Homework answers / question archive / Discuss why identity is a complicated and highly charged question for many American Indians

Discuss why identity is a complicated and highly charged question for many American Indians

Sociology

Share With

Discuss why identity is a complicated and highly charged question for many American Indians. Explain how Indian identity is defined differently by the entities offering the definition. For example, answers may differ among individuals, between tribes, and the state and federal governments. Why might these definitions vary and for what reasons? What stakes are involved? How do matters of emotional attachment, social and spiritual well-being figure in your understanding of the issue? Support your answer with information from the texts, any other course materials, and any personal insights you have garnered. Cite and footnote your supporting information and where it came from.

Fake Indians: Checking a Box Doesn’t Make You Native Dr. Dean Chavers 10/15/14 Perhaps no one causes more confusion and muddies the water more than fake Indians. We used to call them wannabe Indians, affirmative action Indians, Johnny come lately Indians, census Indians, among others. They mislead the public. My uncle, Tom Godwin, an electronics genius, worked for Martin Marietta in Denver for 30 years. During that time he was the team leader for building the lunar lander, was the chief tech rep for the Titan missile sites, was the team leader for the design and build of the Little Red School House satellite communication system, and the team leader for building the $2 billion launch pad at Vandenberg Air Force Base. But when the affirmative action thing came about in the late 1960s, somebody looked on his records and saw that he was Indian. He was immediately given the additional duty of identifying and working with other Indians at Martin. All of a sudden people who had never claimed to be Indian said they were. They thought it would help them with promotions, job opportunities, and advancement. Some of them were obviously not Indian. In 1976, I met with the two gentlemen at Lockheed in Sunnyvale, California, who were in charge of affirmative action. I was working for the Indian Center of San Jose at the time, setting up an education program. During the meeting they told me Lockheed was the largest employer in the Bay Area. They proceeded to pull out this big computerized logbook (they were using the old IBM 360 in those days) of several hundred “Indians” who worked there. I was amazed. As we went through their list, I recognized none of the people they had listed. By that time I had been in the Bay Area for eight years, and had met most of the urban Indian leaders in San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco, and outlying cities. I had served a term on the board of the Intertribal Friendship House in Oakland, worked as the Mainland Coordinator for the Alcatraz occupation, taught for three years at Cal State Hayward, and worked at the Indian Center for several months. I still wonder about the real ethnicity of the people at Lockheed who were claiming to be Indian. The affirmative action managers were happy. They had met their quota of Indians—exceeded it in fact. Meeting the quota was a federal requirement. Almost all their funds came from the federal government for defense contracts. However, to be a Lockheed Indian, all one had to do was check a box. Most of the fake Indians are people who are just trying to get hired, to get a scholarship, to get promoted, and the like. In some cases, however, they have tried to do what my mother used to call “get above their raisings.” Several of them have written best-seller books, making them rich and famous. Ultimately, however, some nosy Indian started looking at their genealogy and their credentials and found them out. Some of these fake Indians have risen to national prominence on the strength of their fake Indian credentials.Jamake Highwater:(He pronounced it “Juh-MAH-kee.”) He claimed starting in 1969 that he was a Cherokee. However, when he was born in the 1920s (the date is disputed), he was named Jay Marks or Gregory J. Markopoulos and was Greek. Under that name he finished school at Hollywood High School and attended a few years of college in Los Angeles. He then lived in San Francisco for several years. One of Highwater’s many books. (the-best-childrens-books.org) He later moved to New York and wrote books under the Highwater name. He also obtained a huge grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities, allegedly $840,000, to produce a controversial PBS documentary called “The Primal Mind.” He died in 2001, with his name still controversial. Hank Adams researched his life and published an exposé about him before his death. Joe De La Cruz, the late leader of the Quinault Nation and President of both the National Congress of American Indians and the National Tribal Chairman’s Association, condemned his fake Indian credentials and the pap he was pushing. But Highwater/Marks carried out his Indian charade successfully for over 30 years. Carlos Castanedawrote a series of books about a mythical Yaqui medicine man he allegedly met in Mexico. His first book,The Teachings of Don Juan,became a best-seller and earned him a doctorate in anthropology from UCLA. It now appears he made the whole thing up. There was no Don Juan, there were no long stays in Mexico, and there was no apprenticeship in what Castaneda called “sorcery.” The anthropology department at UCLA later stripped him of the doctorate because of his fictional accounts, which he made up instead of doing actual ethnographic research. RELATED:The Fake Carlos Castaneda Even so, he got away with it, in a real sense. His 12 books sold over eight million copies, making him a rich, defrocked academic. They are unfortunately still selling well, leading many novitiates down a false path toward obfuscation about Indians. Later it was documented that Castaneda had even lied about his birth date, having been born in Cajamarca, Peru in 1925. He claimed to have been born in Sao Paulo, Brazil in 1931. He died in 1998 with his name and his books still embroiled in controversy. Hyemeyohsts Storm:He claims to be an enrolled Indian of the Cheyenne Tribe, and a Breed, or mixed-blood person. After his bookSeven Arrowscame out in 1972, he was reviled by people from the Cheyenne Tribe and other tribes for misinterpreting their sacred practices. He has also been accused of not being an Indian. Swan Storm (left) and Hyemeyohsts Storm. (metroactive.com) Ward Churchill:In May 2005, after he had called some of the victims of the 9/11 attacks “little Eichmans,” Churchill caught hell from many quarters. His comparing the victims of the World Trade Center bombing to one of the leading Nazi villains of World War II was sure to bring him notoriety, which he seems to crave. One of those responding was the United Keetoowah Band of the Cherokee Nation. Chief George Wickliffe said: “Mr. Churchill is NOT a member of the Keetoowah Band.” Churchill has also claimed over the years to be Creek, Cherokee, and Metis. He got himself hired at the University of Colorado in 1978, without a doctorate, and within two decades had gotten promoted to the chair of the Ethnic Studies Department. Over his career, he has had 14 books published on genocide against the American Indian, racism, and the boarding school experience of Indians. His books are filled with left wing cant, and he clearly supports AIM. He was a member of the Colorado chapter of AIM for many years. Former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill before oral arguments June 7, 2012 in the Colorado Supreme Court over free-speech issues and his potential right to reinstatement. The University of Colorado, after a lengthy investigation, fired him in July 2007. He had been charged with improprieties in research methods, fabrication of his Indian heritage, and falsifying his academic credentials. Professors Barrie Hartman, Marianne (Mimi) Wesson, and Eric Iliff were on the committee that reviewed the charges. They concluded that seven of the nine allegations against him warranted looking into. The charges of his ethnicity and his possible copyright infringement were not related to the conduct of research. He was charged with plagiarism, misuse of the work of others, falsification, and fabrication of authority. His comments about the 9/11 victims were ruled to be protected under the free speech provisions of the Constitution. But it led to the investigation that got him fired. Terry Tafoyawas for a time on the faculty at Evergreen College in Washington in the Department of Psychology. He claimed to have a Ph.D. from the University of Washington, a claim that later turned out to be false. In the meantime he traveled around the United States telling “Indian” tales and claiming to be a mental health worker as well as an Indian traditionalist. He even got himself on the board of the famous Kinsey Institute. He claimed to be from Taos Pueblo, but later admitted he was not, after the tribe’s enrollment clerk, Alicia Romero, stated she had never heard of Terry Tafoya. Known across North America as a pre-eminent American Indian psychologist, Terry Tafoya, of Seattle, speaks at a state-sponsored seminar in Albuquerque. (Jake Schoellkopf/Special to Seattle P-I) He has also claimed to be Apache and from Warm Springs, Oregon, which has three tribes living on it. However, he has no proof of enrollment in any of these tribes. His cousin Jack says they grew up in Pompano Beach, Florida, and that Terry was born in Trinidad, Colorado. Thus, there is a good chance that he is Hispanic; much of the population of Southern Colorado is Hispanic. He claims to be a licensed therapist, but does not have a license from the state of Washington. When we took over Alcatraz Island in 1969, these fake Indians bothered us to death. Jamake Highwater, Ruth Beebe Hill, Semu Haute, and many others tried to suck the blood out of us. We ran them off. This column is adapted from the book “Racism in Indian Country.” Dr. Dean Chavers is Director of Catching the Dream, a national scholarship and school improvement program based in Albuquerque. Contact him atCTD4DeanChavers@aol.com. Read more athttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/10/15/5-fake-indianschecking-box-doesnt-make-you-native-157179?page=0%2C1&nopaging=1 U.S. Department of the Interior 2B A Guide to Tracing American Indian & Alaska Native Ancestry 3B Office of Public Affairs-Indian Affairs 1849 C Street, N.W., MS-3658-MIB Washington, D.C. 20240 202-208-3710 www.indianaffairs.gov Establishing American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) Ancestry There are many reasons why a person will seek to establish his or her ancestry as that of AI/AN. One may be because the person wants to become an enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe. Another may be a desire to verify a family tradition or belief that has been passed down from generation to generation, whether based on fact or fiction, that he or she descends from an AI/AN person or tribal community. Another could be a desire only to learn more about a family’s history. Another may be to establish eligibility for public or private sector services or benefits that are believed to be provided only to persons who are AI/AN. When establishing descent from an AI/AN tribe for membership and enrollment purposes, however, an individual must provide genealogical documentation that supports his or her claim of such ancestry from a specific tribe or tribal community. Such documentation must prove that the individual is a lineal descendent of an individual whose name can be found on the tribal membership roll of the federally recognized tribe from which the individual is claiming descent and is seeking to enroll. If the end goal for doing such research is to help you determine if you are eligible for membership in a tribe, you must be able to: 1) establish that you have a lineal ancestor – biological parent, grandparent, great-grandparent and/or more distant ancestor – who is an American Indian or Alaska Native person from a federally recognized tribe in the U.S., 2) identify which tribe (or tribes) your ancestor was a member of or affiliated with, and 3) document your relationship to that person using vital statistics records and other records a tribe may require or accept for purposes of enrollment. The BIA does not maintain a massive national registry or comprehensive computer database of AI/AN individuals, nor can the bureau retrieve genealogical information about individuals from such a source. The BIA’s offices, including the bureau’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., generally do not keep records on individual AI/ANs, and it does not maintain a national registry of them. Nor does the BIA conduct genealogical research for the public. Through this guide, however, we can offer suggestions on where to look and with whom to talk when trying to trace ancestry to any of the Federally recognized tribes in the U.S. Benefits and Services Provided to AI/ANs • The Myth of the Monthly Check It is a belief long held by many that AI/ANsreceive monthly checks from the Federal government only because of their racial identity and nothing else. While certain tribes and individual tribal members and their lineal descendants have received Federal payments in the past, such payments have been made under specific responsibilities of the Federal government to them that have resulted from treaty obligations (some treaties included cash annuities for individual tribal members which ended with the death of the recipient), the settlement of claims against the United States, and/or the collection of payments 2 for the use or exploitation of their trust lands and natural resources. However, very few judgment fund per capita payments remain to be paid today (and not every settlement allows per capita payments), and trust monies are collected by the Federal government and paid out only to those tribes and individuals to whom they belong. Generally, tribal revenues are used for the benefit of tribal members. Tribes who are able may distribute payments to their enrolled members when tribal revenues from the lease or sale of tribal assets – such as timber, coal, hydroelectric power, or oil and gas, for example – are sufficient to do so. Another way tribes generate income is from developing successful enterprises, including construction, gaming and other entertainment businesses, hospitality and tourism businesses, arts and crafts, government contracting, and other ventures that create and/or sell goods and/or services. A tribe that makes per capita payments to its members may do so on a monthly, quarterly, annual or occasional basis if its revenues from these various funding sources are sufficient and if its members approve. In the case of Class III gaming, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act requires that income from casinos be used for tribal government operations, programs and services for tribal members, although a portion may be used for per capita payments in accordance with an approved per capita distribution plan. However, there are many tribes that do not make per capita payments because either they lack the revenues to do so or their tribal membership is too large for the revenues they do have. Usually, such revenues are instead used for tribal government operations, programs and services. There is a clear distinction between judgment funds and tribal funds. Judgment funds are appropriated by Congress after the settlement of a claim filed against the United States by a tribe or tribes, or AI/AN descendant groups, to resolve issues of tribal or individual assets (usually land) taken without compensation. Tribal funds are derived from tribal assets. While an individual does not have to be an enrolled member of a tribe who is party to a settlement to receive a final judgment fund payment, he or she still must be deemed eligible under the terms of the settlement. In the case of tribal funds, an individual must be an enrolled tribal member to be eligible to receive per capita payments derived from tribal assets. Compensation from the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 was placed in an entity established by the Treasury Department called the Alaska Native Fund. Funds were disbursed to village corporations and to individuals through regional corporations until 1981, when the payments were completed. The AI/ANs who have worked as civilian Federal employees or have served in the U.S. armed forces can also receive Social Security and Federal retirement benefits, if they qualify. • Services for AI/AN 0B Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior encompasses the Office of the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). 3 Through its bureaus, offices and programs, Indian Affairs does its part to carry out the United States’ government-to-government relationship with the Federally recognized tribes, and to maintain its unique and continuing responsibility to the AI/AN people. Indian Affairs supports and assists the tribes as they develop their governmental structures and operations; build strong, safe communities; and provide services to their members. Indian Affairs-funded or administered programs, which are comparable to state and local government programs and services, include education, economic and workforce development, social services, justice (law enforcement, corrections, and courts), infrastructure (road, bridges, and dams), housing, realty, agriculture and range management, and natural resources management and protection. They operate on federal Indian reservations and tribal trust lands for the benefit of tribal members, and on trust or restricted-fee lands belonging to individual Indian landowners. Besides Indian Affairs, there are other Federal agencies with programs developed specifically to serve AI/ANs and their tribal communities. All AI/ANs, whether they live on a reservation or not, can, like other U.S. citizens, apply for and receive Federally funded, state-administered services such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), the Food Stamp Program and the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). But they, like other citizens, must be eligible under the rules that govern such programs. 4BEnrollment in a Federally Recognized Tribe • What is the purpose of tribal enrollment? Tribal enrollment requirements preserve the unique character and traditions of each tribe. An AI/AN tribe’s membership criteria is based on customs, history, traditions, language, religious beliefs and practices, ancestry and tribal blood that are unique to it and which set it apart from other tribes or tribal communities. Tribal membership may also convey the right to vote in tribal elections, to serve in tribal leadership, to participate in the sharing of tribal assets, to use tribal treaty rights (such as hunting, fishing, and gathering rights) within the tribe’s jurisdiction, to participate in cultural or religious matters, to receive tribal services and benefits, and to exercise other privileges or rights unique to tribal members. Such privileges and rights differ from tribe to tribe. • What are tribal membership requirements? Tribal enrollment criteria are set forth in a tribe’s governing documents such as a tribal constitution, articles of incorporation or ordinances. It will be necessary for individuals seeking to establish a connection to a specific tribe or tribal community through enrollment to contact the tribe or tribal community directly for information about its enrollment requirements and application process. You can find contact information for all of the Federally recognized tribes in the U.S. by clicking on the “Tribal Leaders Directory” link on the Indian Affairs website Document Library page at http://www.indianaffairs.gov/DocumentLibrary/index.htm. 4 Uniform membership requirements among all tribes do not exist as criterion varies from tribe to tribe. However, it can be said that two commonly found requirements for membership are: 1) lineal descent from someone named on the tribe's base roll [a "base roll" is a tribe’s original list of members as designated in a tribal constitution or other document specifying enrollment criteria] or 2) lineal descent from a tribal member who descends from someone whose name appears on the base roll. Other conditions such as tribal blood quantum, residency, or continued contact with the tribe also are common. • How do I apply for enrollment in a tribe? A person may only be enrolled in a tribe where they are eligible for enrollment. If a person can prove ancestry from several tribes and is enrollment-eligible in more than one, they may only be enrolled in one tribe at a time (unless a tribe allows otherwise). After you have completed your genealogical research, documented your ancestry, and through that determined your ancestor’s tribal identity or affiliation, you are ready to contact the tribe directly to obtain information about its enrollment criteria and application process. Rarely is Indian Affairs involved in tribal enrollment and membership matters. Tribal enrollment is considered an internal matter governed by the tribe in accordance with its rules. Each tribe determines whether an individual is eligible for membership, and each tribe maintains its own enrollment records, including records on past members. To obtain information about your eligibility for membership, you must contact the tribe rather than Indian Affairs. • How do I contact a federally recognized tribe? You can find contact information for the federally recognized tribes by clicking on the “Tribal Leaders Directory” link at http://www.indianaffairs.gov/DocumentLibrary/index.htm. The Directory, which is published by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, provides contact information for all of the federally recognized AI/AN tribes in the U.S., as well as Indian Affairs program offices and BIA regional offices and agencies. You can obtain a copy of the Directory by downloading or printing it from the website, or by calling the BIA Office of Indian Services at 202-513-7640. Doing the Genealogical Research • Will I need to use a computer and the internet? Yes. Computers and the internet are tools to help you search for information that can help you identify and document a connection to a specific tribe or tribal community. There are many organizations and individuals who have made available on the internet records, images and other documents useful to researching ancestry. If you do not have a personal computer or internet access, you can check with a public library or community college in your area about using their resources to do research. There are many sites dedicated to genealogical research. Some sites charge for their services. We do not recommend or endorse any of them. 5 Become familiar with the use of a search engine to find web sites that are of interest to you. Search engines are computer programs that search the internet for specific words, that you enter, listed in meta tags of the web site. Using search words or phrases such as “American Indian genealogy,” “Alaska Native genealogy,” “Native American genealogy,” or “tracing American Indian (or Alaska Native or Native American) ancestry” can help you locate useful information. • How do I begin the search for my ancestors? Start your genealogical research with yourself and your family history. Start with current and historical records that you already have on hand such as letters, journal, diaries, etc., that belong to you and/or your immediate biological family. If you or a lineal ancestor is not currently a member of a federally recognized tribe, band or group in the U.S., your research can begin with public or other non-Indian records such as those maintained by state and local governments, churches, schools, libraries, newspapers, and historical societies. You should locate all the information you can about your lineal ancestor to determine the person’s tribal identity as that is the most important piece of information to help one find a specific tribe or tribal community. Although a vital statistics record is very important because it shows a person name, and the life event (birth, marriage, divorce, death) date and place, it might not list a person’s tribal identity. If a vital statistics record indicates racial or ethnic identity, check to see if it identifies the person as American Indian, Alaska Native or Native American. If not, you will not be able to use that record to help you document them as AI/AN. • Where can I look for information? We suggest the following as sources of information: AT HOME: U The first place where you can begin to do your genealogical research is at home. Valuable information can be found in newspaper clippings, military service records, birth and death records, marriage licenses, divorce records, and family bibles, personal journals, diaries, letters, scrapbooks, backs of pictures and baby books. Relativesmay be another good source of information about an ancestor you are doing research on. Visiting with or writing to family members to find out if they have genealogical material may be necessary. If another family member is working on a family history, check to see if they can share information with you, or answer any questions you have. ON THE LOCAL AND STATE LEVEL: U It is often helpful to check school, church (baptismal records), and county courthouse records for information. Historical and genealogical information also can be found in other civil records at local courthouses such as deeds, wills, land or other property conveyance documents. Newspapers are also a good source of information; an ancestor may have been the subject of or 6 mentioned in a news article and obituaries will provide many details about the lives of their subjects. Prior to the 20th century, information about births, marriages, divorces and deaths was usually kept (if at all) by family members. In the modern era, state governments issue and maintain vital statistics records. They did not being keeping birth and death records until about 1890 to 1915, so searches in state records for ancestors who were born or died before that time may be limited or difficult to find. To obtain a vital statistic record, you must contact the department, bureau or office that handles vital statistics records for the state where the life event took place. Each state has its own rules for who may request a vital statistics record and its own process for requesting one (including any fees it may charge). State vital statistics records offices may be found using the internet. IN PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND OTHER REPOSITORIES: U Visiting the local library is a very good starting point for gathering facts about AI/ANs and their tribes. A wealth of information exists concerning the history of tribes, tribal cultures, historical tribal territories, and tribal migration patterns. Most libraries also have books on how to do genealogical research. Genealogical research books give a good understanding of standard research techniques. You can also contact genealogical organizations, historical societies, and other private institutions. ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL: • Records Concerning the Public The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is the repository and archivist for all federal records. The records it holds and the information it provides are very useful to anyone interested in genealogical research. One example is census records. Census records are a very good source of information for persons trying to locate and identify their ancestors in the U.S. In the 19th century, the BIA, which was established in 1824, carried out census counts of American Indians living on reservations. In 1902, Congress enacted legislation creating a permanent census office in the Interior Department. By 1913, the U.S. Bureau of the Census was firmly established in the Department of Commerce. NARA has Federal census records from 1790 to 1940, including BIA American Indian census records. NARA assigns numbers to each record group. The following are some of those to look for when doing AI/AN ancestry research at NARA: • • • Record Group Number 29: Records of the Bureau of the Census Record Group Number 48: Records of the Office of the Secretary of the Interior Record Group Number: 75: Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1973-1989 7 NARA also has military service records, passenger arrival records, and other records of value to persons involved in genealogical research. You can even find the Dawes Roll if you are researching ancestry from any of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma. To learn about the kinds of AI/AN records NARA holds, and how to access or obtain copies of them, visit http://www.archives.gov/research/genealogy/ or call: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration 1-866-272-6272 • Records Concerning AI/ANs If you have identified your ancestor’s tribal affiliation, now you can proceed to begin researching records about the tribe. The American Indian records collection at NARA includes special censuses, school records, and allotment records. For more information concerning the special censuses of various tribes, NARA offers: Microfilm Publication M1791 American Indian Censuses “The Special Census of Indians, 1880” • BIA Offices BIA regional offices (and agencies may be additional sources of information on an ancestor if: 1) your ancestor’s estate was probated through the bureau because he or she had land in trust with the bureau and/or received income derived from federal Indian trust lands and/or assets, 2) his or her name appears on a tribe’s base membership roll, a copy of which rests with the regional office or agency that services the tribe, or 3) his or her name appears on a judgment distribution roll developed as part of the settlement of a tribal claim against the United States. The BIA, however, does not maintain current or historic records of all individuals who possess some degree of AI/AN blood. The BIA holds current rather than historic tribal membership enrollment lists. These lists (commonly called "rolls") do not have supporting documentation such as birth certificates for each tribal member listed. The BIA created these rolls while the BIA maintained tribal membership rolls, which lasted until about the 1980s. Please note that: The BIA no longer has extensive involvement in tribal membership. Current Federal policy and case law limits the involvement of the BIA in tribal membership matters unless mandated by congressional legislation, or is required by the tribe's governing document or otherwise requested by the tribe. There are instances where the BIA continues to manage a tribe’s enrollment records and enrollment application process functions, either because the tribe is too small to handle these functions itself or because it chooses not to. However, a person seeking to enroll with the tribe must still be eligible under its enrollment criteria. 8 When you contact a BIA regional office or agency, be prepared to give the name of the tribe, the name(s) and birth date(s) of your lineal ancestor(s), and your relationship to such ancestor(s). You must provide specific details, such as a female ancestor’s maiden and married names, Another source of information is official correspondence sent by a BIA regional office (or area office) or agency, or the Secretary of Department of the Interior, to you or your ancestor that give details about a specific tribe or reservation, or any description or explanation of matters relating to tribal enrollment, leasing of trust lands or assets, probating an Indian estate, payment of a debt owed to the BIA, or other matters that fall under the BIA’s mission, functions and responsibilities. When contacting the regional office or agency that issued the correspondence, have the document(s) with you and provide as much information from it as you can, including the date it was issued. The Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. §552(a), protects personal information contained in current tribal membership rolls and lists that the BIA maintains. Submitting a request for genealogical information under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552, is not necessary for records compiled and published by private institutions or that are available in census records declassified by NARA. The Tribal Leaders Directory includes contact information for all BIA regional offices and agencies. They will be found at the beginning of each regional section of the Directory with the tribal contact information immediately after. The sections are marked with the names of the 12 BIA regions. • What do I do if I was adopted? Generally, adoptions of AI/AN children have been handled in state courts under state laws. When you are seeking to open sealed adoption papers, the BIA cannot help you. There are organizations that can be found on the internet that may be able to assist you with information on what procedures or information you might need. We do not endorse or recommend any of them. You will need to obtain legal advice from an attorney that deals with this area of law. If you have questions about the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), P.L. 95-608, which allows federally recognized tribes to intervene in certain AI/AN child adoption situations, you can contact a BIA regional social worker in any of the bureau’s 12 regional offices or contact the National Indian Child Welfare Association (www.nicwa.org) for more information. • Will a blood test or DNA test prove AI/AN ancestry? Blood tests and DNA tests will not help an individual document his or her descent from a specific Federally recognized tribe or tribal community. The BIA does not regulate businesses that perform such tests, and does not validate their findings nor accept their results as proof that an individual possesses blood quantum from a particular tribe. The only value blood tests and DNA tests hold for persons trying to trace ancestry to a particular tribe is that testing, if the tribe accepts it, can establish if an individual is biologically 9 related to a tribal member. Check directly with the tribe you are seeking to enroll to find out if it will accept a blood test or DNA test as part of its enrollment application process. Getting Help with the Research If you are contemplating hiring someone to research your family history, professional genealogists can charge fees on an hourly or flat-rate basis. For more information on what to consider when hiring a professional, contact your local genealogical association or society, or visit the NARA website at http://www.archives.gov/research/genealogy/. If you do not wish to conduct your own research, researchers are available for a fee. Please search the Board for Certification of Genealogists® or the Association of Professional Genealogists® websites for their listings of genealogical researchers. Their names with websites are: Board for Certification of Genealogists http://www.bcgcertification.org Association of Professional Genealogists http://www.apgen.org Tracing Cherokee Indian Ancestry We receive so many requests for information on how to trace Cherokee Indian ancestry, therefore we have included this special section for it. The information below – “Locating the Dawes Rolls” – is useful for anyone trying to find a lineal ancestor who was a member of one of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma – the Cherokee Nation, the Chickasaw Nation, the Choctaw Nation, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and the Seminole Nation. These are the only federally recognized tribes who use the Dawes Rolls as their base membership rolls. • A Brief Overview of Cherokee History About 200 years ago the Cherokee Indians were one tribe, or "Indian Nation," that lived in the southeast part of what is now the United States. During the 1830's and 1840's, the period covered by the Indian Removal Act, many Cherokees were forcibly moved west to what was then termed “Indian Territory” and that is now the state of Oklahoma. A number of Cherokees remained in the southeast and some gathered in North Carolina, where they purchased land and continue to live to this day. Others went into the Appalachian Mountains to escape being moved west and many of their descendants may still live there now. Today, individuals of Cherokee ancestry fall into at least one of the following categories: (1) Living persons who were listed on the final rolls (Dawes Commission Rolls) of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, now known as the Cherokee Nation, that were approved and their descendants. These final rolls were closed in 1907. HU UH (2) Individuals enrolled as members of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina and their descendants who are eligible for enrollment with the Band. HU UH 10 (3) Persons on the list of members identified by a resolution dated April 19, 1949, and certified by the Superintendent of the BIA’s Five Civilized Tribes Agency, and their descendants who are eligible for enrollment with the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians of Oklahoma. HU UH (4) All other persons of Cherokee Indian ancestry. (1) CHEROKEE NATION: After about a half century of self-government, a law enacted in 1906 directed that final rolls be made and that each enrollee be given an allotment of land or paid cash in lieu of an allotment. The Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma, a federally recognized tribe, formally organized in 1975 with the adoption of a new constitution that superseded one from 1839. The new constitution established a Cherokee Register for the inclusion of any Cherokee person for membership purposes in the Cherokee Nation. Members must be citizens as proven by reference to the Dawes Commission Rolls. Included in this are the Delaware Cherokees of Article II of the Delaware Agreement dated May 8, 1867 (Delaware Indians who were made members of the Cherokee Nation), and the Shawnee Cherokees of Article III of the Shawnee Agreement dated June 9, 1869 (Shawnee Indians who were made members of the Cherokee Nation), and/or their descendants. P.L. 100-472 authorizes, through a planning and negotiation process, Indian tribes to administer and manage themselves programs, activities, functions, and services previously managed for them by the BIA. Pursuant to P.L. 100-472, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma has entered into a self-governance compact and now provides to their members those services previously provided by the BIA. Enrollment and allotment records also are maintained by the Cherokee Nation. Any questions with regard to Cherokee Nation ancestry and/or enrollment should be referred to: Cherokee Nation P.O. Box 948 Tahlequah, OK 74465 Phone: (918) 456-0671; Fax: (918) 458-5580 www.cherokee.org HU UH (2) EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS: The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina is also a federally recognized tribe. It has its own base membership roll, called the Baker Roll, and its own enrollment criteria. Inquiries about the tribe’s enrollment criteria or information shown in the records may be addressed to the tribe at: HU Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Qualla Boundary, P.O. Box 455 Cherokee, NC 28719 Phone: (828) 497-7000; Fax: (828) 497-7007 www.cherokee-nc.com UH 11 (3) UNITED KEETOOWAH BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS: By the Act of August 10, 1946 (60 Stat. 976), Congress recognized the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (UKB) for the purposes of organizing under the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act. In 1950, the UKB organized under a constitution and by-laws approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Members of the UKB consist of all persons whose names appear on the list of members identified by a resolution dated April 19, 1949, and certified by the Superintendent of the BIA’s Five Civilized Tribes Agency on November 26, 1949Information about ancestry from this tribe and its enrollment requirements may be obtained by contacting: United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma P.O. Box 746 Tahlequah, OK 74465 Phone: (918) 431-1818;Fax: (918) 431-1873 http://www.keetoowahcherokee.org/ (4) ALL OTHER PERSONS OF CHEROKEE ANCESTRY: Information about any Cherokee ancestry of individuals in this category is more difficult to locate, largely because the Federal government has never maintained a listing of all Cherokee Indians and their descendents that also shows their tribal affiliation, degree of Cherokee Indian blood, or other data. If you are trying to establish Cherokee ancestry, you may want to follow the suggestions for researching American Indian ancestry mentioned in this guide. • Locating the Dawes Rolls The Dawes Commission was organized in 1893 subsequent to the passage of the General Allotment Act that sought to break up the reservation lands of the Five Civilized Tribes in what is now Oklahoma. It was to accept applications for tribal enrollment from American Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes who resided in the Indian Territory, which later became the eastern portion of Oklahoma, between 1899 and 1907. There are several places to get access to the Dawes rolls to see if your ancestor is listed. Here are three locations: National Archives and Records Administration http://www.archives.gov/research/native-americans/dawes/intro.html 1-866-272-6272 Oklahoma Historical Society 800 Nazih Zuhdi Drive Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Phone: (405) 521-2491 http://www.okhistory.org/ Tulsa City-County Library 400 Civic Center Tulsa, OK 74103 Phone: (918) 549-7323 http://www.tulsalibrary.org/ 12 Negotiating with narrative: Establishing cultural identity at the Yukon Inte... Julie Cruikshank American Anthropologist; Mar 1997; 99, 1; Research Library Core pg. 56 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DISMEMBERED Native Disenrollment and the Battle for Human Rights DAVID E. WILKINS and SHELLY HULSE WILKINS UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON PRESS Seattle and London Introduction LIKE ALL HUMAN COMMUNITIES, NATIVE NATIONS AND THEIR Gov- erning bodies are in a constant state of flux. They generate from within and absorb from without a bewildering, increasing array of issues that provide opportunities to either evolve and mature or to regress and decay. These issues include the exercise of treaty rights, the complicated dynamics of intergovernmental relations, profound environmental concerns, and the always uneven ground of land claims and sacred site battles. And these are but a few of the multitude of topics that warrant constant Native vigilance, each requiring enormous outlays of time, energy, and resources. As critical and complicated as these topics are, they pale in comparison to what is arguably the most important question that Native nations have ever faced: what does it mean to be Tulalip, Anishinaabe, Yakama, Lumbee, Narraganset, Pechanga, or Chukchansi? What, in other words, are the defining characteristics that make an Indigenous nation just that: Indigenous and a nation? And what is required of each individual in those nations to be considered a bona fide participant, citizen, or-for lack of a better term-member of a given Native nation? This set of intimately related questions of what it means to be an Indigenous person in a particular tribal nation has been crucial for every generation of Native nations from the moment they came into existence, as every generation has the inherent free will to self-identify as they choose. Historically, lands, languages, kinship systems, and spiritual values and traditions provided the most recognized frameworks that enabled each Native nation, and the individuals, families, and clans constituting those nations, to generally rest assured in their collective and personal identities and to not have to wonder about who they were. The bonds of organic connections were so strong and 3 INTRODUCTION 4 pliable, in fact, that identity crises-be they national or individual-were most likely rarely encountered within Indigenous communities. Of course, five centuries of interactions with foreign powers have taken a mighty toll on Native peoples and their lands, cultures, and identities. During the last four and a half decades there have been increasing questions regarding how Indigenous peoples understood who they were and how they were or were no longer related to one another. Writing in 1974, Vine Deloria Jr., a leading architect of the Native sovereignty movement, succinctly noted as much when he stated: "The gut question has to do with the meaning of the tribe. Should it continue to be a quasi-political entity? [Should] it become primarily an economic structure? Or should it become, once again, a religious community? The future, perhaps the immediate future, will tell." 1 The vital question, therefore, of who belongs to a Native nation and the grounds upon which that individual's relationship to his or her nation may be severed by the governing elites is at the heart of this book. While not as important as that most fundamental of human rights-the right to life as a free human being-the right to belong to and rest assured of one's integral place in a particular Indigenous community is critical. In an increasing number of Native nations, tribal belonging, long viewed as an absolute given by bona fide Native citizens, particularly since the early 1990s, has become more of a political privilege than a sacred and organic responsibility as defined by tribal officialdom. And since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1978 decision in Santa Clara v. Martinez (which affirmed a tribal nation's right to be the ultimate arbiter of its own membership requirements), an expanding list of Native peoples have disenrolled or banished an ever-growing number of otherwise legitimate Native citizens. Such dismemberments are happening for a variety of reasons, but the two most apparent factors associated with the practice are increased gambling revenue and civil violations or criminal activity that presumably threatens community stability. 2 Interestingly, gambling revenue (or other large financial windfalls that come to some Native nations) and the way it is sometimes dispensed via per capita distribution programs, typically leads to disenrollment-that is, the legal and political termination of a tribal member's citizenship. In contrast, civil violations or criminal activity (e.g., malfeasance, drug involvement, gang activity, etc.) tends in many cases to lead to banishment-that is, physical expulsion from tribal lands and not necessarily the loss of tribal citizenship. These two concepts are often conflated, but they are in fact distinctive terms. In some contemporary tribal cases, however, they become functionally similar. INTRODUCTION Disenrollment is a legal term Indian Reorganization Act peric divided into two categories: nor litically motivated disenrollme1 due process is provided because dual membership, or failure to : The latter, we argue, are never ju cal power, or personal vendetta trast, is an ancient concept th throughout the world, dating b< Furthermore, banishment c< litically motivated banishment cally motivated banishment bee torically, Indigenous nations rar mitting of grievous offenses, likE after all other attempts-cerem had been tried to restore comm1 used largely for rehabilitative p Native nations have always p ize any tribal member. Moreove1 sovereign in the United States, t' ritorial homelands. But this stm engaging in banishment or politi practices in clear violation of th€ one time utilized peacemaking, resolve the inevitable disputes t Although the 1968 Indian Ci in Indian Country a modified ve spelled out in that act is the wri1 not offered dismembered NativE Native nations are also sovereig trine of sovereign immunity, lE legal recourse. Dismembered Native citizer and have federal citizenship as be the most protected class of ir three distinctive layers of citize1 case. In regards to Native citiz4 INTRODUCTION 5 Disenrollment is a legal term of art that arose most prominently during the Indian Reorganization Act period in the 1930s. Disenrollment can broadly be divided into two categories: nonpolitically motivated disenrollments and politically motivated disenrollments. The former are arguably justifiable when due process is provided because of fraudulent enrollment, error in enrollment, dual membership, or failure to maintain contact with the home community. The latter, we argue, are never justified when driven by economic greed, political power, or personal vendettas, among other reasons. Banishment, in contrast, is an ancient concept that has been utilized by societies and states throughout the world, dating back to at least 2285 BCE. 3 Furthermore, banishment can also be divided into two categories: nonpolitically motivated banishment for the violation of a criminal law and politically motivated banishment because of crime or purely political reasons. Historically, Indigenous nations rarely banished tribal relatives, save for the committing of grievous offenses, like premeditated murder or incest, and only then after all other attempts-ceremonies, public ridicule, restitution, shaminghad been tried to restore community harmony. When it was employed, it was used largely for rehabilitative purposes. Native nations have always possessed the inherent authority to denationalize any tribal member. Moreover, they wield the power, unknown to any other sovereign in the United States, to formally exclude non-Natives from their territorial homelands. But this study argues that far too many tribal nations are engaging in banishment or politically or economically motivated disenrollment practices in clear violation of their own historic values and principles, which at one time utilized peacemaking, mediation, restitution, and compensation to resolve the inevitable disputes that occasionally arose within the community. Although the 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) extended to all persons in Indian Country a modified version of the U.S. Bill of Rights, the only remedy spelled out in that act is the writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus has thus far not offered dismembered Native individuals any substantial justice. And since Native nations are also sovereign, they can and frequently do invoke the doctrine of sovereign immunity, leaving disenfranchised tribal members little legal recourse. Dismembered Native citizens are also citizens of the states they reside in and have federal citizenship as well. Theoretically, these individuals should be the most protected class of individuals in the land, armed as they are with three distinctive layers of citizenship. Such, of course, has not proven to be the case. In regards to Native citizenship, tribal political and judicial elites can 6 INTRODUCTION and do wield the absolute power to terminate Native citizenship-a power that not even the federal or state governments can wield over non-Native citizens. As the Supreme Court held inAfroyim v. Rusk (1967), citizenship is an inviolable right, and while it can be given away, it cannot be taken away. In other words, involuntary expatriation-that is, the stripping of citizenship-is not an available penalty under any state or federal statute. As the Court held, "in our country people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship." A central question this book poses and attempts to answer is the following: what does it mean that the United States, a very large, heterogeneous, secular state, has in place laws and policies that protect its citizens' rights far more comprehensively than Native nations, which are much smaller, more homogeneous, and ostensibly more kin-based polities? For if Native nations are indeed communities of kinfolk that are ancestrally, culturally, psychologically, and territorially related, then it would appear that the grounds on which to sever or terminate such a fundamentally organic set of human relationships would have to be unequivocally clear and would, in fact, rarely be carried out given the grave threat that such actions, the literal depopulation of the community's inhabitants, would pose to the continued existence of the nation. A corollary to the central question of the sanctity of U.S. citizenship in comparison to Native citizenship is the following: what does it mean that the only class of citizens in the United States who cannot avail themselves of such sacrosanct rights are Native individuals?4 The very concept of tribal sovereignty means that the people-the tribal community members themselves-are the sovereign, not the governing, bodies of those nations. Tribal councils and other governing institutions have merely been delegated limited authority to fulfill the needs and to protect, not destroy, the rights of the people. They do not have or should not have the power to sever their relationship to their people by taking away the most important status, the status of belonging to, of having citizenship or membership in, an Indigenous nation. Of course, for many Indigenous peoples the very notion of sovereignty is rooted in their creation accounts, suggesting that their core identity flows not from human-made constitutions, charters, or ordinances but is directly linked to their ancient origin accounts and the holy beings who initially set them upon the earth. Why, then, is legal, political, and cultural termination of a Native nation's own kin occurring at such a heightened level now? Are the tribal government INTRODUCTION officials engaged in such harsh deci: with the traditional notions of identitJ like privileged and exclusive corpora or banished Native citizens have to C< Can Native nations ensure justice an1 and still protect and exercise tribal s1 nally, what role, if any, should the fe tious intratribal affairs, since those d zens and are supposedly entitled to 1 citizens? The United States purports t recognized Native nations and all c pledged with protecting the lands, ri~ by the Constitution's treaty, property dred ratified treaties forged between peoples; and numerous federal stat governments are violating the righ1 vested property interests, the federal has a constitutional, moral, and treat~ suffering such violations. GENESIS C Two events in 1996 first brought this banishment of enrolled tribal citizen ishment of one individual, George Wt When new leadership was elected WI of their political and spiritual ideolog: An outcry from tribal members force within a few months his membershi~ event and the pain it caused left a de The second episode, an importan ishment, occurred among the Sene Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians, Seneca citizens, who had been pern ment on the grounds that they had ~ Seneca nation, were entitled to a fedE so because banishment was considen :ON ver itian In -is Id, its ig: tar ,re lO- inly, to ps ut nA ri.ss .ct al d- re ot er llt 1n ~e 10 .'s INTRODUCTION 7 officials engaged in such harsh decisions acting in a manner that comports with the traditional notions of identity discussed earlier, or are they now acting like privileged and exclusive corporate clubs? What rights do the disenrolled or banished Native citizens have to contest this most profound of severances? Can Native nations ensure justice and individual civil rights for their citizens and still protect and exercise tribal sovereignty in membership decisions? Finally, what role, if any, should the federal government play in these contentious intratribal affairs, since those dismembered also happen to be U.S. citizens and are supposedly entitled to the same basic civil liberties as all other citizens? The United States purports to have a trust relationship with federally recognized Native nations and all of their citizens, which means that it is pledged with protecting the lands, rights, and resources oflndigenous nations by the Constitution's treaty, property, and commerce clauses; the several hundred ratified treaties forged between the federal government and Indigenous peoples; and numerous federal statutes and policy directives. When tribal governments are violating the rights of their own citizens, including their vested property interests, the federal government as the principal trust agent has a constitutional, moral, and treaty responsibility to assist those individuals suffering such violations. GENESIS OF THIS BOOK Two events in 1996 first brought this issue to our attention; both involved the banishment of enrolled tribal citizens. The first episode centered on the banishment of one individual, George Whitewolf, a Monacan Indian from Virginia. When new leadership was elected Whitewolf found himself on the wrong side of their political and spiritual ideology, and he was unceremoniously banished. An outcry from tribal members forced the governing body to reconsider, and within a few months his membership rights were restored. Nevertheless, that event and the pain it caused left a deep imprint. The second episode, an important federal court ruling also involving banishment, occurred among the Seneca of New York. In this case, Poodry v. Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians, a federal appellate court ruled that five Seneca citizens, who had been permanently banished by the tribal government on the grounds that they had allegedly committed treason against the Seneca nation, were entitled to a federal review of the tribe's action. 5 This was so because banishment was considered a severe enough punishment involving 8 INTRODUCTION a sufficient restraint on their liberty and because the banished members had been evicted without a trial, prior notice, or any other form of due process. This case is discussed in greater detail in chapter 5. As important as Poodry is, it has been largely ineffectual in providing those facing disenrollment or banishment any protection because in virtually all the litigation since 1996- federal, tribal, or state-courts have generally adhered to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1978 Santa Clara decision that Native governments are the final arbiters of membership decisions. OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK In this title, we will first provide a broad overview of banishment from a world historical perspective and then bring it into focus and discuss the way it was occasionally practiced among Indigenous nations. In the next chapter, we will critically examine the ascendance of the term enrollment as it was determined by federal judicial, congressional, and administrative officials from the mid18oos to the early 1900s. Crime, race, and allotment factored heavily in how and why the United States intervened in tribal membership matters. We then turn to the 1930s Indian New Deal era and the capstone 1934 Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), which formally stymied allotment and laid out a policy of tribal self-rule, including, for some nations, the formal adoption of written constitutions, bylaws, and charters of incorporation. This chapter will also critically review the language in over three hundred tribal constitutions to see precisely what they say about disenrollment, banishment, exclusion, and related terms. In the next chapter we introduce the rise of Native nationalism and tribal sovereignty in the wake of federal policies of termination, relocation, and Public Law 280. A discussion of Santa Clara v. Martinez (1978) sets the stage for an examination of how tribal governments began to more forcefully assert their retained power over membership decisions. As tribal nations moved through the 1980s, Indian gambling operations began to have a major impact economically, culturally, and politically. At the same time crime became a major social problem across Indian Country. A number of Native nations began to look for ways to address membership issues unleashed by the surge of dollars, the criminal element, race, and the manner in which Native politics and culture coalesce in relation to these topics. Next, we examine in broad fashion a number of Native nations that are disenrolling or banishing citizens. California is home to the largest concentra- INTRODUCTION tion of Indigenous communities th Tribal elites assert that they have 1 rolls, including crimes or civil violat distance from homeland, inadequa1 information or documentary error, ees, by contrast, assert that these o real reasons for disenrollment: eco political power plays, personal venc but a few. Due to the complexity o gnettes of several nations where thi In the next chapter we engage ii federal courts have addressed this 1 positions judicial bodies are placec arms of the governance structures t also the one venue where those faci chance at receiving a fair and impar for Native individuals facing dismE court system, and of those that do ti immune from challenge in those C< expressly authorized such action.6 In the conclusion we discuss th and actions on Indigenous nationl individuals in their own land anc glance, that a number of dismemh porate economic model of govern: Native Claims Settlement Act (Al\ (IGRA), and the Harvard Project• does not explain the rise of disenr with civil violations or criminal ac Finally, we assess some of the r various commentators, disenrolle1 Ideas include the formation of an in appellate body, modifications to tr ments, amendments to the ICRA ( contest their exclusion more easi bered individuals to organize sep< federal government as separate pc tions Declaration on the Rights of IN INTRODUCTION td tion of Indigenous communities that are dismembering their own citizens. Tribal elites assert that they have legitimate reasons to purge membership rolls, including crimes or civil violations, treasonous activity, dual citizenship, distance from homeland, inadequate or inappropriate blood quantum, false information or documentary error, or enrollment policy changes. Disenrollees, by contrast, assert that these official rationales are masks that hide the real reasons for disenrollment: economic competition over finite resources, political power plays, personal vendettas, and racial discrimination, to name but a few. Due to the complexity of each case, we can but provide short vignettes of several nations where the process has unfolded. In the next chapter we engage in an analysis of how both Indigenous and federal courts have addressed this vital topic. These cases reveal the difficult positions judicial bodies are placed in. On the one hand, they are the active arms of the governance structures they represent; on the other hand, they are also the one venue where those facing dismemberment feel they have the best chance at receiving a fair and impartial hearing. To further complicate matters for Native individuals facing dismemberment, not every Native nation has a court system, and of those that do tribal membership decisions are sometimes immune from challenge in those courts unless the tribal legislative body has expressly authorized such action. 6 In the conclusion we discuss the implications of dismemberment policies and actions on Indigenous nationhood, citizenship, and the status of Native individuals in their own land and in the United States. It appears, at first glance, that a number of dismembering Native nations have embraced a corporate economic model of governance as advanced by the IRA, the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), and the Harvard Project on Economic Development. But this alone does not explain the rise of disenrollment or banishment as a means to deal with civil violations or criminal activity. Finally, we assess some of the reform ideas that have been put forward by various commentators, disenrollees, and others to address dismemberment. Ideas include the formation of an intertribal human rights treaty, an intertribal appellate body, modifications to tribal constitutions or other governing documents, amendments to the ICRA (e.g., to give disenrollees an opportunity to contest their exclusion more easily in federal court), encouraging dismembered individuals to organize separately and seek acknowledgment from the federal government as separate political entities, and utilizing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and other international s. 1e ~d ts d :S 11 d Iv t f l 9 •------------------------------.-.-.-~ I IO INTRODUCTION l)JSl~Nll()l. I. Sovereigntree, the attack from within. Originally run March 4, 2016, on Indian Country Today Media Network.© 2016 Marty Two Bulls. protocols in an effortto provide a measure ofjustice to dismembered individuals who have been disenfranchised. Native governments currently engaged in or considering dismemberment actions should look deep within their own past for guidance on such important decisions. What most every nation would discover by engaging in such selfexamination is that historically and until very recent times no Native leaders lightly set about to permanently banish or formally disenroll individuals or families they were organically related to. Native communities once possessed clear and well understood traditions, norms, and customs of how a civilized tribal citizen should behave in relation to his or her family, clan, community, and the larger natural order. They relied largely upon social pressures, particularly the individual's fear of embarrassing his or her relatives and clan INTRODUCTION members, as their primary mean: and penalty for violation of custo: The actual practice of banishr used as it would have indicated a of traditional dispute resolution p in a peaceful, nonadversarial ma1 order and balance rather than mer existed-ostracism, ridicule, tern restore balance to the community and customs of the nation. Financ equate and often times flawed fee fectively terminate the political eJ Today, in some situations, esp4 it appears that some Native nation ment is one social mechanism the3 maintain community stability; th lines and procedures to carry out disenrollment cases, tribal official! traditions, or due process, arbitra members as a means to solidify the winnow out opposition families " leadership is headed. If Native nations continue do~ own people on the most spurious provoke the federal government to tribal decisions, but more importa that profoundly violates the true s nation: a nation in which all are rel fractions of blood), by land, by b values. INTRODUCTION II members, as their primary means of determining the proper social response and penalty for violation of customary law. The actual practice of banishment-and later disenrollment-was rarely used as it would have indicated a significant breakdown in the effectiveness of traditional dispute resolution processes. Problems were generally resolved in a peaceful, nonadversarial manner, with the emphasis being on restoring order and balance rather than mere retribution. Much less draconian sanctions existed-ostracism, ridicule, temporary removal, physical punishment-to restore balance to the community when individuals acted contrary to the laws and customs of the nation. Financial factors, DNA tests, and reliance on inadequate and often times flawed federal historical records were not used to effectively terminate the political existence of tribal citizens. Today, in some situations, especially those centered on criminal activity, it appears that some Native nations have reluctantly determined that banishment is one social mechanism they may sometimes have to employ in order to maintain community stability; they have carefully constructed clear guidelines and procedures to carry out this difficult process. But in a majority of disenrollment cases, tribal officials exhibit no concern for human rights, tribal traditions, or due process, arbitrarily and capriciously dismembering tribal members as a means to solidify their own economic and political bases and to winnow out opposition families who disapprove of the direction the tribal leadership is headed. If Native nations continue down the path of wholesale evictions of their own people on the most spurious of grounds, they not only may eventually provoke the federal government to step in and interfere in this most private of tribal decisions, but more importantly, they will continue to act in a manner that profoundly violates the true spirit of what it means to be an Indigenous nation: a nation in which all are related by genealogy (culturally derived, not fractions of blood), by land, by language, and by spiritual traditions and values. CHAPTER 5 The Dismembering Explodes IN VARIOUS REGIONS OF INDIAN COUNTRY, MORE THAN SEVENTY NA- tive governments have already acted to banish or disenroll citizens; have provisionally acted to institute disenrollment procedures (though as of this writing the process has not been completed); are considering whether to banish or disenroll, contingent upon not yet completed tribal enrollment audits or other internal investigations; or have denied membership to individuals who appear to have the bona fides necessary to be formally enrolled. The following four tables provide a broad overview of the nations who have or are engaging in one or more of these practices. 1 Table 5.r is the comprehensive list of all those tribal nations we have empirical data for (though some categories are incomplete because of lack of data) who have or are currently involved in banishing or disenrolling citizens. It spells out the location, whether or not the community was federally terminated, whether or not gaming is conducted, whether the tribal government provides per capita payments to tribal members, what action is being pursued by tribal officials, and what the official rationale(s) of the government is for engaging in the practice. Table 5.2 shows a list of the nearly fifty communities in twenty states (excluding California) and what is transpiring in those states. The first fact that stands out is that the number of nations that are banishing-twenty-one-is less than the number that are disenrolling-twenty-eight. Two tribes, the Saginaw Chippewa and the Snoqualmie, are doing both. Second, of the communities listed, thirty-four are gaming communities, or nearly 73 percent. Official rationales provided by tribal governments to justify disenrollment or banishment also vary. Criminal activity or civil violations are the most commonly cited reason for banishment-sixteen instances. We could find no evidence of disenrollment for such infractions. Lack of blood quantum (twelve a00 TABLE 5 .1. Native nations that have engaged in dismemberment Terminated Gaming Per Capita Action No No Disenrollment OK No Yes Yes Yes Disenrollment CA No Yes Yes Disenrollment CA No Yes No Banishment MN No - Disenrollment CA Yes No Yes - Oisenrollment CA No No No Banishment CA No No Disenrollment OK Yes OK Yes Yes Banishment No Yes No No Disenrollment CA No Yes Yes Disenrollment OK No No Disenrollment WA Yes OR Yes Yes Disenrollment Yes OR Yes Yes Disenrollment Yes No Yes Yes Oisenrollment LA No Yes Yes Disenrollment CA Location Community Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Boise Forte Band of Ojibwa Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria California Valley Miwok Tribe Cedarville Rancheria Cherokee Nation Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Comanche Nation Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Ory Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Rationale CA No Yes Yes CA No No No CA No Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Yes - Disenrollment Disenrollment, Banishment Disenrollment Insufficient blood quantum Criminal activity Dual enrollment, receipt of funds from another tribe's settlement Insufficient blood quantum Embezzlement Enrollment fraud Insufficient documentation Dual citizenship Insufficient blood quantum Ci :i: - :» ""..., Treason, fraud. corruption, etc. - - "':i:i < 'Cl .... 0 ti m - Cl) Banishment WA MD -,, z Criminal activity Yes No Insufficient blood quantum NC MN a:"' a:DO m Disenrollment No Mashantucket Pequot Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Yes - Insufficient blood quantum No Lummi Tribe Monacan Indian Nation Yes ::i: m ti Disenrollment Mi lumbee Tribe Mille lacs Band of Ojibwe Yes Oisenrollment NV little River Band of Ottawa Mattaponi Tribe Yes No Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Las Vegas Band of Paiute Yes AK .., Insufficient blood quantum No Mi Klawock Cooperative Association Criminal activity Disenrollment Yes No WA Banishment Criminal activity Disenrollment Insufficient blood quantum Disenrollment Enrollment error, residency Disenrollment Fraud, failure to maintain contact Banishment Criminal activity Criminal activity Criminal activity Banishment Criminal activity Banishment Disenrollment Disenrollment Banishment Criminal activity °' (continued) "' --.J 0 TABLE 5.1. (continued) Terminated Gaming Per Capita Action Location No AK No Banishment No Yes Oisenrollment No No WA Yes Oisenrollment No No NY OK Yes - Oisenrollment No Oisenrollment No Yes CA Yes Yes Disenrollment Yes Yes CA No Oisenrollment No No ME Yes Disenrollment No Yes Yes Yes CA Yes Yes Disenrollment Yes Yes CA No Yes - Disenrollment CA Yes - - Disenrollment CA Yes Oisenrollment No Yes WA Yes Disenrollment Yes Yes CA Yes Oisenrollment No Yes CA Yes Disenrollment Yes Yes CA Yes Yes Oisenrollment Community Native Village of Tanana Nooksack Indian Tribe Oneida Nation Osage Nation Pala Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians Passamaquoddy Tribe Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians CA Pinoleville Pomo Nation Pitt River Tribe, Madesi Band Potter Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians Puyallup Tribe Redding Rancheria Rincon Band of San Luiseno Indians Robinson Rancheria Band of Pomo DK No Ml Saginaw Chippewa CA Criminal activity Enrollment error fraud Insufficient blood quantum Failure to prove lineal descent Oisenrollment, Banishment Sac and Fox Tribal Community San Pasqual Band of Oiqueno Mission Indians Rationale No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Disenrollment, Banishment Procedural errors, lack of documentation Dual enrollment Dual enrollment, insufficient blood () quantum > '"Cl Insufficient blood quantum Disenrollment -- :i: .., "';>l V1 Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria CA Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokat CA No Yes Yes Disenrollment Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe WA No Yes Yes Oisenrollment Insufficient blood quantum Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Ml No Yes No Banishment Criminal activity Seminole Nation OK No Yes - Oisenrollment Insufficient blood quantum Shingle Springs Band of Miwok CA No Yes Yes Oisenrollment Fraud z Shoshone-Bannock Tribe UT No No No Banishment Criminal activity "'>< Snoqualmie Indian Tribe WA Yes Yes No Oisenrollment, Banishment Insufficient blood quantum, treason ""0 Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate SD No Yes Disenrollment Dual enrollment St. Croix Chippewa of Wisconsin WI No Yes Oisenrollment Fraud "'"' No Oisenrollment .., :i: "' t:I "'~ "'~ °'"' ;>l t;l '"Cl - t:I .., CA No No No Oisenrollment Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokat CA No Yes Yes Disenrollment Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe WA No Yes Yes Disenrollment Insufficient blood quantum "';;,:: Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Ml No Yes No Banishment Criminal activity ;;,:: Seminole Nation DK No Yes - Disenrollment Insufficient blood quantum t'1 Shingle Springs Band of Miwok CA No Yes Yes Disenrollment Fraud z Shoshone-Bannock Tribe UT No No No Banishment Criminal activity >< Snoqualmie Indian Tribe WA Yes Yes No Disenrollment, Banishment Insufficient blood quantum, treason Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate SD No Yes Disenrollment Dual enrollment St. Croix Chippewa of Wisconsin WI No Yes - Disenrollment Fraud ::i:: t'1 l:l t'1 ti' ~ ~ Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone NV No Yes No Disenrollment Insufficient blood quantum Tonawanda Band of Seneca NY No No No Banishment Treason Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa ND No Yes No Banishment United Auburn Indian Community CA Yes Yes Yes Banishment Cl t'1 '...."" 0 l:l t'1 "' Defamation United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians OK No No No Banishment Upper Sioux Community MN No Yes Yes Banishment Viejas Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians CA No Yes Yes Disenrollment Walker River Paiute Tribe NV No No No Disenrollment Ysleta del Sur Pueblo TX No No No Banishment Insufficient blood quantum, criminal activity, violation of ceremonies Yupik Village AK No No No Banishment Criminal activity Criminal activity '-I --~,?;c.$-~ -·~.tr;:' :: \ :~ " ' ~- C.'. ...,'d t'1 ;IO l NC Lum mi Tribe Native Village ofTanana Nooksack Indian Tribe Oneida Nation Osage Nation Passamaquoddy Tribe Puyallup Tribe Sac and Fox Tribal Community Saginaw Chippewa Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Seminole Nation Shoshone-Bannock Tribe Sisseton Wahpeton Dyate Snoqualmie Indian Tribe Disenrollment "' Fraud, failure to maintain contact No Yes No Banishment Criminal activity No Yes Yes Banishment VA Criminal activity No No No MN No Yes Yes Banishment MD Criminal activity No No No Banishment - s::"' s:: No Disenrollment - t'1 ;>;J Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Native Village of Alutiig No CT Mattaponi Tribe Narragansett Tribe No WA Mashantucket Pequot Monacan Indian Nation Yes Banishment .., :i: t'1 Criminal activity 0 ~ t'1 RI No No AK No No No AK No No No Banishment Criminal activity WA No :.< Yes No Disenrollment Enrollment error "" 0 Yes No Disenrollment - t!l Disenrollment Fraud NY OK No No Yes Banishment ME No No No WA No Yes Yes Disenrollment OK No Yes Yes Disenrollment Yes Yes Disenrollment, Banishment Ml No °' ~ z Criminal activity Cl t'1 t-' 0 "' Disenrollment Dual enrollment, insufficient blood quantum WA No Yes No Disenrollment Ml Insufficient blood quantum No Yes No Banishment Criminal activity OK No Yes UT No No SD No Yes WA Yes Yes No No Disenrollment Insufficient blood quantum Banishment Criminal activity Disenrollment Dual enrollment Disenrollment, Banishment Insufficient blood quantum, treason '-I w (continued) ··:-: ' . ' . '""'!:' "· '\ . : . ·~'~···· 1 TABLE 5.2. (continued) '-1 ~ Community Location Terminated Gaming Per Capita Action Rationale St. Croix Chippewa of Wisconsin WI No Yes Disenrollment Fraud Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone NV No Yes No Disenrollment Insufficient blood quantum Tonawanda Band of Seneca NY No No No Banishment Treason Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa ND No Yes No Banishment United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians OK No No No Banishment Upper Sioux Community MN No Yes Yes Banishment Walker River Paiute NV No No No Disenrollment Criminal activity Ysleta del Sur Pueblo TX No No No Banishment Insufficient blood quantum, criminal activity, violation of ceremonies Yupik Village AK No No No Banishment Criminal activity Cl :i: > "'..., t'1 :00 "' ..., TABLE :i: s. 3. California-based Native nations that have engaged in dismemberment Community Terminated Gaming Per Capita Action Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria Yes Yes Yes Disenrollment Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu No Yes Yes Disenrollment Big Valley Band of Pomo Yes Yes Yes Disenrollment Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria No Yes - Disenrollment California Valley Miwok Tribe No No No Disenrollment Cedarville Rancheria No No No Banishment Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Yes No No Disenrollment t'1 Rationale 0 "'a: t"ll a: "":00t"ll z Dual enrollment, receipt of funds from another tribe's settlement c:;i t"ll >< "'0,,... 0 t"ll "' TABLE s. 3. .., :i:: California-based Native nations that have engaged in dismemberment C'1 Community Terminated Gaming Per Capita Action Rationale Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria Yes Yes Yes Disenrollment - is: - is: co 0 C/) C'1 Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu No Yes Yes Disenrollment Big Valley Band of Pomo Yes Yes Yes Disenrollment Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria No Yes - Disenrollment C'1 :lCf z Dual enrollment, receipt of funds from another tribe's settlement Cl C'1 ~ California Valley Mi wok Tribe No No No Disenrollment Cedarville Rancheria No No No Banishment - Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Yes No No Disenrollment - Coyote Valley Band of Pomo No Yes Yes Disenrollment Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo No Yes Yes Disenrollment Elem Indian Colony of Pomo No No No Disenrollment, Banishment Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu No Yes - Disenrollment Guidiville Rancheria of Pomo Yes Yes No Disenrollment Hopland Band of Pomo Yes Yes Yes Disenrollment Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Yes Yes Yes Disenrollment Pala Band of Luiseno Mission Indians No Yes Yes Disenrollment Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians Yes Yes Yes Disenrollment Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians No Yes Yes Disenrollment Failure to prove lineal descent Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians Yes Yes Yes Disenrollment, Banishment Procedural errors, lack of documentation 'ti ,.... 0 0 C'1 Cl) Treason, fraud, corruption, etc. Insufficient blood quantum '-l C/1 (continued) ..... ,. '- , .,._., -~i.11;·,~ '~~· \ ~~ -·- ~"""' TABLE ~-· ---· - "'°' 5.3. (continued) Community Terminated Gaming Per Capita Action Pinoleville Pomo Nation Yes Yes Yes Disenrollment Pitt River Tribe, Madesi Band No Yes - Disenrollment Potter Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians Yes No No Disenrollment Rationale Dual enrollment, no lineal descent Redding Rane heria Yes Yes Yes Disenrollment Rincon Band of San Luiseno Indians No Yes Yes Disenrollment Robinson Rancheria Band of Pomo Yes Yes Yes Disenrollment San Pasqual Band of Diqueno Mission Indians No Yes Yes Disenrollment Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria No No No Disenrollment Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokat No Yes Yes Disenrollment Shingle Springs Band of Miwok No Yes Yes Disenrollment Fraud United Auburn Indian Community Yes Yes Yes Banishment Defamation Viejas Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians No Yes Yes Disenrollment Insufficient blood quantum (') :i: > ..,.,, "' :i; {J1 TABLE .., s. 4. Native Nations that have engaged in denial of citizenship :i: Community Location Terminated Gaming Per Capita Action Rationale "'0 Big Sandy Rancheria CA Yes Yes Yes Denied Citizenship Not recognized at restoration "'r;:: Cachil DeHe Band ofWintun Indians of the Colusa CA No Yes Yes Denied Citizenship - Eastern Shoshone WY No Yes No Disenrollment, Denied Citizenship Eligible but denied citizenship Jackson Rancheria CA Yes Yes Yes Denied Citizenship Not recognized at restoration Little Traverse Band of Odawa Ml Yes Yes Denied Citizenship Insufficient blood quantum "'r;:: °" "' :i; z Cl Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe MA No MnhonS11n Trih11 l'.T Nn No No Denied Citizenship - .,,"'>< t:"' 0 0 "'"' .., TABLE ::c 5.4. Native Nations that have engaged in denial of citizenship Community Location Terminated Gaming t'1 Per Capita Action Rationale 0 Not recognized at restoration "';,:; - Big Sandy Rancheria CA Yes Yes Yes Denied Citizenship Cachil DeHe Band ofWintun Indians of the Colusa CA No Yes Yes Denied Citizenship Eastern Shoshone WY t'1 ;,:; t:O t'1 ;:i:l No Yes No Disenrollment, Denied Citizenship Eligible but denied citizenship Denied Citizenship Not recognized at restoration z Cl Jackson Rancheria Little Traverse Band of Odawa CA Yes Yes Yes Ml Yes Yes t'1 >< "d ,,.. Insufficient blood quantum Denied Citizenship 0 Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe MA No No No Denied Citizenship - 0 Mohegan Tribe CT No Yes Yes Denied Citizenship - "' Seminole Nation OK No Yes No Denied Citizenship Freedman denied judgment funds, CDIB cards Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community MN No Yes Yes Disenrollment, Denied Citizenship Eligible but denied or postponed indefinitely. Table Mountain Rancheria CA No Yes Yes Denied Citizenship Refused to process application Yurok Tribe CA No Yes N/A Denied Citizenship Insufficient blood quantum t'1 'l 'l .~ . ,,. . '· -· ·--·~',41~·'·~·,· _/ - CHAPTER 5 instances) is the second-most-cited rationale. Insufficient blood or the wrong type of blood from a different nation led to disenrollment, not banishment, in nine of the eleven cases. Fraud in enrollment was cited twice; both were cases of disenrollment. And there were only two cases of "error" in enrollment, which also led to disenrollment. Table 5.3 is devoted exclusively to one state, California, which is home to the largest number of Native peoples engaging in dismemberment practicesabout thirty as of July 2016. The data here are strikingly different than the data in most other states. First, the sheer number of Native communities that are dismembering is very high. The most revealing category is the action of disenrollment or banishment. Unlike the other twenty states, where the two practices are comparable, in California only two communities-Cedarville Rancheria and United Auburn-have used banishment alone. 1\.vo others are engaging in both practices-Elem Indian Colony and Picayune Rancheria. All the other communities have or are using disenrollment. Second, all but six of the communities have gaming operations, although the Picayune Rancheria casino was shut down in October 2014 by federal decree because of a vicious intratribal conflict that has crippled the community and led to the disenrollment of more than half the community's citizenry. The casino reopened in January 2016. Another key fact is that of the gaming tribes in California at least twenty engage in per capita distribution of at least some portion of the gambling revenue. Our data show that per capita payments, which must be established under the auspices of federal law via a Revenue Allocation Plan (RAP), play a central role in some of the tribal dismemberment battles as will be discussed later. Table 5-4 identifies an admittedly short list of tribal governments that have not formally disenrolled or banished members, but have willfully denied admittance to individuals who appear to have a legitimate right to be admitted to citizenship in the nation. There may well be other nations that are denying membership, but we do not have that data. It is impossible to definitively ascertain how many individuals-whether considered blood citizens or ethnic citizens, citizens by treaty (African American Freedmen within several of the Five Civilized Tribes), or citizens by adoption-have been dismembered in the last two decades, with figures ranging from two thousand to eight thousand. One commentator suggested that in California alone some five thousand individuals had been dismembered between 2000 and 2oro. 2 We do know that the combined number of potential and actual disenrollees in two nations alone-the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma THE DISMEMBERING EXPLODES WC WIL.L. NOT AL.l..OW YOU TO Tfl