Charles Trimble: Fiction and myth surrounding the IRA

Opinion

Monday, March 8, 2010

Around Indian Country and in the general public some people – perhaps many – see the Oglala Sioux Tribe as a failure in tribal self-government. Indeed, some people on the Pine Ridge Reservation – home of the OST, feel the same way. I cannot argue with that, but perhaps it is time for the Pine Ridge people to assess their tribal government for systemic reform. This is not a criticism of the leadership of President Two Bulls, who is doing a commendable job, given the circumstances. Perhaps she is the leader to start the process of reassessing the Tribe’s governance.

One ongoing problem is the unease with which some Oglala citizens view their Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) form of government. This goes back to 1936, when there was a deep, intense schism over whether of not to adopt the IRA model. That split, which still impacts tribal governance, needs to be reviewed in its historical context. The Tribe could empanel a representative group of tribal scholars, current tribal leaders, and traditionalists to study the history closely and objectively then give a series of presentations and debates around the reservation, discussing the facts and myths surrounding their IRA model of government, and options for change.

The first issue that ought to be addressed would be the question of the IRA being forced onto the tribe, resulting in the demise of the old traditional form of government. It is often heard, among traditionals especially, that the “old ways” were much better; and this assumes that were it not for the IRA the old ways would still be in place.

Writers and reporters from outside the reservation add to the problem by their patronizing and oversimplification of the problems. They will often quote the words of one tribal leader: “The Indians vote with their feet, staying away from the polls, and not participating on the foreign government imposed on them by the IRA.” It sounds clever, but if it is true, it says something rather demeaning about the Oglalas. It raises the question, “Why don’t they vote and change it, if they don’t like it?”

But when one looks at the history of the 1930s era at Pine Ridge, when the IRA was being considered, they would find that the traditional form of government of chiefs had already been dead for forty years. Even well before the Wounded Knee massacre in 1890, the tribes had their self-sufficiency stripped from them when they were confined to reservations, and the bison herds were destroyed. Without that self-sufficiency, they were at the mercy of the colonial powers of the federal government, exercised by the so-called Indian agents.

The process we see as Manifest Destiny was to destroy the tribal structures, which held together the people as nations. Tribes or bands were created by the people basically as survival units, and the Indian policy makers saw them as the greatest impediment to assimilating and “civilizing” the Indians. In the minds of the policy makers, the tribes had to be destroyed.

But the tribal structure could only be destroyed by first usurping the power of the chiefs. This was done through the white agents who were put in charge of the reservations by political appointment. These men had a most powerful weapon to use for destroying the power of the chiefs and subjugating the people; they had the power over life itself through the control of food and lodging. And this they did effectively by pitting the chiefs against one another through favoritism and punishment. The annuities and the rations went to the favored chiefs, and were withheld from those who did not go along with the agents. By the end of the 1880s, the agents were solidly in control, and the chiefs were relegated to ceremonial heads, at best.

In an excellent book on the IRA at Pine Ridge and Rosebud, author Thomas Biolsi made the following observation:

“The political economy of the Lakota reservations, then, was essentially a situation in which a people recently extruded from their pre-reservation, “contact-traditional” niche had become dependent upon “foreign” administrators – the colonizers – for the reproduction of their physical bodies, their families and communities. Given this dependence, is it any wonder that the presence of the OIA (Office of Indian Affairs) agencies and the imposition, maintenance, and expansion of their administrative technologies of surveillance and control went unchallenged? The Lakota endured the bureaucratic penetration of their everyday lives by the OIA because the OIA made their everyday lives possible.”

The Meriam Report of 1928, which stimulated the creation of the IRA, showed Indian Country in terrible disarray, and the people suffering. They were truly a dying race.

When the IRA model of government was created, it was intended by Commissioner John Collier to negate the power of the agents, restore the rights of tribes to practice their traditional religion and culture, and reverse the loss of lands set in motion by the General Allotment Act of 1887. It was seen in this light by the tribal leaders who supported the adoption of the model, and voted for it.

White economic interests bordering the reservations campaigned against the IRA, calling it communistic, because of its focus on returning lands to tribal common ownership. This made the lands more difficult for outside interests to buy out. And the proposed new tribal governments would have increased sophistication, thus making them less vulnerable to theft of their resources.

The federal government itself, from the agents (Superintendents) on up, fought the IRA because it would lessen their control over the tribes and lessen their own power and paychecks as a result.

Following Collier’s departure from the Office of Indian Affairs, and after WWII, the federal bureaucracy again gained control over the tribes, and this lasted until the passage of the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975 (PL93-638).

It would be interesting for scholars to create a model of what a traditional government would look like today if the people and the OST had totally rejected the IRA model to keep what governance was in place at that time. This would call for studying the history and traditions of the tribe to answer such questions as selection of new chiefs: e.g. Was there a form of hereditary succession among the chiefs? If so, which of the descendents would be chiefs today?

Perhaps the exercise of studying and debating the facts of history, and discrediting the fiction and myths surrounding the IRA versus traditional government would allow for needed changes, and solidify the Oglala Sioux Tribe’s government to finally move ahead with confidence to govern and serve all of its citizens.

Charles “Chuck” Trimble, Oglala Lakota, was principal founder of the American Indian Press Association in 1970, and served as Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians from 1972-78. He may be reached at cchuktrim@aol.com. His website is iktomisweb.com.