Projects
American Indian Community Data Profile, 2002
Namadji Youth and Elders Project Report, 2001
Forum Reports
1997 Fall: Tribal Sovereignty and
American Indian Leadership
1996 Fall: Tribal Governments: What will they look like in the year 2010?
1996 Spring: The Threatened State of Tribal Sovereignty
Tribal Governments in 2010 - Keynote Erma Vizenor
In her keynote address, Erma Vizenor, Ed.D., Secretary Treasurer of the White Earth Reservation Tribal Council, presented both the challenges and the possibility facing the future of Indian governments. Invoking the words and wisdom of Black Elk, Vizenor reminded the audience that our thoughts must be as high as the eagles fly. Calling for tribal governments to "aim high," she advised that, "where we are looking is where we are going."
As today's tribes attempt to meet current challenges, many tribal leaders and members look to traditional forms of tribal government. Traditional Indian Nations wee self-governing, deeply spiritual and very democratic. Indian tribes were structured in small bands under the clan system, and the well-being of the clan was the highest priority for tribal leadership. Leadership was often inherited, and Indian leaders were models of kindness and respect for their people. Until recently, there were no explicit laws written for tribes. Rather, leaders wee guided by learned behaviors and a commitment to personal ethics.
Traditional forms of leadership and governance were profoundly altered with European contact. Federal laws enacted to assimilate Indians and to acquire Indian land caused a loss of tribal power. (1) Moreover, tribes began to experience internal divisions with the federal government's imposition of blood requirements for tribal enrollment. Blood quantum requirements established distinctions between mixed-blood and full-blood Indians. Mixed-blood Indians often became leaders and translators in tribal interactions with the federal government. Placed in this situation, these leaders tended to follow non-Indian traditions rather than their Indian elders.
The Indian Reorganization Act (2) (IRA) profoundly changed tribal governments and continues to impact tribal governments today. The essence of the IRA was to re-create tribal governments in the form of reservation business committees that resembled and functioned as business charters. For example, the Minnesota Chippewa Tribes' (MCT) constitution, written under the IRA, provides only for an executive branch of government to serve as a conduit for receipt of federal funds. This configuration is very different from the less formal and more participatory form of traditional American Indian leadership. Vizenor suggested that tribal governments organized under the IRA have often been highly dysfunctional and have not met the needs of Indian people.
Tribal governments currently face multiple issues. One issue is tribal economic dependency on the federal government. Many tribes currently do not have the resources to provide social services for their members. Vizenor believes this dependency compromises tribal sovereignty. Another issues is the high concentration of tribal power in the reservation business committees. This configuration encourages individual leaders in these committees to drift away from traditional leadership. Concentrated tribal power leads to corruption, greed, preferential treatment and ultimately to feelings of hopelessness for tribal members.
Vizenor offered several suggestions for change. First, tribal governments must become more accountable to their people. Creating larger, more open governments would improve tribal members' access to governmental matters. Tribal governments should expand to include off-reservation residents and to increase the size of the governing body to 12-16 members.
Second, tribal enrollment should be opened. Blood quantum requirements create divisions between Indian people. For example, enrollment on the White Earth reservation in Minnesota could be expanded to include individuals who possess "White Earth ancestry."
Third, tribal governments should lessen the us versus them mentality between Indians and non-Indians. Tribal leadership should embrace both Indian traditions and knowledge, as well as knowledge from the non-Indian community.
Finally, Vizenor stated that she believes that one step toward more complete tribal sovereignty is to sever all economic ties between tribes and federal government.
In sum, Vizenor called for utilization of our new weapons for today and tomorrow. This includes our deep connection to Indian traditions and identity, our sovereign rights, our language and beliefs, and the knowledge we have gained from the non-Indian community. If we do this by 2010, we will be strong and more capable of self-governance than we are today. "We're getting better and better," she said.
1. General Allotment Act (or Dawes Act), 25 U.S.C.A. 354 (1887). Nelson Act, Ch. 24, 25 Stat. 642 (1889).
top | Projects
| Research | Publications
| Links | About Us
| Contact Us | Home
© Copyright 2002, American Indian Policy Center. All Rights
Reserved.
1463 Hewitt Avenue • St. Paul, MN 55104 • tel: 651-644-1728
aipc@cpinternet.com
Last updated:
Tuesday November 1, 2005