Of all the hypocrisies of America (and there are many), perhaps the greatest and most overlooked is the treatment of Native Americans.  Though our culture has lately come to understand the consequences of its genocide on the original owners of this land, it has made little to no effort in righting these wrongs.  In the same way that Americans of the Forties freed Jews from internment camps while all the while holding Japanese-Americans captive, Americans of the 21st century speak of building, "a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures" (Bush)  while confining America's true owners to various patches of reservation.  It is time for Americans to realize that restoring Native American sovereignty is not only a moral obligation, but a legal responsibility and a financially sound move as well.  To ensure the survival and cultural understanding of a sovereign Indian state, Americans must make greater efforts to educate themselves on Native American history.

Legally, Americans do not have much choice.  According to writer Wade Churchill, the Indian Claims Commission in the 1970?s found that, "the United States had no legal basis whatsoever - no treaty, no agreement, not even an arbitrary act of Congress - to fully one-third of the area within its boundaries." (Churchill 518)  In recent decades, American courts have become conscious of this and a good deal of land has in fact been returned to its rightful owners, though obviously it is a far cry from the one-third described by Churchill.  Though many Americans initially scoff at the notion of returning such a large part of the nation, it may well be in their judgmental interests to do so, as Churchill and numerous other writers on the subject prove.

Part of America's hostility to this concept rests in the biased history that many Americans have been subjected to.  Though the American government committed genocide (yes, that word they use to describe Nazis) against the Native Americans, we rarely think of comparing Ulysses S. Grant or Rutherford B. Hayes to Cambodian dictator Pol Pot, even though all presided over the mass-murder of a native people.  No, American history is likely to depict the valiant white heroes who bravely fought the savages as promoters of democracy, freedom, and above all else, capitalism.  This justification has far greater effects than the denial of land to the natives, as evidenced by various names of air and ground operations during the Vietnam War.  "Rolling Thunder"; "Prairie"; "Sam Houston"; "Hickory"; "Daniel Boone"; and even "Crazy Horse," (Drinnon 450) The 'white crusader' mentality that led Americans to kill in the 19th century is the same that led it to kill in the 20th, and it will be the same for the 21st unless we as a nation take large steps in a more positive direction.

The first step could be the granting of Native American sovereignty.  Financially, Americans stand to gain much from such a transaction.  Should one-third of the nation be returned to the Natives (Churchill recommends the Midwest), it is likely that they would establish a hybrid capitalist-socialist system rather than make drastic changes and evict the current residents as some may fear.  The reasons for this hypothesis are many, but consider this tale of one Indian related by Lame Deer.  An Indian who collected $15,000 dollars in insurance money spent it all within a few weeks on "beef and bread and crates of beer" (Lame Deer 39) for his extended family.  While this is unthinkable in white society, it is a common occurrence in Native American culture for as Lame Deer explains, "We aren?t divided up into separate, neat little families...The whole damn tribe is one big family." (Lame Deer 38)  Stories such as these give rise to the notion that Native Americans would establish a system that helped those in need, which could include poor whites who currently oppose sovereignty plans.  As for the wealthy white businessmen of the Midwest, well, who?s to say that the Native Americans wouldn't want to keep them around?  After all, the fledging nation would be in need of tax money, and wealthy whites could certainly be of some value to that end.  For that purpose, Natives would most likely take deliberate actions to accommodate their white neighbors. But the benefits of sovereignty are not limited to the Indian nation.  According to one study performed in 1980, 110 counties in Mid- and Southwest America "have been fiscally insolvent since the moment they were taken from native people a century or more ago." (Churchill 527) These counties, which are dependent on federal subsidies for their continuation of basic operations, are "a massive economic burden on the rest of the United States," (528) and it stands that the rest of the nation would benefit financially should these lands be returned to their rightful owners.

If this is the case, it must be asked why Americans - who are willing to sell knives door to door if they think they will make a buck - have not realized this before.  The answer lies in the racial stereotypes that have continually plagued not only Native Americans, but minorities in general.  When whites thought that there was money in the Native's lands, they invented racial stereotypes to justify their theft, as they had done when they robbed Africa of its people.  Even though the Natives were quickly defeated, the stereotypes persisted and reached their peak in the early days of television, where the unintelligent "Indian linguistic ability was limited to 'ugh' and 'kemo sabe'" (Deloria 35).  Though Native Americans are among the nation?s most oppressed people, they have not been fortunate enough to draw the attention that similar groups have been blessed with.  Any school child can proudly proclaim that, 'I have a dream,' in reference to the 1960's Civil Rights Movement, but few if any know of the Indian occupations of Alcatraz or Wounded Knee in the late 60's and early 70's.  The effect of this cultural ignorance of Indian affairs is a lack of interest in the issue and the perpetuation of the Natives' oppressed state.  For this reason, a fair Native American history (and contemporary history) should be a greater part of American education.

The benefits of Native American sovereignty are many, the downfalls few and exaggerated by a racist view of history.  Let us as a people finally treat our contemporary Native Americans with the compassion and respect that our ancestors never could.  Let us all recognize how much we have to gain from a system that promotes mutual respect.  And, in the words of George W. Bush, let us build, "a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures."

Back to Essays                                   Back to Home

Works Cited

Bush, George W. ?The State of the Union Address?. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050202-11.html 3/21/2005

Churchill, Wade. From a Native Son: Selected Essays on Indigenism, 1985-1995.

Boston:  South End Press, 1996

Deloria Jr., Vine.  We Talk, You Listen: New Tribes, New Turf.

New York:  The Macmillan Company, 1970

Drinnon, Richard. Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian Hating and Empire Building.

New York: Schocken Books, 1980

Erdoes, Richard and John Lame Deer. Lame Deer Seeker of Visions

New York: Washington Square Press, 1976