American Indian Policy Review Commission
The American Indian Policy Review Commission (AIPRC) was established in 1975 to assess U.S. Indian policy following the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. Chaired by Senator James Abourezk, the commission's findings were published in a comprehensive multivolume report in 1977. The AIPRC arose amid significant activism within American Indian communities during the early 1970s, notably sparked by events such as the 1973 occupation of Wounded Knee. The commission was characterized by a strong presence of Native American commissioners and staff, reflecting a commitment to including indigenous perspectives in policy discussions.
The AIPRC recommended over two hundred strategies aimed at strengthening tribal self-governance and acknowledgment of tribes as sovereign entities. It emphasized that the relationship between American Indian tribes and the U.S. is rooted in treaties and carries a moral obligation of trust. However, despite the ambitious recommendations, the aftermath saw little actual reform for American Indian communities, and the political landscape evolved to diminish the ongoing legislative focus on Indian affairs. The commission's work received mixed reactions, with some viewing it as overly ambitious and others asserting it failed to move beyond traditional paternalistic dynamics.
American Indian Policy Review Commission
The American Indian Policy Review Commission (AIPRC) was established in 1975 as a follow-up to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, passed in the same year. The findings of the commission, chaired by Senator James Abourezk of South Dakota and also known as the Abourezk Commission, were published in 1977 in a multivolume report. The report opposed assimilationist policies and recommended continuing the 1968 initiative for the establishment of permanent government units in the federal system to protect and strengthen tribal governments.
Among the factors that led to the establishment of the commission was the activism and unrest sweeping American Indian communities in the early 1970s. According to Vine Deloria, Jr., and Clifford M. Lytle (American Indians, American Justice, 1983; The Nations Within: The Past and Future of American Indian Sovereignty, 1984), the 1973 occupation of Wounded Knee in particular was a catalytic event in the decision to create a commission to reexamine the government’s Indian policy.
The AIPRC included Indian representatives selected according to partisan tribal politics of the time. Indians dominated the staff; a significant number of contracted consultants were also Native Americans. The commission included five American Indian commissioners and thirty-one (out of thirty-three) Indian taskforce members as well as six non-Indian members of Congress. Inevitably, complicated political dynamics plagued the commission.
The final report of the AIPRC listed more than two hundred recommendations. The commission found that the relationship between American Indian tribes and the United States was political and was established via treaties, according to international law. It recommended that the following two fundamental concepts guide all future federal policy: Indian tribes are sovereign political bodies having the power to enact laws and enforce them within reservation boundaries, and the relationship between the tribes and the United States “is premised on a special trust that must govern the conduct of the stronger toward the weaker.” The AIPRC report also stated that the right to choose a form of government is an inherent right of any Indian tribe.
No actual social reform directed toward improving the lot of American Indians actually took place following publication of the AIPRC report. Moreover, Congress soon afterward abolished the standing Indian Affairs Subcommittees that operated under the Department of the Interior. Eventually, a Senate Select Subcommittee on Indian Affairs was authorized by Congress to sort out the many AIPRC recommendations.
The commission received criticism from both ends of the political spectrum. Some criticized it for going too far, and others have argued that, although the commission had good intentions in its promotion of self-determination, its recommendations in reality represented a continuation of the paternalistic relationship between the US government and the tribes.
Bibliography
Lawson, Russell M. Encyclopedia of American Indian Issues Today. Santa Barbara: Greenwood, 2013. Print.
McDonald, Laughlin. American Indians and the Fight for Equal Voting Rights. Norman: U of Oklahoma P, 2010. Print.
Miller, Mark Edwin. Claiming Tribal Identity: The Five Tribes and the Politics of Federal Acknowledgment. Norman: U of Oklahoma P, 2013. Print.
Rÿser, Rudolph C. Indigenous Nations and Modern States: The Political Emergence of Nations Challenging State Power. New York: Routledge, 2012. Print.