Indian reservation

This article is about Native American reservations in the United States. For a similar concept in Canada, see Indian reserve. For other uses, see Indian reservation (disambiguation).
Not to be confused with Reservation in India.
Indian reservations
Also known as:
Domestic Dependent Nation
Category Autonomous administrative divisions
Location United States of America
Created 1658 (Powhatan Tribes)
Number 326[1] (map includes the 310 as of May 1996)
Populations 123 (several) - 173,667 (Navajo Nation)[2]
Areas ranging from the 1.32-acre (0.534 hectares) Pit River Tribe's cemetery in California to the 16 million-acre (64 750 square kilometers) Navajo Nation Reservation located in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah[1]

An Indian reservation is a legal designation for an area of land managed by a Native American tribe under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs, rather than the state governments of the United States in which they are physically located. Each of the 326[1] Indian reservations in the United States are associated with a particular Nation. Not all of the country's 567[3][4] recognized tribes have a reservation—some tribes have more than one reservation, some share reservations, while others have none. In addition, because of past land allotments, leading to some sales to non-Native Americans, some reservations are severely fragmented, with each piece of tribal, individual, and privately held land being a separate enclave. This jumble of private and public real estate creates significant administrative, political, and legal difficulties.[5]

The collective geographical area of all reservations is 56,200,000 acres (22,700,000 ha; 87,800 sq mi; 227,000 km2),[1] approximately the size of Idaho. While most reservations are small compared to US states, there are twelve Indian reservations larger than the state of Rhode Island. The largest reservation, the Navajo Nation Reservation, is similar in size to West Virginia. Reservations are unevenly distributed throughout the country; the majority are west of the Mississippi River and occupy lands that were first reserved by treaty or 'granted' from the public domain.[6]

Because tribes possess tribal sovereignty, even though it is limited, laws on tribal lands vary from the surrounding area.[7] These laws can permit legal casinos on reservations, for example, which attract tourists. The tribal council, not the local or federal government, generally has jurisdiction over reservations. Different reservations have different systems of government, which may or may not replicate the forms of government found outside the reservation. Most Native American reservations were established by the federal government; a limited number, mainly in the East, owe their origin to state recognition.[8]

The name "reservation" comes from the conception of the Native American tribes as independent sovereigns at the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Thus, the early peace treaties (often signed under duress) in which Native American tribes surrendered large portions of land to the U.S. also designated parcels which the tribes, as sovereigns, "reserved" to themselves, and those parcels came to be called "reservations."[9] The term remained in use even after the federal government began to forcibly relocate tribes to parcels of land to which they had no historical connection.

A majority of Native Americans and Alaska Natives live somewhere other than the reservations, often in big western cities such as Phoenix and Los Angeles.[10][11] In 2012, there were over 2.5 million Native Americans with about 1 million living on reservations.[12]

History

Colonial and early US history

From the beginning of the European colonization of the Americas, Europeans often removed native peoples from lands they wished to occupy. The means varied, including voluntary moves based on mutual agreement, treaties made under considerable duress, forceful ejection, violence, and European wars in which the Native Americans were on the losing side.

On March 11, 1824, John C. Calhoun founded the Office of Indian Affairs (now the Bureau of Indian Affairs) as a division of the US Department of War (now the Department of Defense), to solve the land problem with 38 treaties with American Indian tribes.[13]

Rise of Indian removal policy (1830–1868)

Main article: Indian removal

The passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 marked the systematization of a US federal government policy of forcibly moving Native populations away from European-populated areas.

One example was the Five Civilized Tribes, who were removed from their native lands in the southern United States and moved to modern-day Oklahoma, in a mass migration that came to be known as the Trail of Tears. Some of the lands these tribes were given to inhabit following the removals eventually became Indian Reservations.

In 1851, the United States Congress passed the Indian Appropriations Act which authorized the creation of Indian reservations in modern-day Oklahoma. Relations between settlers and natives had grown increasingly worse as the settlers encroached on territory and natural resources in the West.[14]

Forced assimilation (1868–1887)

Most Indian reservations, like the Laguna Indian reservation in New Mexico (pictured here in 1943), are in the western United States, often in regions suitable more for ranching than farming.

In 1868, President Ulysses S. Grant pursued a "Peace Policy" as an attempt to avoid violence.[15] The policy included a reorganization of the Indian Service, with the goal of relocating various tribes from their ancestral homes to parcels of lands established specifically for their inhabitation. The policy called for the replacement of government officials by religious men, nominated by churches, to oversee the Indian agencies on reservations in order to teach Christianity to the native tribes. The Quakers were especially active in this policy on reservations.[16]

The policy was controversial from the start. Reservations were generally established by executive order. In many cases, white settlers objected to the size of land parcels, which were subsequently reduced. A report submitted to Congress in 1868 found widespread corruption among the federal Native American agencies and generally poor conditions among the relocated tribes.

Many tribes ignored the relocation orders at first and were forced onto their limited land parcels. Enforcement of the policy required the United States Army to restrict the movements of various tribes. The pursuit of tribes in order to force them back onto reservations led to a number of Native American massacres and some wars. The most well known conflict was the Sioux War on the northern Great Plains, between 1876 and 1881, which included the Battle of Little Bighorn. Other famous wars in this regard included the Nez Perce War.

By the late 1870s, the policy established by President Grant was regarded as a failure, primarily because it had resulted in some of the bloodiest wars between Native Americans and the United States. By 1877, President Rutherford B. Hayes began phasing out the policy, and by 1882 all religious organizations had relinquished their authority to the federal Indian agency.

Individualized reservations (1887–1934)

In 1887, Congress undertook a significant change in reservation policy by the passage of the Dawes Act, or General Allotment (Severalty) Act. The act ended the general policy of granting land parcels to tribes as-a-whole by granting small parcels of land to individual tribe members. In some cases, for example the Umatilla Indian Reservation, after the individual parcels were granted out of reservation land, the reservation area was reduced by giving the excess land to white settlers. The individual allotment policy continued until 1934, when it was terminated by the Indian Reorganization Act.

Indian New Deal (1934–present)

The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, also known as the Howard-Wheeler Act, was sometimes called the Indian New Deal. It laid out new rights for Native Americans, reversed some of the earlier privatization of their common holdings, and encouraged tribal sovereignty and land management by tribes. The act slowed the assignment of tribal lands to individual members, and reduced the assignment of 'extra' holdings to nonmembers.

For the following twenty years, the U.S. government invested in infrastructure, health care, and education on the reservations, and over two million acres (8,000 km²) of land were returned to various tribes. Within a decade of John Collier's retirement (the initiator of the Indian New Deal) the government's position began to swing in the opposite direction. The new Indian Commissioners Myers and Emmons introduced the idea of the "withdrawal program" or "termination", which sought to end the government's responsibility and involvement with Indians and to force their assimilation.

The Indians would lose their lands but be compensated (though many were not). Even though discontent and social rejection killed the idea before it was fully implemented, five tribes were terminated: the Coushatta, Ute, Paiute, Menominee and Klamath, and 114 groups in California lost their federal recognition as tribes. Many individuals were also relocated to cities, but one third returned to their tribal reservations in the decades that followed.

Land tenure and federal Indian law

With the establishment of reservations, tribal territories diminished to a fraction of original areas and indigenous customary practices of land tenure sustained only for a time, and not in every instance. Instead, the federal government established regulations that subordinated tribes to the authority, first, of the military, and then of the Bureau (Office) of Indian Affairs.[17] Under federal law, the government patented reservations to tribes, which became legal entities that at later times have operated in a corporate manner. Tribal tenure identifies jurisdiction over land use planning and zoning, negotiating (with the close participation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs) leases for timber harvesting and mining.[18]

Tribes generally have authority over other forms of economic development such as ranching, agriculture, tourism, and casinos. Tribes hire both members, other Indians and non-Indians in varying capacities; they may run tribal stores, gas stations, and develop museums (e.g., there is a gas station and general store at Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Idaho, and a museum at Foxwoods, on the Mashantucket Pequot Indian Reservation in Connecticut).[18]

Tribal members may utilize a number of resources held in tribal tenure such as grazing range and some cultivable lands. They may also construct homes on tribally held lands. As such, members are tenants-in-common, which may be likened to communal tenure, but keep in mind, even if some of this pattern emanates from pre-reservation tribal custom, generally the tribe has the authority to modify tenant in-common practices.

Wagon loaded with squash, Rosebud Indian Reservation, ca. 1936

With the General Allotment Act (Dawes), 1887, the government sought to individualize tribal lands by authorizing allotments held in individual tenure.[19] Generally, the allocation process led to grouping family holdings and, in some cases, this sustained pre-reservation clan or other patterns. There had been a few allotment programs ahead of the Dawes Act, but the vast fragmentation of reservations occurred from enactment of this act up to 1934, when the Indian Reorganization Act was passed. However, Congress authorized some allotment programs in the ensuing years, such as on the Palm Springs/Agua Caliente Indian Reservation in California.[20]

Allotment set in motion a number of circumstances:

The demographic factor, coupled with landownership data, led, for example, to litigation between the Devils Lake Sioux and the State of North Dakota, where non-Indians owned more acreage than tribal members even though more Native Americans resided on the reservation than non-Indians. The court decision turned, in part, on the perception of Indian character, contending that the tribe did not have jurisdiction over the alienated allotments. In a number of instances—e.g., the Yakama Indian Reservation—tribes have identified open and closed areas within reservations. One finds the majority of non-Indian landownership and residence in the open areas and, contrariwise, closed areas represent exclusive tribal residence and related conditions.[22]

Spring roundup of Paiute-owned cattle begins at Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation, 1973.

Indian Country today consists of tripartite government—i. e., federal, state and/or local, and tribal. Where state and local governments may exert some, but limited, law-and-order authority, tribal sovereignty is, of course, diminished. This situation prevails in connection with Indian gaming, since federal legislation makes the state a party to any contractual or statutory agreement.[23]

Finally, other occupancy on reservations may be by virtue of tribal or individual tenure. There are many churches on reservations; most would occupy tribal land by consent of the federal government or the tribe. BIA agency offices, hospitals, schools, and other facilities usually occupy residual federal parcels within reservations. Many reservations include one or more sections (about 640 acres) of school lands, but those lands typically remain part of the reservation (e.g., Enabling Act of 1910 at Section 20[24]). As a general practice, such lands may sit idle or be grazed by tribal ranchers.

Life and culture

Red Cliff Indian Reservation in Wisconsin during their annual pow wow

Many Native Americans who live on reservations deal with the federal government through two agencies: the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service.

The quality of life on some reservations is comparable to that in the developing world, with issues of infant mortality, life expectancy, malnutrition and poverty, and alcohol and drug abuse. The two poorest counties in the United States are Buffalo County, South Dakota, home of the Lower Brule Indian Reservation, and Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota, home of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, according to data compiled by the 2000 census.[25]

Gambling

In 1979, the Seminole tribe in Florida opened a high-stakes bingo operation on its reservation in Florida. The state attempted to close the operation down but was stopped in the courts. In the 1980s, the case of California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians established the right of reservations to operate other forms of gambling operations. In 1988, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which recognized the right of Native American tribes to establish gambling and gaming facilities on their reservations as long as the states in which they are located have some form of legalized gambling.

Today, many Native American casinos are used as tourist attractions, including as the basis for hotel and conference facilities, to draw visitors and revenue to reservations. Successful gaming operations on some reservations have greatly increased the economic wealth of some tribes, enabling their investment to improve infrastructure, education and health for their people.

Law enforcement and crime

Serious crime on Indian reservations has historically been required (by the 1885 Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. §§1153, 3242, and court decisions) to be investigated by the federal government, usually the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and prosecuted by United States Attorneys of the United States federal judicial district in which the reservation lies.[26]

Tribal courts were limited to sentences of one year or less,[27] until on July 29, 2010 the Tribal Law and Order Act was enacted which in some measure reforms the system permitting tribal courts to impose sentences of up to three years provided proceedings are recorded and additional rights are extended to defendants.[28][29] The Justice Department on January 11, 2010 initiated the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative which recognizes problems with law enforcement on Indian reservations and assigns top priority to solving existing problems.

The Department of Justice recognizes the unique legal relationship that the United States has with federally recognized tribes. As one aspect of this relationship, in much of Indian Country, the Justice Department alone has the authority to seek a conviction that carries an appropriate potential sentence when a serious crime has been committed. Our role as the primary prosecutor of serious crimes makes our responsibility to citizens in Indian Country unique and mandatory. Accordingly, public safety in tribal communities is a top priority for the Department of Justice.

Emphasis was placed on improving prosecution of crimes involving domestic violence and sexual assault.[30]

Passed in 1953, Public Law 280 (PL 280) gave jurisdiction over criminal offenses involving Indians in Indian Country to certain States and allowed other States to assume jurisdiction. Subsequent legislation allowed States to retrocede jurisdiction, which has occurred in some areas. Some PL 280 reservations have experienced jurisdictional confusion, tribal discontent, and litigation, compounded by the lack of data on crime rates and law enforcement response.[31]

As of 2012, a high incidence of rape continued to impact Native American women.[32]

Violence and substance abuse

A survey of death certificates over a four-year period showed that deaths among Indians due to alcohol are about four times as common as in the general US population and are often due to traffic collisions and liver disease with homicide, suicide, and falls also contributing. Deaths due to alcohol among American Indians are more common in men and among Northern Plains Indians. Alaska Natives showed the least incidence of death.[33] Alcohol abuse by Native Americans has been shown to be associated with development of disease, including pneumonia, tuberculosis, liver problems, and pancreatitis, as well as hearing and vision problems, kidney and bladder problems, head injuries, sprains and muscle strains, and dental problems.[34]

Gang violence is becoming a major social problem.[35] A Dec. 13, 2009 The New York Times article about growing gang violence on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation estimated that there were 39 gangs with 5,000 members on that reservation alone.[36]

See also

International:

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 "Frequently Asked Questions, Bureau of Indian Affairs". Department of the Interior. Retrieved 8 August 2015.
  2. ↑ "AFF Table - Navajo Population" (PDF). Arizona Commission of Indian Affairs. Retrieved 13 Nov 2014.
  3. ↑ Federal Register, Volume 80, Number 9 dated January 14, 2015
  4. ↑ Federal Acknowledgment of the Pamunkey Indian Tribe
  5. ↑ Sutton, 199.
  6. ↑ Kinney, 1937; Sutton,1975
  7. ↑ Davies & Clow; Sutton 1991.
  8. ↑ For general data, see Tiller (1996).
  9. ↑ See, e.g., United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 (1986); Francis v. Francis, 203 U.S. 233 (1906).
  10. ↑ "Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000". Census.gov. Retrieved 2012-06-05.
  11. ↑ For Los Angeles, see Allen, J. P. and E. Turner, 2002. Text and map of the metropolitan area show the widespread urban distribution of California and other Native Americans.
  12. ↑ "US should return stolen land to Indian tribes, says United Nations". The Guardian. May 4, 2012.
  13. ↑ Belko, William S. (2004). "John C. Calhoun and the Creation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs: an Essay on Political Rivalry, Ideology, and Policymaking in the Early Republic". South Carolina Historical Magazine 105 (3): 170–197. JSTOR 27570693.
  14. ↑ Bennett, Elmer (2008). Federal Indian Law. The Lawbook Exchange. pp. 201–203. ISBN 9781584777762.
  15. ↑ "President Grant advances "Peace Policy" with tribes". US National Library of Medicine. Retrieved 15 Nov 2014.
  16. ↑ Miller Center, University of Virginia, Retrieved April 7, 2014.
  17. ↑ Kinney 1937
  18. 1 2 Tiller (1996)
  19. ↑ Getches et al, pp. 140–190.
  20. ↑ The Equalization Act, 1959.
  21. ↑ Sutton, ed., 1991.
  22. ↑ Wishart and Froehling
  23. ↑ Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 1988
  24. ↑ "Enabling Act of 1910" (PDF). Retrieved 8 February 2013.
  25. ↑ Johansen, Bruce E., and Barry Pritzker. 2008. Encyclopedia of American Indian history. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. p. 156. ISBN 9781851098170.
  26. ↑ "Native Americans in South Dakota: An Erosion of Confidence in the Justice System". Usccr.gov. Retrieved 2012-06-05.
  27. ↑ "Lawless Lands", a four-part series in The Denver Post last updated November 21, 2007
  28. ↑ "Expansion of tribal courts' authority passes Senate" article by Michael Riley in The Denver Post Posted: 25 June 2010 01:00:00 AM MDT Updated: 25 June 2010 02:13:47 AM MDT Accessed June 25, 2010
  29. ↑ "President Obama signs tribal-justice changes" article by Michael Riley in The Denver Post, Posted: 30 July 2010 01:00:00 AM MDT, Updated: 30 July 2010 06:00:20 AM MDT, accessed July 30, 2010
  30. ↑ "MEMORANDUM FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS WITH DISTRICTS CONTAINING INDIAN COUNTRY" Memorandum by David W. Ogden Deputy Attorney General, Monday, January 11, 2010, Accessed August 12, 2010
  31. ↑ "Public Law 280 and Law Enforcement in Indian Country – Research Priorities December 2005", accessed August 12, 2010
  32. ↑ Timonthy Williams (May 22, 2012). "For Native American Women, Scourge of Rape, Rare Justice". The New York Times. Retrieved May 23, 2012.
  33. ↑ "Study: 12 percent of Indian deaths due to alcohol" Associated Press article by Mary Clare Jalonick Washington, D.C. (AP) 9-08 News From Indian Country accessed October 7, 2009
  34. ↑ "American Indians with alcohol problems have more medical conditions" Jay Shore, M.D., M.P.H., University of Colorado Health Sciences Center March 26, 2006, accessed October 7, 2009
  35. ↑ "Gang Violence On The Rise On Indian Reservations". NPR: National Public Radio. August 25, 2009.
  36. ↑ "Indian Gangs Grow, Bringing Fear and Violence to Reservation". The New York Times. December 13, 2009

Further reading

  • J. P. Allen and E. Turner, Changing Faces, Changing Places: Mapping Southern Californians (Northridge, CA: The Center for Geographical Studies, California State University, Northridge, 2002).
  • George Pierre Castle and Robert L. Bee, eds., State and Reservation: New Perspectives on Federal Indian Policy (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1992)
  • Richmond L. Clow and Imre Sutton, eds., Trusteeship in Change: Toward Tribal Autonomy in Resource Management (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2001).
  • Wade Davies and Richmond L. Clow, American Indian Sovereignty and Law: An Annotated Bibliography (Lanham,MD: Scarecrow Press, 2009).
  • T. J. Ferguson and E. Richard Hart, A Zuni Atlas (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1985)
  • David H. Getches, Charles F. Wilkinson, and Robert A. Williams, Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law, 4th ed. (St. Paul: West Group, 1998).
  • Klaus Frantz, "Indian Reservations in the United States", Geography Research Paper 241 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999).
  • James M. Goodman, The Navajo Atlas: Environments, Resources, People, and History of the Diné Bikeyah (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1982).
  • J. P. Kinney, A Continent Lost: A Civilization Won: Indian Land Tenure in America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1937)
  • Francis Paul Prucha, Atlas of American Indian Affairs (Norman: University of Nebraska Press, 1990).
  • C. C. Royce, comp., Indian Land Cessions in the United States, 18th Annual Report, 1896–97, pt. 2 (Wash., D. C.: Bureau of American Ethnology; GPO 1899)
  • Imre Sutton, "Cartographic Review of Indian Land Tenure and Territoriality: A Schematic Approach", American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 26:2 (2002): 63–113..
  • Imre Sutton, Indian Land Tenure: Bibliographical Essays and a Guide to the Literature (NY: Clearwater Publ. 1975).
  • Imre Sutton, ed., "The Political Geography of Indian Country", American Indian Culture and Resource Journal, 15()2):1–169 (1991).
  • Imre Sutton, "Sovereign States and the Changing Definition of the Indian Reservation", Geographical Review, 66:3 (1976): 281–295.
  • Veronica E. Velarde Tiller, ed., Tiller's Guide to Indian Country: Economic Profiles of American Indian Reservations (Albuquerque: BowArrow Pub., 1996/2005)
  • David J. Wishart and Oliver Froehling, "Land Ownership, Population and Jurisdiction: the Case of the 'Devils Lake Sioux Tribe v. North Dakota Public Service Commission'," American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 20(2): 33–58 (1996).
  • Laura Woodward-Ney, Mapping Identity: The Coeur d'Alene Indian Reservation, 1803–1902 (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2004)

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Indian reservations.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Friday, May 06, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.