. 2023.

Olson, James S., and Raymond Wilson. Native Americans in the Twentieth Century. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1984. A comprehensive history with a chapter specifically devoted to activism.

"The Struggle for Sovereignty: Series Overview." National Park Service, 17 Mar. 2023, www.nps.gov/articles/000/american-indian-activism. Accessed 24 Mar. 2023.

Ziontz, Alvin J. “Indian Litigation.” In The Aggressions of Civilization: Federal Indian Policy Since the 1880’s, edited by Sandra L. Cadwalader and Vine Deloria, Jr. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1984. An excellent review of judicial opinions relating to American Indians.