Indians

ative Americans of the Pacific Northwest in the Decade of the World’s Indigenous Populations Introduction On 1 January 1994, the Mayan peoples of Chiapas, Mexico participated in an armed uprising in protest of the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Following a strong trend of harassment, and mistreatment of Mexico’s indigenous populations, the implementation of NAFTA all but abolished the land claims of Mexico’s Indians. The Zapatista uprising, as it has been termed, brought global attention to the indigenous human rights violations in Mexico, and consequently, a strong interest in the plight of the world’s indigenous peoples resulted in the global community. In a 1994 U.N. orchestrated commission on the rights of the world’s indigenous populations, it was concluded that an increase in international cooperation for the solution of problems faced by indigenous peoples was necessary for improvement of their condition across such areas as environment and natural resources, health, education, and human rights. As a result, the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights declared the years 1995-2004 to be the Decade of the World’s Indigenous Populations. The theme of the decade was to be “partnership in action”, and the main objectives were to strengthen the role of the international community in enforcing international human rights treaties, to promote the discovery of viable solutions to Indigenous-State conflicts through mediation, discussion, and cooperation, and to draft a declaration of the rights of indigenous people. In this paper, I will analyze the amount of progress that has been made in the Native American condition in relation to U.S. government cooperation with the First Nations, with a specific focus on the tribes of the Pacific Northwest. I will begin with a brief, but comprehensive history of U.S.-Native American relations, with a focus on U.S. government policy. Next, I will conduct a case study of the Pacific Northwest, specifically dealing with how the global pressure of the Decade has impacted treaty negotiations and multi-lateral cooperation in the fishing industry, forest service, and tribal gaming. I will then discuss parallels that can be drawn from the cooperation of Maori tribes with the government of New Zealand in the last decade. Finally, I will discuss the unmet needs for the improvement of the indigenous condition, and conclude with an evaluation of the relative progress the Decade has had specifically in the United States, and more generally in the global community. A History of U.S.–Native American Relations From the onset of American political history to the closing of the Western frontier in 1890, U.S.-Native American relations were guided by the U.S. government policy of removal, either through legal means or direct confrontation, of Native American tribes from prospective white settlements. Andrew Jackson initially opted to acquire Indian territories through bilateral land treaties. From 1814 to 1824, Jackson was instrumental in negotiating nine out of eleven treaties which divested the southern tribes of their eastern lands in exchange for lands in the west. In agreeing, the “more civil” Indian Nations (the “Five Civilized Tribes” being the Chickasaw, the Choctaw, the Creek, the Seminole and the Cherokee) meant to avoid harassment and appease the federal government, while, at the same time, manage to hold onto some claims to land. U.S. Government policy on Native Americans became more confrontational and direct in achieving its goal of expansion following the 1823 Supreme Court decision stating Indians could occupy lands within the United States, but could not hold title to those lands because their "right of occupancy" was subordinate to the United States' "right of discovery”. As a result, many southeastern tribes became increasingly hostile to U.S. government demands. Using the 1823 Supreme Court decision as a legal precedent, President Andrew Jackson passed the “Indian Removal Act” in 1830, in order to expedite the process of annexation of Indian lands. The Act allowed Jackson to negotiate treaties that would exchange tribal land in the east for western lands that had been acquired in the Louisiana Purchase, and resulted in a 28 year struggle to forcibly achieve this goal. Although several tribes accepted the terms of the treaties offered to them relatively easily (including the Chickasaws and Choctaws) , many more tribes resisted. The Seminole Nation of Florida resisted in a series of wars, the largest of which lasting from 1835-1842. The Blackhawk War of 1832 was the last stand of the Ohio River tribes (the Shawnee, Ottawa, Potawatomi, Sauk, and Fox) whose pan-Indian force of tribes from the old northwest was defeated by the federal army. The Cherokee Nation attempted to resist the jurisdiction of the Act through legal means, but ultimately failed and was forced out of its land by 7,000 federal troops in 1838. The success of the Indian removals was short lived however. As the U.S. government and the American people increasingly turned their attention towards the western frontier (nearly 8 million people crossed the Mississippi River between 1850 and 1890) , they came into direct conflict with new western tribes. As this conflict became increasingly hostile, and seemingly unavoidable, the U.S. government adopted a policy of bolstering all western land interests by increasing the size and power of U.S. army forces west of the Mississippi River. Since nearly every war between whites and Native Americans in the 1850s followed the same tragic paradigm of white intrusion, tribal rejection, and white counterattack, the enlargement of U.S. army forces served to garrison the forts protecting western trails, as well as to increase punitive attacks on tribes suspected of harming whites. The Civil War added further complications to this emerging aggression towards Native Americans. Since, the federal government’s primary focus was on winning the war in the South, the regular leadership, direction, and personnel of the Western military force was displaced to various locations along the Dixie front. As irregular and misguided white volunteer forces began to take over the responsibilities of the army, Native American-white relations further deteriorated. Attacks on tribes by civilian irregulars were often even more severe than those made by regular army troops. This constant harassment of Native Americans and the clear threats these new leaders posed to their land, was a major cause behind the intermitting wars between the two groups in the years 1850-1890. These years saw the armed resistance and ultimate military defeat of all the major Great Plains, Northwest and Southwest tribes (the Lakotas, Dakotas, Cheyennes, Arapahos, Nez Perce, Apache, and the Sioux among others). The result of which, was the acculturation of many Native Americans, and the relocation of all tribes to reservation lands. Beginning in the 1880’s, as the period of removal and of the Indian Wars was coming to a close, the U.S. government and its growing number of bureaucratic agencies, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), adopted a policy of coercive assimilation of Native Americans. These groups attempted to assimilate Native Americans into American culture with the goal of eventually giving them full citizenship. The U.S. government attempted to strip the Native Americans of all aspects of their ethnic identity (culture, rituals, religion, language, land) through a series of coercive campaigns. The government first confined Native Americans to their reservations, where religious rituals and practices were outlawed. Native American children were sent to boarding schools where native languages and family visits were prohibited, and inter marriage between tribes was encouraged (to lower the blood quantum of pure tribes). Old customs, such as communal buffalo hunting, were also discouraged in favor of farming individually owned plots of property (which was enacted in the Dawes Severalty Act of 1887 and resulted in the passing of millions of acres of reservation lands to the hands of non-Native Americans). The most extreme attempt at assimilation was the coercive sterilization of Native American women through the Indian Health Service, a practice that surprisingly existed up until the 1990’s (in 1975 alone, some 25,000 Native American women were sterilized). Although at the turn of the 19th century many claimed Native Americans to be a “disappearing race”, they were able to hold onto traditional values and customs under the assimilation campaigns. Recognizing its failure, the U.S. began to slowly abandon assimilation as a policy, and granted citizenship to Native Americans in 1924. In the 1930’s, a number of progressive reforms were made in Native American policy, including the Indian Reorganization Act (1934) which granted Native Americans increased autonomy and control in self-government. The 1950’s and 1960’s however, known as the Termination Period, saw a reversal of this trend. During this time, the U.S. government encouraged migration from reservations to large cities and attempted to terminate its federal recognition of Indian tribes in order to end federal responsibility for them. Although many Native Americans relocated to U.S. cities (nearly 10,000 in total) because of the allure of federal incentives, their cultural and ethnic identity did not disappear. In fact, in 1968, Native American activists in Minneapolis founded a pan-Indian, political action organization called the American Indian Movement (AIM). Calling attention to the plight and mistreatment of the Native American, AIM activists staged high-profile demonstrations to bring national attention to Native American issues, including the occupation of Alcatraz, the occupation of BIA building in Washington D.C., and the takeover of the town of Wounded Knee. The national attention received from these demonstrations brought about dramatic results. The 1970’s brought an end to the policy of termination and increased awareness of Native American human rights in the American public and in the federal government. In 1975, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act was passed, in which tribes were given the opportunity for political, economic, and social autonomy as federally recognized governments. Since then, hundreds of tribes have received federal recognition as autonomous pseudo-nations within of the United States. However, since these initial agreements, there has been little improvement in the condition of Native Americans. Native Americans still remained America’s most impoverished ethnic minority, maintaining a poverty level of nearly 25% . Because of the government’s preoccupation with the protection of the economic viability of lucrative industries on tribal lands, and a lack of incentive for funding tribal initiatives, negotiations with the First Nations were incredibly slow to develop until the 1990’s. A Case Study of the Pacific Northwest Fishery Management Following the paradigm of U.S-Native American relations, the Indian tribes of the Pacific Northwest had been gradually denied of the fishing and hunting rights promised to them in the 1855 Treaty of No Point. After a series of “Fish Wars” initiated by AIM activists in the 1960’s, however, the treaty fishing rights were reaffirmed in the 1971 U.S. vs. Washington case, which entitled the tribes to 50% of the harvestable number of salmon. What resulted from the Boldt decision was an increased tribal responsibility in resource management. Consequently the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) was created in order to help tribes plan annual and long-term plans for fishery management and environmental conservation. The preamble to the NWIFC clearly defines its focus on conservation and cooperation: "We, the Indians of the Pacific Northwest, recognize that our fisheries are a basic and important natural resource and of vital concern to the Indians of this state, and that the conservation of this natural resource is dependent upon effective and progressive management. We further believe that by unity of action, we can best accomplish these things, not only for the benefit of our own people but for all of the people of the Pacific Northwest." Unfortunately, it was not until 1985 that a committee was created between governments with the unifying goal of natural resource conservation. The Pacific Salmon Treaty (1985) was the first organization to incorporate tribal government, state government, federal government, and the commercial fishing industry into a cooperative committee working towards the goals of creating new, economically viable, and environmentally friendly fishery management plans. However, it was not until 1996, after a 63% and 87% reduction in Chinook and Coho salmon populations that the representatives of the PSC met with the goal of implementing a new, more-effective management plan. In just 3 years, the PSC managed to come to a long-term fisheries management agreement. Building on the original PST, the 1999 agreement resolved several longstanding disputes between the tribes and the commercial fishing industry, and placed its primary emphasis on conservation. The U.S. also agreed to supply an annual tribal fund of $140 million U.S. for protection and spawning of ESA endangered salmon. As research sheds light on improved ways to deal with more defined issues of conservation, more comprehensive management plans are being issued. The 5 year Comprehensive Management Plan for the Puget Sound Chinook plans to build on the 50% increase in Chinook salmon population in the years 1998-2003. In addition to fostering improvement in conservation methods, cooperation in tribal fishery management has greatly increased the economic potential of Northwest tribes. A 1997 study in Washington, valued salmon fishing by tribes at $6.8 million. The fishing industry is a vital source of employment for a number of Indians in the Northwest. Accordingly, the sustenance of salmon is vital to the economic viability of Northwest tribes. Forestry Services Because forests are vital for the sustenance of rivers and streams, there has naturally been an equal increase of tribal participation in forestry services. The 1987 Timber/Fish/Wildlife agreement (TFW) between tribes, loggers, environmentalists, and government agencies, laid the groundwork for cooperation and progress in the industry. The agreement emphasized conservation of forests important to natural watersheds, cooperation in management disputes, and a policy of “adaptive management”, in which logging sites would be dealt with according to the best known science at the time. In 1996, these groups were brought together under the TFW to reach joint solutions to the decrease in salmon populations, the degradation of water quality, and issues with the economic viability of the timber industry. With the aid of the state and federal government, the 1996 TFW “Forest Module Negotiations” resulted in the 1999 Forests and Fish Report (FFR). Given the location of many reservations along important watersheds, many Northwest tribes were major contributors to FFR research. Federal funding for tribal research resulted in many important findings. The Quinault Indian Nation’s stream typing (walking miles of stream to find the last place where up-stream bound fish appeared) resulted in the mandatory 100 foot buffer of building or logging near streams. The Nisqually Indian Tribe did extensive work with private landowners to ensure forests bordering the Nisqually River remained optimal salmon environments. The timber industry is another area in which Northwest Indians can benefit both culturally and economically. Northwest Indians are in an excellent position historically to provide vital field based research. In addition to sustaining cultural interaction with the environment, the forests are also a major source of economic subsistence for Northwest tribes. Tribal timber harvest in the state of Washington was valued at $71.2 million in 1997. Tribal Gaming Since the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) in 1988, which legalized Indian gaming but placed certain state imposed restrictions on the casinos, there has been an increased tribal interest in the economic possibilities of Indian gaming. Indeed, following the IGRA, the tribes of Washington State established the Washington Indian Gaming Association (WIGA) as a cooperative plan management assembly. The success of tribal casinos elsewhere in the United States, such as the highly lucrative Foxwood Casino in Connecticut, encouraged tribes in the much less populated Northwest to pursue casino management. Amazingly, with the cooperation of the state governments, many tribes in Washington and Oregon have been able to successfully run lucrative casinos, which have in turn aided in the building tribal funds for essential services, including health care, law enforcement, and education. It was not until the onset of the Decade, and the realization of the mutual economic benefit of tribal gaming, that the state of Washington began to fully endorse Indian casinos. In 1995, the number of tribal gaming compacts doubled from three, to six. By 2004, the state had concluded 22 separate tribal compacts. This increase in Indian gaming allowed for significant increases in tribal economic growth. Indeed, Indian casinos have become the leading employer of Native Americans in the state of Washington. The net gain from casinos has also resulted in the reinvestment of profits into funds for the benefit of the tribes, such as fish and wildlife research and the fishery management. Increased economic power also promotes economic and governing self-sufficiency. Tribal gaming also offers an economic boost to state and local governments. In 2000, Indian casinos paid over $130 million in local government taxes. Tribal casinos represented 58% of the net receipt of gambling operations in the state of Washington in 2004, as opposed to 10% in 1996. The fiscal benefits of cooperation in tribal-state compact agreements can be clearly seen on both sides. Comparative Developments Overseas: The Maori A study of the Maori peoples of New Zealand presents many parallels to the economic development of the First Nations of the Pacific Northwest. Placed in the context of the Decade, there is a clear increase in cooperation across similar areas of economic and cultural background in the Maori and the First Nations of the Northwest. A similar struggle for fishing rights in 1970’s New Zealand resulted in the 1986 Supreme Court ruling that reaffirmed the fishing rights of the Maori that had been granted to them in the Treaty of Waitangi during the colonial period. In 1989, the N.Z. government passed the Maori Fisheries Act, which enabled the Maori to apply to manage fisheries “of high spiritual or sustenance value”. Neither side of the agreement was very satisfied, however. The Maori desired a higher fishing quota in the governments Quota Management System (QMS), but the commercial fishing industry strongly opposed any increase. As a result, despite an agreement of at least four Maori managed fisheries, the government cooperated in establishing only one by 1995. Throughout the next decade however, there was a concerted effort to reach an adequate agreement under the New Zealand QMS. Indeed, following the 2004 Maori Fisheries Act, the New Zealand Court of Appeal noted: “The level of consultation and the length of the consultation process, spanning as it did over ten years, has been unprecedented in New Zealand.” The settlement increased Maori involvement in the fishing industry from minimal commercial participation in the 1970’s, to controlling nearly 40% of the industry in 2002. Indeed, the value of the Maori fisheries settlement has tripled since 1992, and is now estimated at around $750 million U.S (in assets and quota value). As a result, there has been a significant improvement in the economic condition of the Maori people. The forestry, fishing, and farming industries have become the major economic strength of most Maori. Currently, many Maori land incorporations, such as Wakatu Incorporation of Nelson (worth $130 million U.S. in assets), are allowing the Maori people to diversify from low-earning, raw, natural resource holdings, to higher returning investments in value bringing operations. Similar to Native American fishery management and gaming operations among the First Nations, the substantial increase in fishery assets, has increased the economic and social self-autonomy of the Maori people. Although fundamental differences exist between the Maori and the First Nations of the Northwest, a very recent and clear increase in government-tribe cooperation has lead to significant improvements in the indigenous condition across similar areas of historical and cultural import. Conclusion Because of the unique history and location of Northwest Native American tribes in the United States, and of the Maori people of New Zealand, they are uniquely suited to respond to critical management needs within their local forests, rivers, and streams. Reservations and native land claims have for this reason, worked as safety-nets for resource protection. State and federal government cooperation with these indigenous people over the management of natural resources in the past decade has aided in conservation and restoration of natural environments and resources, the revitalization and preservation of the cultural identity of many tribes, vital research which has improved the effectiveness and efficiency of forest and wildlife management plans, the diversification and increased independence of tribal economies and government, and an increase in the economies of local and state governments. However, progress remains far from complete in both the Native American and New Zealand cases. Although the goals of the Decade have influenced the very clear increase in the cooperation of government to government relations between indigenous groups and nation states since 1995, many of the Decade’s initial goals remain unmet. Indeed, Native Americans still remain the most impoverished ethnic minority in the Untied States. More localized cases within the United States also show inadequate funding for many tribes. Although federal funding for Native Americans has increased from $5.6 billion in 1993 to $10.6 billion in 2003, because of the increase in federal budget authority, there has only been a .1% increase in the overall government budget for Native Americans. Inadequate funds, in many cases, results in the retardation of progress in management solutions in issues vital to Northwest Native American tribes, and can offset the gains that have been made in other times. Although the ultimate goal of Northwest tribes is economic stability through increased self-sufficiency, this goal will remain unmet until a substantial increase in federal funding can be reached. Native Americans of the Northwest have recently turned to Indian gaming to solve these funding issues, and although, in many cases it has provided a great deal of economic relief, the viability of gaming as the sole source of economic growth is a dubious practice – especially among the closely located, competing rural tribes of the Pacific Northwest. Improvement should rather be further placed on the conservation and renewal of natural resources. Once the revitalization of salmon populations and of the timber industry has been achieved, tribes will be able to accordingly evolve their economies around these economically viable Northwest industries. The tribes would then further be able to diversify their economy, as the Maori have done, by increasing the number of tribal owned, value-raising services within the industry. It is clear the Decade of the World’s Indigenous People has brought unprecedented progress in the human rights, and economic viability of indigenous people in the Northwest United States. Nevertheless, the fundamental goals of the Decade have not fully been met. Native Americans, and other indigenous groups, continue to rank among the lowest groups across all social indicators, and the world has yet to see a universal declaration of indigenous rights. However, further cooperation between tribes and nation states to increase economic stability through the revitalization of renewable natural resources coupled with a substantial increase in government funding, promises to have extremely positive impacts on the general condition and self-sufficiency of tribes.