ANTI-INDIAN MOVEMENT ON THE TRIBAL FRONTIER
by
Rudolph C. Ryser
OCCASIONAL PAPER #16
REVISED EDITION
A Publication of the
Center for World Indigenous Studies
June 1992
(C) 1992 Center for World Indigenous Studies
(Reproduced with permission)
Transcribed for online distribution by Bill Faulk, bill@cbs.cis.com
OCCASIONAL PAPERS are published from time-to-time by the Center for World
Indigenous Studies. Views expressed in each monograph are those of the
individual author. Unsolicited manuscripts for publication as OCCASIONAL
PAPERS are welcomed. Address all correspondence to the Chairman of the
Center for World Indigenous Studies.
The following is the introductory chapter for Occasional Paper #16, _The
Anti-Indian Movement on the Tribal Frontier, Special Revised Edition_ by
Rudolph C. Ryser. The full report may be purchased from CWIS. A complete
catalogue of CWIS publications is available via e-mail by sending a request
to jburrows@halcyon.com.
Center For World Indigenous Studies
P.O. Box 2574
Olympia, Washington U.S.A
98507-2574
PROLOGUE
Ideal economic and political conditions in the middle 1970s helped create
an anti-Indian backlash in the form of the Interstate Congress for Equal
Rights and Responsibilities. Non-Indian property owners on several Indian
reservations considered themselves victims of a thoughtless government
bureaucracy. By 1973, the economy was badly shaken by oil price increases
that put people in long lines waiting for a fillup. In 1974, a federal
court issued a landmark decision saying Indian tribes owned half the salmon
and steelhead fishery. The non-Indian property owners joined forces with
the off-reservation fishers and the Anti-Indian Movement began to bloom.
At first, only Indian tribes were aware of what some tribal leaders
called the "white backlash." A few popular news magazines reported the
"dissatisfaction of whites" with Indian tribes. The general public knew
little of the brewing controversy. By 1978, tribal leaders declared the
"white backlash" defeated. They turned their attention to the pressing
economic, political, and cultural needs of their peoples.
By the 1980's, the Anti-Indian Movement once again commanded tribal
leader's attention. In the state of Washington some of the same activists
and property owners active in the 1970s were seeking popular support for a
public initiative that threatened the rights of Indians directly. The
Movement grew and expanded into several states linked together in a growing
network of small groups of property owners, small farmers, small
businesses, and a growing presence of right-wing provocateurs.
The development of the Anti-Indian Movement over a generation took place
in rural areas in increasingly close connection with urban based
organizers. Each stage of development increased political sophistication
even though popular numbers in support of the organizations remained
stable. Right-wing groups and individuals joined the Movement in search of
a constituency. With its roots in property owner groups on Indian
reservations, the Anti-Indian Movement became a sophisticated movement
aimed at the dismemberment of Indian reservations. A logical consequence of
the Movement's origins was its eventual participation in the "Wise Use
Movement" as a charter member. Sponsored by the Unification Church of
Reverend Moon located in Virginia, the Wise Use Movement has become the new
coalition of right-wing groups and the authoritarian right combined with
conservation groups, survivalists, and some land and resource hungry
corporations.
In the following pages, we give a detailed account of the development of
the Anti-Indian Movement, its ideology, its allies in government, business
and extremist political groups.
AUTHOR'S NOTES
This study would not have been possible without the voluntary help of
hundreds of informants across the United States, and a few journalists
willing to report incidents, and share their information. With too many
names to mention here, we express our deepest gratitude to them all. Of
course, none of the work in this study would have been possible without the
loving support of my wife, Nancy, who through many discussions helped me
clarify connections between details of the project. I wish to express a
special thanks to Carol Minugh for her encouragement and help during most
of the term of RWAIN and to Joe Tallakson who consistently helped fill in
some blanks. I extend special thanks to the Northwest Indian Fish
Commission for its continuing interest in this project. For their
encouragement and endorsements I also thank the Puget Sound Task Force on
Human Rights in Seattle, Washington and the support and substantive
contributions by the Center for Democratic Renewal in Atlanta, Georgia.
While I am wholly responsible for the content and interpretations in the
analysis to follow, I must acknowledge the help given by several students
from Evergreen State College who gave their time to fill in hundreds of
"document report instruments" that contributed to the RWAIN database. And
of course, this work could not have been done without the persistence and
willingness to receive small pay by two research assistants, Tina L.
Benshoof and Molly Gray. Thank you both for your excellent work.
**********************************
Owing to the subject of this study and the ease with which the analysis
may be misunderstood, I offer the following notes of clarification as to
the use of some terms. In various parts of the study, I use the terms
conservative, right-wing (sometimes modified with the word extreme or
extremist) and Far Right. Like many descriptive political terms, these are
at best inexact. They are terms used in a wide range of political
literature and their meaning is often in flux. By the use of the term
CONSERVATIVE, I intend to apply its normative meaning: Of or pertaining to
a political philosophy stressing tradition and social stability, minimal
interference of governmental institutions in private economic activities,
but a strong influence of governmental or religious institutions in the
control of individual morality and social behavior. In the case of RIGHT-
WING, I intend perhaps a non-normative meaning: The more intellectually
rigid, uncompromising and sometimes intolerant division of conservative
political thought expressed in political parties or as movements opposed to
socialism and communism, dogmatically committed to narrow interpretations
of American political history, proponent of or at least sympathetic with
ideas of social Darwinism and intent on radically altering social,
economic, and political institutions to reflect these views achieved
through forced change or political change. Finally, I mean by FAR-RIGHT:
The avowedly violent white supremacist movement as well as the subtler
forms of bigotry practiced by so-called Christian Patriots and Christian
Identity who may or may not use violence to achieve their goals.
Publication of what we have found will hopefully contribute to a new
measure of understanding between Indians and non-Indians. Perhaps too, our
findings will help prevent a recurrence of past Indian/non-Indian
conflicts. With the knowledge of what is hidden, perhaps a peaceful
conclusion to the present conflicts can be found in a way that increases
our collective respect for one another and our commitment to democratic
resolution of conflicts.
OVERVIEW
The large-scale movement of non-Indians onto Indian reservations began
with the U.S. government's 19th century General Allotment Act (1887). The
U.S. government intended to destroy tribal governments and break up Indian
reservations under, what was then considered, the progressive Manifest
Destiny Doctrine - the historical inevitability of Anglo-Saxon domination
of North America from sea to sea. By moving non-Indians onto Indian
reservations as the new reservation land-owners and locating individual
Indians on parcels of reservation land or off the reservation completely,
the United States government hoped to eliminate Indian nations once and for
all. Under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, the U.S. Congress only
partially repudiated the Allotment law for its destructive impact on tribal
peoples.
In the late 1960's, it had become clear that the U.S. government's 19th
century policy succeeded in creating a "checker-board land ownership"
pattern on every "allotted reservation." Not only did the land ownership
pattern put non-Indian and Indian landowners living next to each other, but
it also complicated an increasingly difficult jurisdictional mess for
tribal, federal, and state governments. Though Indian nations originally
reserved full jurisdictional authority to their own governments inside
reservation boundaries, the United States government began to undermine
that jurisdiction by imposing federal or state laws on reservations where
non-Indians owned property. This complicated and confused civil and
criminal law and justice responsibilities on Indian reservations.
By the 1980's more than 500,000 non-indians claimed land on Indian
reservations. More than half of many tribes' populations were forced to
live outside reservations. They no longer had the ability to fully enjoy
the benefits of territories reserved to them as distinct peoples under
treaties and agreements with the United States of America. Non-Indian
landowners competed with tribal peoples for limited resources and land
inside reservation boundaries.
The majority of the displaced Indians now live in areas and communities
near their reservation, while still many thousands of Indians were forced
under a 1950's U.S. policy of relocation to move to major cities like Los
Angeles, Denver, Seattle, Chicago, New York, and Baltimore.
The non-Indian land owners included people seeking inexpensive summer
retreats, retirement homes, and commercial businesses. At first they
received help and encouragement from the United States government. Now they
are also receiving help, encouragement and money from right-wing elements
too. Influence ranging from Sun Myun Moon's Unification Church to followers
of neo-Nazi groups and white supremacists dovetailed with a movement that
began as a legitimate political dispute.
Under the guise of "mainstream non-profit research and education
organizations" and the deceptively attractive "equal rights for everyone"
slogan, the Anti-Indian Movement emerged in the last third of this century.
With its right-wing extremist technical help, the Movement seeks and
receives support and money from unsuspecting "reservation Non-Indians" and
off-reservation non-Indians.
With their own agenda, the Anti-Indian Movement's reactionaries and
extremists employ tactics and slogans calculated to exploit Indian and non-
Indian fears of each other. Using the non-Indians' fear of Indians to build
a power base in mainstream politics, right-wing extremists took advantage
of fear and bigotry.
While many transplanted non-Indians now live as residents on Indian
reservations, large numbers are absentee landowners - they don't live on
the reservation. Despite their absentee landowner status, the "reservation
non-Indian" in the late 1960's became a new and powerful challenge to the
peace and stability of Indian nations. Indian people had often heard the
refrain "Why don't you go back to your reservation?" when Indian and non-
Indian conflicts arose outside the reservation. It was a wrenching
experience to have conflicts inside the reservation and hear that "Indians
should become a part of greater society and have equal rights with
everyone."
Larger numbers of non-Indian landowners rejected tribal governmental
authority inside the reservation, and they called upon the state to
exercise its powers there. Non-Indian rejection of "alien tribal
governments" built pressures leading to legal confrontations between tribal
and state governments over a widening range of jurisdictional subjects.
Increasing numbers of "reservation non-Indians" supplied state governments
with the wedge needed to expand state powers into Indian reservations -
DEFACTO ANNEXATION OF TRIBAL LANDS. Tribes and states intensified their
mutual antagonism and suspicion.
Since the General Allotment act in 1887, limitations on reservation
resources forced more and more Indians to fish and hunt for their food in
ceded areas near reservations. Indians asserted that treaties with the
United States guaranteed continuing tribal access to some off-reservation
resources. Not until tribes and states began to battle over control of
natural resources outside reservation boundaries did there arise an
organized Anti-Indian Movement in the 20th century. "Reservation non-
Indians" became the core organizers of what became a highly structured
Anti-Indian Movement. By 1991, the activists responsible for starting the
Movement in 1976 headed four key organizations in the states of Washington,
Montana, and Wisconsin.
The UNITED PROPERTY OWNERS OF WASHINGTON (UPOW) and PROTECT AMERICANS'
RIGHTS AND RESOURCES (PARR) in Wisconsin are the main "constituent
organizations."
In the present study, we examined the origins, development, goals and
future directions of the Anti-Indian Movement. Over the twenty-three years
following 1968, we found that the U.S. based anti-Indian movement grew from
a half dozen non-Indian property owner groups in two states, to more than
fifty organizations in 1991. The first organized anti-Indian network formed
in 1976 under the umbrella of the INTERSTATE CONGRESS FOR EQUAL RIGHTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES (ICERR). The ICERR linked on-reservation non-Indian
landowner opposition to tribal governments with off-reservation non-Indian
sport and commercial fishermen opposed to tribal treaty protected fishing
rights. The mixture of on-reservation and off-reservation conflicts
produced a sometimes confused, often distorted, attack on tribal
governments, the federal government - especially the judiciary - and often
bitter attacks on individual Indian people. ICERR formed the Anti-Indian
movement's populist and frequently racist ideology that attracted
legitimately distressed non-Indians as well as bigoted activists.
During the ten years after emerging, the movement shifted from incipient
forms of racism and populism to a more virulent form of reactionary-racism
with subtle contours and technical refinements. Right-wing extremists began
in 1983 to assume a strong influence in the Anti-Indian Movement through
the Washington State bases STEELHEAD & SALMON PROTECTION ACTION IN
WASHINGTON NOW (S/SPAWN) organization.
In the years that followed, right wing and militantly bigoted activists
gravitated to the Wisconsin-based PROTECT AMERICANS RIGHT AND RESOURCES
(PARR). Still later, right-wing personalities assumed positions within the
CITIZEN'S EQUAL RIGHTS ALLIANCE (CERA) and UNITED PROPERTY OWNERS OF
WASHINGTON (UPOW) organizations.
The Movement evolved into its present structure from two property owners'
associations and a single umbrella organization (ICERR) in 1976. Today the
Movement boasts two "national organizations", five "coordinating local
organizations" and a consistent network of twenty-three "local
organizations" or "local contacts" and a claimed constituency of 450,000
people. Though the Movement frequently targets the Quinault Indian Nation,
Suquamish Tribe, and Lummi Indian Nation (in the state of Washington),
Blackfoot, Salish & Kootenai, and the Crow in Montana receive strong
emphasis too. Politically active Indian tribes in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho,
Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin have felt the affects of the
network.
In fifteen years the organizational and tactical focus of the Movement
moved from the state of Washington to Wisconsin and then back to Washington
again. Despite maintaining contacts in several states, the Movement
actually conducted major activities in only three tactical states.
Though the organizational focus shifted from one state to another, the
ideological influence, tactics, and strategy flowed from Washington State
based personalities and organizations. The history of the movement
illustrated an important and revealing constant which helps understand the
Anti-Indian Movement: Consistent key organizers, and consistent
organizational base. Three groups (Quinault Property Owners Association
(QPOA - Quinault Reservation), Association of Property Owners, and
Residents in Port Madison Area (APORPMA - Suquamish Reservation), and the
Interstate Congress for Equal Rights and Responsibilities (ICERR) are
politically linked to each of the Movement's organizational efforts. While
the organizational strategy of the Anti-Indian Movement was to create a new
organization for each political or legal challenge to Indian rights, all of
the organizations have essentially the same supporting organizations. In
other words, though the number of "national or coordinating organizations"
increased in number, the number of organizers and activists remained
virtually the same - all had the same members.
Four individuals have been involved in the organization of every
coordinating or national organization in the Anti-Indian Movement since
1968: GEORGE GARLAND (QPOA), PIERCE and MAY DAVIS (APORPMA) and BETTY
MORRIS (ICERR and QPOA). All come from the state of Washington. Garland and
Morris are mainly concerned with the Quinault Indian Reservation. The
Davises are mainly concerned with the Suquamish Indian Reservation. After
1983, these main anti-Indian activists were joined by more sophisticated
organizers from the right-wing elements of American politics. State Senator
Jack Metcalf, fund-raiser Alan Gotlieb, political organizer Barbara
Lindsay, lawyer David L. Yamashita, and National Wildlife Federation
activists Carol and Tom Lewis (all from Washington) joined the Movement.
After organizing the Movement for twenty-three years, its leaders can
claim several successes:
* Adoption by a slim majority in the state of Washington Initiative 456
intended to create the public impression that Washington's voters opposed
Indian rights and the continuation of Indian treaties. - 1984
* U.S. Supreme Court decided a County government could exercise zoning
powers inside a reservation where non-Indians make up a substantial
portion of the reservation population - 1989.
* The total number of consistent anti-Indian activists country-wide is
between 80 and 90 persons in sixteen states by 1991.
* The number of persons participating in anti-Indian activities (including
meetings, protests, conferences, and letter-writing is an estimated
10,850 persons country-wide by 1991.
* The number of persons who contribute funds or letters of support to anti-
Indian groups is an estimated 34,150 by 1991.
* A total of 50 local anti-Indian organizations or contacts, five
coordinating organizations, and two national organizations have been
created by the Movement mainly in the states of Washington, Montana,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin (not including organizations with other agendas
which closely identify with the Movement) by 1991.
Though the Anti-Indian Movement is held together with a lot of smoke and
mirrors there is enough substance to it to seriously threaten the peace and
stability of Indian tribes in the United States.
The Anti-Indian Movement has its roots deep in America's psyche. The
bigotry of right-wing and Far Right political extremes is also deeply
rooted in America's politics - especially in connection with Indians. The
implied or explicit belief in "white superiority" and "native backwardness
and inferiority" permeates American history. In the 1880's, U.S. President
Rutherford B. Hayes, Supreme Court Justice Waite and Civil War icon General
John Sherman advocated the DOCTRINE OF MANIFEST DESTINY. Senator Dawes of
Massachusetts was both an adherent to the Manifest Destiny doctrine and the
main sponsor of the GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT of 1887. If was quite normal in
the U.S. Congress to espouse what now would be considered "white
supremacist" ideas. In 1899 Senator Albert T. Beveridge rose before the
U.S. Senate and announced:
God has not been preparing the English-speaking and
Teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain
and idle self-admiration. No! He has made us the master
organizers of the world to establish system where chaos
reigns... He has made us adepts in government that we may
administer government among savages and senile peoples.
Theodore Roosevelt, John Cabot Lodge, and John Hay, each in turn,
endorsed with a strong sense of certainty the view that the Anglo-Saxon was
destined to rule the world. Such views expressed in the 19th century and in
the early 20th century continue to ring true in the minds of many non-
Indian property owners. The superiority of the "white race" is the
foundation on which the Anti-Indian Movement organizers and right-wing
helpers rest their efforts to dismember Indian tribes.
The RWAIN Project reveals victims on all sides of a developing
controversy. Only a small number of people can be said to intentionally
provoke conflicts and violence between Indians and non-Indians. Due to
these Conflicts, victims of Indian and non-Indian conflicts fear one
another - the cycle of fear feeds on itself. The small number of people who
either gain politically or economically from Indian and non-Indian conflict
use bigotry to promote division and fear. Both contribute to the
destabilization of tribal communities and undermine tribal values.
When democratic values are crippled, freedom and liberty become the next
victims. Authoritarianism, and terrorized societies replace free societies.
The Anti-Indian Movement threatens to produce just such results in Indian
Country. It also threatens to intensify rather than relieve conflicts born
from historical mistakes, which can be resolved peacefully through mutual
government to government negotiations.
FINDINGS:
What are some of the mistakes? From the point of view of many Indian
leaders and many non-Ideological participants in the Anti-Indian Movement
there is agreement on what are some of the mistakes that should be
remedied. Our findings in this study are:
* The forced division of tribally reserved territories under the 1887
General Allotment Act and the failure of the U.S. government to repudiate
this disgraceful act.
* The United States government violated treaty and other agreements when it
unilaterally manipulated the sale of tribally reserved lands to non-
Indians without the consent of tribal governments. This mistake was
subsequently compounded when states governments and the United States
governments unlawfully expanded their civil and criminal jurisdiction
(following non-Indian reservation residents) into Indian reservations
without the consent of tribal governments. Finally, the mistake causes
injury to both tribal members and non-Indian land-owners when Indians
were displaced, and impoverished; and non-Indians were not advised that
as a practical matter they had consented to place themselves under the
jurisdiction of an Indian Nation's government.
* State governments have mistaken Indian nations as a threat to their
sovereignty. States governments and their subordinate governments agrees
as a price for statehood that they would not attempt to extend their
powers into Indian Country. To do so in fact undercuts the state's
legitimacy, thus weakening the state, and encourages citizens to sabotage
the rule of law.
* As a result of distraction or a mistaken belief in "historical
inevitability", the United States and the various states failed to
recognize that relations with Indian tribes have always been political in
character. And to insure the healthy cooperation between Indian tribes
and the United States, relations must be dynamically adjusted over time
through treaties and agreements and not through neglect or brute force.
The basic premise of mutual respect and sovereign equality between the
United States and Indian nations must be repeatedly incorporated in each
agreement.
* The failure of governments (tribal, state and federal) to insist on the
free and open negotiation of disputes, (always taking into consideration
the affect intergovernmental agreements have on tribal members or non-
Indians) has contributed to a feeling of "being wronged" among many non-
ideological citizens in the United States. These persons may suffer
economic or social hardships as a result of these failures. As a result,
persons who may live on or near Indian reservations, have become prime
candidates for incitement to harassment or violence against Indian people
by militant bigots and Far Right activists who seek to provoke conflicts
as a way of advancing their ideas of "white supremacy".
REMEDIES:
Some remedies for these findings are readily apparent:
* To resolve the problem of non-Indians who do not wish to live under the
authority of tribal governments, the problem must be recognized as having
been created by the U.S. government - thus placing the burden of
resolution on that government. Non-Indians ought to be given a choice
whether they wish to now live under tribal authority. If they do not
object, then nothing more need be done except remove (by negotiation) any
extensions of state, county or U.S. authority inside the boundaries of a
reservation that conflict with tribal authority. If a non-Indian rejects
tribal authority, the United States government becomes obligated to
purchase non-Indian property and improvements at a fair market value, and
provide assistance in relocation.
* With those non-Indian persons continuing to remain on the reservation,
the tribal government ought to assist them by inviting them to send
representatives to an advisory council which can provide continuing
advice to tribal authorities. Such a council would serve as a sounding-
boards for non-Indian views on tribal actions which may affect their
interests.
* To reduce conflicts between tribal and state (plus subsidiary)
governments, tribal and state governments ought to negotiate a government
to government accord which defines a framework for dispute resolution.
County and municipal governments should be defined within this framework.
* Prior to the negotiation of joint natural resource management regimes
between tribal and state governments (in ceded areas), every effort ought
to be made to ensure careful consideration of "user group" interests. The
State is obligated to consider these interests among those persons who
are not members or the Negotiating tribe. These negotiations can be
substantially improved by including elected state and tribal officials on
the negotiation teams - officials who take seriously the responsibility
for ensuring consideration of "user group" interests.
* Where tribal, state, and U.S. federal conflicts occur, a tripartite
inter-governmental negotiating framework ought to be formed - taking into
consideration remedies suggested above.
* Tribal governments should institute hate-crime laws permitting the
prosecution of those who commit malicious harassment, intimidation, or
violence aimed at tribal property, resources, or aimed at individual
tribal members by racial extremists. The Tribal government ought to
sponsor and support the formation and continued operation of a "Human
Rights Commission" which included tribal and non-tribal membership. The
Commission ought to document incidents of bigoted harassment,
intimidation, property damage, and violence aimed at tribal members and
non-tribal members within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribe. The
Commission should be responsible for conducting public meetings to ensure
public awareness of human rights norms. The Commission ought to have the
capacity to provide assistance to victims of hate-crime, or refer victims
to an appropriate tribal agency.
[END INTRODUCTION]