Nannette Croce's Blog
Posted by Nannette Croce
At first look the UN Permanent Forum on Indiginous Issues' appeal to Pope Benedict XVI to revoke the Doctrine of Discovery sounds like one of those demands for sweeping apology so frequent these days. Speaking only for myself, I'm not a big fan of these. Not that the victims aren't deserving. But in my opinion, whether for slavery, internment, the Holocaust or what have you, even when accompanied by reparations, these apologies do more to assuage the guilt of perpetrator than the pain and suffering of the victim.
However, revoking the Doctrine of Discovery would be more than an apology. This would be big--really big.
Why? Because the Doctrine of Discovery forms the underpinning for Aboriginal-White relations all over the globe. It is the specious argument all governments fall back on when they cannot morally defend the taking of Indigenous lands and the destruction of Indigenous Resources.
The truly ironic part is that the Doctrine of Discovery is the Pope's to revoke. As far back as the 15th century, Kings began to assert their rights against the pope. Yet today, even countries like the US that hold strict separation between church and state and will have no state religion, regularly turn to these 500-year-old papal bulls to rationalize the taking of Indian land. It continues even to this day.
Posted by Nannette Croce
While this site usually focuses on more recent Aboriginal History, I can't let June 25 pass without reference to the Battle of the Little Bighorn or what my family and I, being of Italian ancestry, like to call Giovanni Martini Day.
You may know him as George Martin, Custer's bugler who served as his orderly for the day and may very well have been the last survivor to glimpse Custer alive. At the point when Custer apparently realized that he had more Indians on his hands than he had bargained for, he waived Giovanni Martini over and barked out some orders. In the best of circumstances, the recent Italian immigrant might have had difficulty understanding, but Custer also had a tendency to come out a little garbled when in a hurry. At any rate, Lieutenant William W. Cooke thought it best to scribble a note. The words are now famous:
"Benteen. Come on. Big Village. Be Quick. Bring Packs.
W. W. Cooke.
P. bring packs."
Despite Giovanni Martini's later depiction--"The last I saw of the command they were going down into the ravine. The gray horse troop was in the center and they were galloping"--this particular episode has always conjurs a humorous scene in my mind. I can't help but see Giovanni Martini as Manuel in the old BBC series, Fawlty Towers, while Custer, flustered and barely comprehensible, struggles to make him understand.
"You want I go between? That makes no sense."
"Not between, you idiot--Benteen."
"Oh, Benteen...sorry Mr. Custer, he no here."
"I know he's not here. I sent him on a scout."
"Well, if you send him out on scout, why you think he here?"
Of course the reality is that Giovanni Martini did deliver the message, and his leaving is the last we know for certain of what transpired that afternoon. Volumes have been written speculating why Custer sent Benteen out on that scout, whether he took his Indian scouts seriouly when they told him the size of the camp, whether Benteen or Reno could have done more, and whether it would have made a difference.
I'll leave that to the Custerphiles and phobes to sort out. I have much more fun speculating on that fateful conversation between Custer and the recent Italian immigrant, Giovanni Martini.
Also see Foreshadowing the Little Bighorn
Posted by Nannette Croce
Under the Doctrine of Discovery , Spain and Portugal saw the Catholic Church as giving leave to subjugate, enslave, and torture indigenous peoples in the name of bringing them into the faith. While many Europeans would look to this doctrine to rationalize Aboriginal conquests, the Spanish were the most brutal.
At the same time, French emphasis on proselytizing over permanent settlement in what is now Canada, is credited by many historians, along with the fishing and fur trades, for maintaining a more equal Aboriginal/European realationship for a much longer period than in the rest of the Americas.
The boarding school experience in the US and Canada destroyed individuals and whole cultures. Religious reformers were also responsible for many failed assimilation attempt. Yet, today, religious schools often provide the best education on reservations.
For more on this topic, see Aboriginal Rights, The Church by Tyson Yunkaporta.
Posted by Nannette Croce
Under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) Native American tribes had the opportunity to draft constitutions for self-government. These constitutions would take effect if approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
While, in theory, Indian nations in the US had always maintained a degree of soveriegnty, once on the reservations traditional social structures were eroded. Any attempts at preaching or maintaining traditional ways and ceremonies were viewed as dangerous by Indian Agents always seeing an uprising on the horizon. Traditional leaders were marginalized and often punished for speaking out while "progressives" who cooperated with the federal government, joined the Indian police, served on Indian courts, and spied on other tribal members, were rewarded.
This caused major schisms in Indian societies and a breakdown of the social structure which played a major roll in the growth of crime, alcoholism, and suicide.
While allowing Indians a modicum of self-determination, none of the governments formed under the IRA resembled anything near the traditional ways. The result was to further marginalize traditionals--a situation that continues to cause difficulties in modern times.
Wounded Knee II and the Leonard Peltier case were rooted in the traditionals v. progressives battle on the Pine Ridge Reservation. More recently, in 1999-2000 a grass-roots group took over the government building at Pine Ridge, forcing out members of the elected tribal council. Not long ago, a faction of Oneida--a tribe that has gained wealth through gaming and other operations--claimed that they were forced from their housing not because it was substandard and a health hazard, but to punish them for being traditionals opposed to gaming.
While many tribes function well under their IRA governments, it is not unusual for the legitimacy of tribal councils to come into question, and often governments are paralyzed during the sorting out. This can pose a danger to the financial stability, particularly of gaming tribes.
One could assume from this that Indians are incapable of self-government or it could be that the constitutional governments imposed upon them are like squeezing a foot accustomed to the moccasin into a leather boot. You can live with it, but it never feels quite like the right fit.
Posted by Nannette Croce
Tyson Yunkaporta's guest article Aboriginal Massacres draws attention to a very important point. Indigenous people on every continent from the Arctic Circle to the tip of South America, Asia, Africa, and Australia, share certain experiences in common. While the cultures of the colonized vary, the actions of the colonizers are amazingly similar, as are the long-term results to indigenous populations.
All over the world indigenous people suffer higher rates of poverty, crime, alcoholism, suicide, and spousal and child abuse than the cultures that dominate them, further feeding the myth of inherent superiority among the colonizers. (See Rape is a White Privilege) What is never adequately addressed is that these issues are the result of colonization, not the cause. Poverty, crime, suicide, and abuse inevitably result when cultures are denied their means of subsistance and the self determination to maintain their own social structures. Colonization can be especially hard on indigenous men, who, in many cultures, held the role of protector (though not lord and master as in many European cultures) of the women, children, and elderly and who suffer from a strong sense of failure.
No one expects, at this point, that the colonizers will all leave the "discovered" lands. However, recognizing indigenous peoples' right to self-determination as set out in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indegenous Peoples can go a long way to restoring self-respect and effective social structures. In some cases it may take generations for some indigenous nations to heal the schism in their governments and cultures caused by foreign domination, but the result will be emensely beneficial to both indigenous and non-indigenous alike.
At this point Australia, the Russian Federation, and the United States refuse to endorse the Declaration.
Posted by Nannette Croce
While the purpose of the Dawes Act was to promote individual ownership and assimilate Indians into the dominant culture, Individual Indian allotments of property and the Individual Money Accounts (IIMs) at the root of the Indian Trust Case continue to be held in trust by the American government.
Why has this anachronism continued into the 21st century?
Like many outdated ideas, Indian Trust monies have a functional basis. When eastern tribes, like the Lenape, were being removed ever farther west, the government sometimes provided monetary compensation for the confiscated land. Though inadequate to the long-term needs of the tribes, not to mention well below market value for the property, these sums appeared large to those unaccustomed to a monetary economy and were quickly dissipated.
Today, of course, in every other way American Indians participate in the economic system of the dominant culture. They shop at the local Walmart rather than on account at the local trading post. They buy automobiles and gas to fuel them, groceries and sundries. Many are well-educated, yet their land allotments continue to be held in trust and cannot be sold or transferred without the consent of the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs). Leases of these allotments for land and mineral rights are also negotiated by the BIA and lease income is held in trust and dispersed as annuities. This is the same whether the allotee is a poor farmer or a PhD in Economics. Thus things we take for granted--attaining a mortgage or business loan and passing property to our heirs--the bases of wealth accumulation in our society are out of reach to many American Indians.
Why, after nearly 100 years, is this outdated policy still adhered to without question?
One reason may be that the system is now an entrenched bureaucracy not easily dismantled. Another may be that few non-Indians even know that the policy still exists. Still another reason may be that leases of trust property to mineral and timber companies are often negotiated by the BIA at much lower rates than leases on non-Indian property. The same is true for rights of way negotiated through tribal lands. Consequently, there is little incentive among those in power to change the system.
Funny how a policy initiated to introduce American Indians into individual ownership and assimilate them into the dominant culture, gave way to a policy of keeping Indians "in their place" and maintaining the status quo.
Posted by Nannette Croce
The answer is, having no idea where Terry was, Crook returned to his earlier camp on Goose Creek, sent out scouts, and spent about a week fly fishing.
A little R&R never hurts I guess.
Posted by Nannette Croce
Sled Dog Slaughter covers allegations that appeared in various media that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police participated in a systematic slaughter of Inuit sled dogs in the 1950s and 1960s. The RCMP has responded to these allegations on their website.
Some Inuit hunters provide very different stories, some of which I mentioned in my article. As with all such issues, I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between.
Posted by Nannette Croce
The cases that led to the Marshall Trilogy and the basis for future American Indian Law in the US stemmed from the state of Georgia applying pressure against the Cherokee nation in an effort to take their land. However, while these decisions found against a state's right to impose law on Indian reservations, they moved away from the idea of of inherent American Indian sovereignty and instead characterized Indian nations as wards of the federal government.
Most of the major Supreme Court cases involving American Indian nations have revolved around states attempting to assert rights over Indian nations in areas of civil and criminal law or taxation. The federal government usually takes the position of protecting Indian sovereignty from encroachment by the states by asserting its own authority. However, the Marshall Trilogy's characterization of American Indian tribes as "wards of the federal government" and establishment of the trust status of their lands simply replaced state powers with federal powers, negating the idea of inherent American Indian sovereignty and placing Indian nations under the plenary power of the US Government. Consequently, for the federal government, the sovereignty issue has served as a way to diminish states rights while giving little away to American Indian nations
Posted by Nannette Croce
In the US the body of law known as American Indian Law is, for the most part, based on a series of Supreme Court decisions. The three decisions known as the Marshall Trilogy form the basis for American Indian Law, and the Marshall Trilogy is rooted in the Doctrine of Discovery.
No part of American Indian Law is rooted in Native American traditions. While American Indian nations enjoy a degree of sovereignty enacting these laws, the laws have been imposed upon them based on the American legal system. What is known as American Indian Law is really not law made by American Indians but law made for American Indians in order to codify relations with the US government. So, when American Indians bring a case before the Supreme Court, basing arguments on American Indian Law, they are accepting, a priori, the plenary power of Congress to make their laws.
A bit of a Catch 22.
Posted by Nannette Croce
They land on the shores of the Americas--the Spanish and French and Dutch and English. Depending on where they disembark they may find huge cities that rival those left behind, run by central governments with intricate legal systems. Or they may find peoples who live within their environment instead of trying to conquer it, not because they are incapable of doing so, but because they have found this to be the best way to continue and thrive. An intricate trade system exists among these people, running from north to south and east to west, with some nations serving the purpose of middle-men. They all have a system of education that does not involve congregating in separate buildings called schools, but none-the-less imparts the lessons that youth must learn to survive and live within the mores of their societies. While there are some inter-nation rivalries, stealing or murder within a band results in death or banishment and the occurence is extremely rare.
Recognizing how well these people have adapted to what is for the Europeans an alien environment, rather than make war on them or try to convert them to their religion and lifestyle, the Europeans interact with these peoples as equals. Over time, each culture, by its own volition, takes on what they find to be the beneficial aspects of the other while disgarding those traditions that no longer serve a pupose. Enjoying mutual respect they have no prohibition against intermarriage.
The scenario would not be assimilation into a dominant culture as was the goal of the 19th century but, instead, a blending.
This was not altogether impossible. The French voyageurs came pretty close to that type of society. But while this blending may have eventually led to some uber-race, separate Aboriginal cultures would cease to exist. Oddly enough, European extermination policies and then herding onto reservations may well have been what kept Aboriginal cultures alive in the long run. A total blending would have exterminated the cultures if not the individuals.
So is that better or worse? There's a thought to ponder.
Posted by Nannette Croce
The assimilation movements of the late 19th and early 20th century were deeply rooted in the Protestant work ethic. Indian Industrial Schools in the US and Canada tore children from their parents and educated them for jobs in the dominant society; in the US the Dawes Act of 1887 divided reservations into individual allotments where Native Americans were expected to replace hunting and gathering with farming; and both countries banned Aboriginal dances and rituals, such as the Potlatch of the Haida.
These policies failed for many reasons, not the least of which is that both governments often failed to provide necessary funding to see the projects through. However, just as important was the innate assumption that Aboriginal cultures and languages were more primitive and of less value than the Euro-American culture. While many Native leaders saw the value and indeed demanded as treaty rights, education in the white man's language and literacy, they did not envision their children turning their backs on the world of their elders.
With few exceptions these policies turned out children and adults who did not belong squarely in one world or the other. Forced to farm, Native Americans received the poorest leavings when white farmers got first choice. The tools provided were inadequate, leaving them with useless farms and severely diminished game for hunting. Students taught in schools to disdain the "savage" cultures of their ancestors, were still not considered quite equal to their white counterparts. Unable to make their way in the larger world, due to prejudices, they often returned to the reservation where they turned to lives of alcoholism, violence, and in later years drug use.
Today, many tribal governments are seeing the value of educating students in their own language and culture as a way of providing emotional stability. While this is taking hold in Canada, the No Child Left Behind Act in the US has made Native language and culture harder to fit into the public school curriculum.
"Making apples" produces bitter fruit.
Posted by Nannette Croce
At The Battle of the Rosebud, General Crook was surprised by the numbers and fighting style of the Indians who attacked him. To understand this you have to put aside all those Hollywood images of Indians swarming over the hills to attack the wagon train.
Until they began fighting the US Army, Plains Indian war parties tended to be much smaller. Large parties of warriors stirring clouds of dust were easily spotted by enemy villages and large numbers of men with two ponies apiece would be hard to sustain. Instead, warfare was more often conducted with lightening-quick strikes by small raiding parties. Also, fighting among Plains Indians was closer to sport than warfare, and, except for raids for blood vengence, killing was not the main goal. Instead, they gained honors by "counting coups." The most signficant coup was to touch a live enemy.
Though there were other rolls for men such as spiritual leader or history keeper, accumulating honors in battle was the main means for young males to earn their place in the tribe, and because of this they tended to fight for individual honors rather than as a disciplined group. There might be some strategy in the timing of the battle or setting up an ambush, but once the battle started it was every man for himself, and more often than not some young man started too soon and gave the ambush away.
When he killed the enemy a warrior would stop to take proof of his prowess, usually a scalp. It is important to note that scalping normally took place after death. In the rare instances where someone was scalped alive it was usually because they were unconscious or playing dead.
Once Lakota and Cheyenne warriors started coming up against the white man's disciplined armies, observant leaders like Red Cloud and later Crazy Horse began to realize that a more efficient fighting force was required. Prior to the Rosebud, the worse defeat for US troops was the Fetterman Fight in 1867 where 80 men were annihilated after being decoyed into an ambush of 1000-1500 Indians.
However, such large war parties remained rare and Indians continued to fight in the same manner, for individual glory and stopping to count coup. By the time of the Rosebud, however, Crazy Horse had learned the necessity of fighting in large numbers and a more unified force. He discouraged his warriors from stopping to take scalps for individual honors, which took valuable time away from the fight and exposed them to enemy bullets.
The results set the stage for Custer's defeat at the Little Bighorn.
Posted by Nannette Croce
The surrender of the Crazy Horse band in 1877 is often seen as the end of the American Indian Wars, but before that this great warrior led two victories against US troops in the summer of 1876 at the Battle of the Rosebud and at the Little Bighorn. For more, check out these biographies of Crazy Horse as well as General George Armstrong Custer
Posted by Nannette Croce
Perhaps we can better understand the destructive influence the English only rule had on Aborgininal cultures, by first examining our own culture. Those of us with a Euro-American background may associate our self identity with our names far more than our language. At the end of The Crucible John Proctor proclaims, "I have given you my soul; leave me my name!" However, young Indians students were accustomed to receiving new names throughout their lives. A childhood name might be replaced by one that designated a brave deed. Consequently, for many of these children taking on a new name was not nearly as traumatic as losing their language.
In many ways, language represents our world view. European based languages are, in many ways, rooted in shared culture, but if Americans attempt to learn the language of a very different culture, say Chinese, they will find words for things European languages did not find important enough to name.
Applying this to Aboriginal cultures, consider that the Inuit will have many different, nuanced words for the weather. This is because weather, in such a harsh climate, takes an important position in the culture. An Inuit child who is forced to put her language aside, to the point where she forgets it entirely and begins to think in the other language, will automatically suffer a disconnect with her family and ancestors.
The harmful effects also work the other way around by introducing new concepts that are at odds with their own culture. "The Indian Helper," which was the weekly newsletter from the Carlisle School often uses words like "advancement" and "progress." In English, both of these words mean to "move ahead" in some way. However, they have another cultural meaning associated with improvment. "Progress" and "advancement"--moving ahead in space or time--always carries a good connotation, never a bad one. While the word "regress" which strictly means "to move backward" also means to fall back into a less advanced state. Regressing is always a bad thing.
The concept of time for many Aboriginal cultures was not linear and forward moving. It was measured in repetitions of the seasons and the faces of the moon. They maintained strong connections to the past and their ancestors, learning valuable lessons from their elders. Consequently, students "progressing" in their studies or "advancing" in the world repudiated their cultures in every way.
Consider these excerpts from "The Indian Helper" March 31, 1893.
How did you learn to skate, this winter? By getting up every time you tumbled down? Certainly! So we can learn to be the respectable boy or girl we wish to become only by getting up every time we tumble down.
THAT is what Carlisle does! We do nothing to hold our pupils from going out to BETTER places than Carlisle, but do EVERYTHING to encourage them from going to worse places - the reservation, for instance.
Language reflects the essence of a culture and to the Aboriginal sense of self, language matters!
Posted by Nannette Croce
A recent article in the New York Times told of drug trafficking through Indian reservations on the US-Canadian border. The implication was that federally recognized tribes provide havens for drug dealers, but, as often happens with media hype about American Indians, they only gave half the story. Tribal law enforcement is often responsible for protecting long stretches of border in remote areas. Undetected border crossings can become even easier in winter when lakes freeze over so that cars can easily pass over them. With the exception of some small grants, money for border protection and Homeland Security is funneled through the states, that pass little along to the tribes. This puts a strain on already over-stressed tribal budgets and drains funding from other social services such as health and education. Learn the history of the Aboriginals along the US-Canadian Border in three articles The Medicine Line Part I, The Medicine Line Part II, and coming April 5, Breaching the Medicine Line.
Posted by Nannette Croce
Historical events like the French and Indian War and the American Revolution, as well as later treaties between Americans and British, solidified the US-Canadian border. Many Indian nations found themselves divided by this invisible line but had no say in the negotiations.
Posted by Nannette Croce
Given articles on the front page of the New York Times dealing with Indian nations and drug trafficking across the US/Canadian border, a little of the history neglected by the NYT, is in order. See The Medicine Line coming March 22 on this site.
Posted by Nannette Croce
Kennewick Man made the cover of TIME for March 13, 2006 and the issue includes two articles based on information released at the end of February regarding recent studies of the controversial skeleton. Unfortunately, TIME has a history of providing a slanted view of American Indian issues. In 2002 they published an extemely biased and inaccurate "expose" of Indian Casinos. Coverage of the
Kennewick Man studies is only slightly better.
Posted by Nannette Croce
In the US, Indian Nations are considered "protected sovereign nations." Just exactly what that means continues to be worked out, and, today, even the US Supreme Court seems to have sparse knowledge of American Indian Law. However, the issue of sovereignty and the relationship of Indian Nations to the state and federal governments is based on three opinions by Chief Justice John Marshall, the third Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. You can read an explanation of these three cases, known as Marshall Trilogy.
Posted by Nannette Croce
This site deals with the history of the Native American and First Nations people across North America. The writer will have a passion for, and knowledge of the history of these people and be able to convey to the reader information about their tribes, culture, and events in their past.
Writers must bring their topic to life, have strong writing skills and write one original, focused, and timely 250- 400-word article/week as well as one promo 200-word blog entry on the topic homepage/week. Compensation is US$2.00 per 1000 page views of all material authored by the writer subsequent to signing the contract.
For more details on the job requirements, compensation, and application procedures, visit our Write For Suite101.com page.