The Anti-Indian Movement in the Wise Use Movement: Threatening the Cultural and Biological Diversity of Indian Country by Rudolph C. Ryser, Chairman of CWIS
                                A SIMPLE REQUEST
       Many of our files are unique and/or copyrighted by The Center For 
       World  Indigenous  Studies  and The  Fourth  World  Documentation 
       Project.   All  FWDP  files  may  be  reproduced  for  electronic  
       transfer  or posting on computer  networks  and  bulletin  boards 
       provided that:
          1. All text remains unaltered.
          2. No profit is made from such transfer.
          3. Full credit is given to the author(s) and the Fourth World 
             Documentation Project.
          4. This banner is included in the document if being used as a 
             file on a BBS, FTP site or other file archive.

       Thank you for your cooperation.

       John Burrows
       Executive Director
       Center For World Indigenous Studies

   ||                                                                      ||
   ||    The Fourth World Documentation Project runs entirely on grants    ||
   ||    and private donations.  If  you find this  information service    ||
   ||    useful to you in any way, please consider making a donation to    ||
   ||    help keep it running.  CWIS is a  non-profit  [U.S. 501(c)(3)]    ||
   ||    organization.   All donations are completely tax deductible.      ||
   ||    Donations may be made to:                                         ||
   ||                                                                      ||
   ||    The Center For World Indigenous Studies                           ||
   ||    ATTN: FWDP                                                        ||
   ||    P.O. Box 2574                                                     ||
   ||    Olympia, Washington  USA                                          ||
   ||    98507-2574                                                        ||
   ||                                    Thank You,                        ||
   ||                                    CWIS Staff                        ||
   ||                                                                      ||

::  This file has been created under the loving care of  ::
::                 A service provided by                 ::
::        The Center For World Indigenous Studies        ::
::                                                       ::
::         ::
::       ::


[Ed. Note: This article may be reproduced for electronic transfer and 
posting on computer bulletin boards and networks provided that no 
profit is made by such transfer and that full credit is given to the 
author, the Center For World Indigenous Studies and The Fourth World 
Documentation Project.] 



                      by Rudolph C. Ryser, Chairman
                   Center for World Indigenous Studies

               (c) 1993 Center For World Indigenous Studies

    (This article is adapted from _Anti-Indian Movement on the Tribal 
    Frontier_, Occasional Paper #16 Revised Edition, published by the 
    Center for World Indigenous Studies, in June 1992.)

    Indian nations' lands and resources are under attack. The 
    successful confiscation of Indian lands and removal of Indians 
    from the last remnants of their original homelands will open the 
    door to expansionist exploitation of the western hemisphere's 
    last biologically diverse regions. Indian nations in the Americas 
    from the Arctic North to the rocky tip of South America are under 
    systematic attack. From cold-war-like political conflicts in the 
    northern continent to brutal, violent wars in middle and southern 
    America resulting in thousands of Indian deaths each year, Indian 
    nations face political movements and armies intent on taking 
    lands and resources from their historical owners. In the United 
    States of America an alliance of greed and deception has been 
    formed from private property owners, recreation organizations, 
    rightwing organizations, governments and business. Together they 
    target Indian lands for transfer from Indian control to the 
    control of private, non-Indian U.S. citizens. Domestic and multi-
    national corporations also want access to Indian lands and 
    resources. In Central America, state governments hungry for new 
    raw materials to diversify stagnant and unproductive economies 
    have invaded Indian territories -- in many instances forcibly 
    removing whole populations. Land and resources are the target. 
    Indians are considered expendable. In the states of South America 
    several states tolerate, or actively participate in the invasion 
    of Indian territories. Conducting counter-insurgency sweeps 
    against the Sindero Luminoso (Shining Path), the Peruvian 
    government participates in attacks on Indian villages. Land and 
    resources are at the root of the conflict. Thousands of Indians 
    have been killed. In Brazil, gold-miners invade Indian lands and 
    carry diseases into Indian society. The Brazilian government 
    directly subsidizes invasion of Indian lands for raw materials as 
    a matter of public policy. Nearly without exception, Indians 
    peoples, their culture and their environment are under siege in 
    the western hemisphere. 

    The systematic emphasis on Indian land transfers in the United 
    States continues to grow. Government, business and private 
    citizens are a part of an effort organized Anti-Indian Movement 
    intent on removing Indians from their reserved territories and 
    replacing them with new outside owners. The Anti-Indian Movement 
    also operates within the framework of the Wise Use Movement with 
    the goal to replace Indian land rights with private non-Indian 
    property rights -- public property with private individual and 
    corporate property. These movements wrap their public statements 
    in the protection of the U. S. Constitution and its emphasis on 
    property rights. Underneath, there is a single-minded bigotry 
    which not only threatens the cultural and biological diversity of 
    Indian nations and their territories, but directly challenges 
    U.S. public and private efforts to protect the environment from 
    further degradation. 

    Indian Country is vulnerable to organized efforts aimed at land 
    and natural resource expropriation. Next to the United States of 
    America and all the states, Indian nations combined are the 
    owners of the largest area of land. With more than 135 million 
    acres of wilderness, range, desert, timber, tundra and other 
    types of land Indian nations collectively have sixteen percent of 
    the wild forests, eighty-percent of the uranium, vast quantities 
    of coal, oil, oil-shale, natural gas, strategic metals, water, 
    wildlife, fisheries, range-lands, and wilderness. These are the 
    remaining lands and territories reserved to Indian nations after 
    more than two centuries of land expropriations, treaties, land 
    purchases and wars between the United States and Indian nations. 
    Benefiting from years of U.S. government policy aimed at the 
    dismemberment of Indian tribes, non-Indian U.S. citizens moved 
    into Indian territories in increasingly larger numbers. Many 
    became residents of Indian reservations. They became "on-
    reservation non-Indians." The successful encroachment of non-
    Indian populations on to Indian reservations serves now as the 
    catalyst for growing outside pressures to put Indian lands under 
    the control of state governments, county governments, private 
    individuals and commercial enterprises. The effect of land 
    transfers and in-migration of non-Indian populations to 
    reservations is reflected in the growing "near-reservation" 
    Indian populations -- Indians unable to live on the reservations 
    reserved by their ancestors. Instead of territories reserved for 
    the benefit of Indian peoples, many Indian reservations are 
    rapidly becoming the land and raw material source for the United 


    There was a time when the only people who lived on the American 
    continent were America's original nations, now called Indians. 
    The original nations of North America have names like Ojibaway, 
    Haudenosaunee, Lakota, Hopi, Kiowa, Dene, Cree, and Yakima. Once 
    these nations and scores of other nations lived on virtually all 
    the lands of the Americas, from the highest mountains to the 
    lowest beaches. The culture of each nation developed from the 
    intimate relationship between people and land. Religious, 
    political, legal, economic and social systems within each culture 
    naturally developed from the interaction between the people and 
    the territories to which each had systematically and successfully 
    adapted. Some nations took as many as forty-thousand years to 
    reach the level of sophistication and classical grace only 
    achieved by very old cultures. Typical of all human nations 
    throughout the world, America's original nations reflected the 
    diversity of all the lands' varied ecological conditions. Those 
    nations that balanced human needs with the regenerative 
    capacities of the land, plants and other animals succeeded and 
    developed into complex cultures still able to adapt. Those 
    nations which demanded more of their environments than could be 
    naturally regenerated, either became expansionist -- seeking 
    sustenance and wealth from neighboring nations -- or they simply 
    failed, collapsing into nothing. Either way, the key to any 
    nation's survival is its culture, the land and the wealth of the 
    land. Without a place on the land, a nation becomes spiritually 
    and materially impoverished and dies or it becomes a threat to 
    the peace and security of neighboring nations. Without a place, a 
    nation can only have a culture of poverty. 

    America's great centers of complex culture were in the 
    Mississippi Valley, what is now the Great Lakes Region and the 
    east-central part of North America. Other centers included the 
    desert regions of what is now Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico; and 
    the region centered on the island of Haida Guii in the northwest 
    part of the United States and southwest of Canada. America's many 
    nations were prosperous and productive. These diverse nations 
    developed not only complex economic relations between themselves, 
    but complex diplomatic, social and cultural ties. Though 
    certainly not perfect, America's original nations had succeeded 
    in developing successful societies after thousands of years. Each 
    nation reflected the diverse character of America's complex eco-
    systems. Clothing, speech, spiritual systems, economies, and 
    other life-ways differ between America's nations, accommodating 
    the rich diversity of climates, terrain, and foods. What visitors 
    from around the world could not have missed on their arrival over 
    the centuries is the immense variety of peoples and their great 
    wealth. America's nation's succeeded because of their cultural 
    diversity and their ability to adapt to the variety of flora and 
    fauna. The cultural strategies of America's nations endured the 
    tests of time. 

    When immigrants from the world's other nations began to move to 
    the Americas, everything changed. The descendants of these 
    original nations now live on-and-near parcels of land called 
    communities, allotments, rancherias, and reservations. During 
    three hundred years in the northern Americas and more than four 
    hundred years in the southern Americas the original nations of 
    America faced land wars against increasing numbers of immigrants 
    from Europe, Africa and Asia. The struggle for land and resources 
    continues unabated to the present day. New strategies for nations 
    to survive continue to evolve, but the main ingredients remain 
    the same: Balance, culture, land and natural wealth. 


    When succeeding waves of non-American populations emigrated and 
    settled in the western hemisphere whole nations were forced to 
    moved from one piece of geography to another. Some nations fought 
    defensive wars and held their ground. Most Indian nations were 
    located in reserved territories called Indian Reservations. Many 
    other nations were left completely landless-immigrants and 
    governments simply took the land and moved in to replace the 
    original occupants. The result of the historic movement of 
    populations was the marginalization of Indian nations in tiny 

    After lands had been reserved by treaty for most Indian nations, 
    these lands were defined as lands which would be permanently the 
    home of the many different Indian peoples. "For as long as the 
    grass is green and the water flows," Indians were to be the sole 
    occupants of reserved lands, "unless they shall consent to non-
    members of the tribe" residing inside Indian Country. The 
    reserved character of Indian lands soon became "an invitation 
    instead of a barrier" to non-Indian populations wanting the 
    Indians' last remaining lands. In modern times, the large-scale 
    movement of non-Indians onto Indian reservations began when the 
    United States government enacted General Allotment Act (1887). 
    Acting contrary to promises made, the U.S. government moved to 
    finally destroy tribal governments. U.S. policy was to break up 
    Indian reservations -- ending more than 260 years of treaty 
    relations between the independent state of the United States of 
    America and hundreds of foreign Indian nations which remained 
    outside the absolute control of the U.S. government. The General 
    Allotment Act became the main effort of liberal democracy to 
    eliminate so-called primitive and backward lifeways among Indian 
    peoples. Liberal Senators committed to the Manifest Destiny 
    Doctrine (the historical inevitability of Anglo-Saxon domination 
    of North America from sea to sea) advocated the General Allotment 
    Act as a progressive demonstration of liberal democracy. 
    "Indians," it was often said, "must be protected from the ravages 
    of progress." 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. Indians, according to this thinking, would be 
    integrated into civilized society, and "become productive members 
    of a society comprised of people from many other nations who have 
    become a part of the world's melting pot." This 19th century 
    thinking was recently reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court when 
    it ruled on the question of whether Yakima County in the State of 
    Washington could impose its governmental powers inside the 
    territories of the Yakima Indian Nation. In Chief Justice William 
    Rehnquist's majority opinion in the June 1989 decision in 
    Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian 
    Nation: It is "unlikely that Congress intended to subject non-
    Indian purchasers to tribal jurisdiction when an avowed purpose 
    of the allotment policy was to destroy tribal government." Not 
    only had the court reaffirmed the intent of the General Allotment 
    Act as a basis for U.S. confiscation of tribal lands, but the 
    court further asserted that the United States government will not 
    recognize the authority of Indian governments inside their own 
    territories when the Indian tribe exercises certain powers that 
    affect non-Indian reservation residents -- a 19th century idea 
    based on race. 


    Indian land rights are paradoxically the strongest and the 
    weakest link in the mosaic of land rights in the United States. 
    Because Indian nations are not a part of the system of 
    governments that make up the United States federal system, (to 
    this day, Indian nations remain political entities exercising 
    sovereignty outside the framework of the U.S. Constitution), they 
    are vulnerable to unrestrained political, economic and social 
    interference from non-Indian citizens of the United States. While 
    the United States government concluded international treaties 
    with Indian nations promising to protect Indian people and 
    territories from encroachments by the various states and 
    individual U.S. citizens, it has more often than not been in the 
    U.S. government's interest to abrogate those parts of various 
    treaties. The United States of America obtained most of its 
    wealth and virtually all of its territory from Indian nations. 
    Lands and resources fell under U.S. control through treaties of 
    cession, war with various Indian nations, purchase of territory 
    from another state claiming Indian lands, abrogation of U.S. 
    promises to protect Indian nations or through outright deception 
    and confiscation. 

    If treaty and other agreements between Indian nations and the 
    United States are sustained and advanced as law to be enforced by 
    all parties, the territories of Indian nations will not be 
    violated. If, however, the United States government itself 
    becomes a party to efforts designed to confiscate and otherwise 
    transfer Indian lands from Indian control to non-Indian control, 
    Indian nations have only their own limited resources to defend 
    themselves -- invoking provisions of treaties and pursuing legal 
    remedies. Combined with this latter condition of relative 
    weakness is the weakness of Indian nations to defend themselves 
    because of the complex web of jurisdictions claimed inside Indian 

    States, counties, the United States government itself and Indian 
    nations claim varying degrees of governmental power inside tribal 
    territories. This condition of multiple jurisdictions, real or 
    imagined, exposes Indian reservations to land transactions which 
    are secretly completed. A transfer of land could be completed 
    under state jurisdiction and not be revealed to any of the other 
    jurisdictions until accidental discovery. The cultural and 
    biological diversity of all Indian nations is threatened by this 
    growing tide of legal and "unlegal" land transactions. 

    In the last third of the twentieth century, Indian nations came 
    under an organized threat aimed at displacing Indians from 
    reserved lands. The Anti-Indian/Wise Use Movement seeks the 
    unrestrained exploitation of Indian lands and resources. 
    Commercial and private property interests without historical 
    experience, without cultural connections to Indian territories 
    seek to impose their selfish agendas. Their efforts threaten to 
    cause greater cultural and biological imbalances in Indian 
    Country similar to cultural and biological imbalances already 
    created in heavily populated areas in areas outside reservations. 


    In the late 1960s, it had become clear that the U.S. government's 
    19th century policy succeeded in creating a "checkerboard 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 and the 
    various states 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. The greater number of 
    displaced Indians moved to locations near the reservation. They 
    no longer can 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. 

    Non-Indian landowners on Indian reservations include people 
    seeking inexpensive summer retreats, retirement homes, and 
    commercial businesses. At first they received help and 
    encouragement from the United States government. They later 
    received help, encouragement and money from right-wing elements. 
    Influence ranging from Sun Myun Moon's Unification Church in the 
    Wise Use Movement to followers of neo-Nazi groups and white 
    supremacists connected with the Anti-Indian Movement dovetailed 
    in the middle 1980s with the on-reservation property owners' 
    movement. Though the on-reservation property owners' movement 
    began in the late 1960s as a legitimate political dispute with 
    tribal governments it eventually linked with off reservation 
    "property-rights" interests. Non-Indian reservation property 
    owners and off-reservation land and resource groups became the 
    Anti-Indian Movement. By 1988 the Anti-Indian Movement became a 
    founding participant in the "multi-use movement" that developed 
    into the "Wise Use Movement." 


    Under the guise of "mainstream non-profit research and education 
    organizations" and the deceptively attractive "equal rights for 
    everyone" slogan, the Anti-Indian Movement signaled the beginning 
    of a growing effort to "privatize property" in reaction to 
    growing Indian tribal government powers and the environmental 
    movement. With its right-wing extremist technical help, the Anti-
    Indian Movement 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 by encouraging 

    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 1960s 
    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?' This was heard 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 the 
    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." 

    Over the decades since the 1960s, the U.S.-based Anti-Indian 
    Movement grew. From a half dozen non-Indian property owner groups 
    in two states in 1968, it became more than fifty organizations in 
    1993. 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 first forming, 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 based 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' 
    Rights 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) 

    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, 
    Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New 
    York, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin 
    have felt the effects of the network. 

    In fifteen years the organizational and tactical focus of the 
    Movement switched from the state of Washington to Wisconsin and 
    then to Montana, and back to Washington again. Despite 
    maintaining contacts in several states, the Movement conducted 
    major activities in only the 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. 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. These personalities have close 
    connections with the Wise Use Movement. Some, like Alan Gotlieb 
    (a key funder for the Free Enterprise Institute that serves as a 
    major opponent to the environmental movement and a major player 
    the Wise Use Movement) and Senator Jack Metcalf have close 
    connections with the Unification Church and with the Liberty 
    lobby. After organizing the Movement for twenty-three years, its 
    leaders can claim several successes which now contribute to the 
    growing capabilities of the Wise Use Movement: 

      -   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 - 

      -   Through its organization CERA, the Anti-Indian Movement 
    became a direct and active participant in the Wise Use Movement 
    in 1988. 

      -   The total number of consistent anti-Indian activists 
    country-wide is between 80 and 90 persons in sixteen states by 

      -   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. Due to its new associations in the "Wise Use Movement" 
    the Anti-Indian Movement increased its reach and broadened its 
    potential constituency. 


    The Anti-Indian Movement has its roots deep in the collective 
    psyche of the United States. 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. It 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 Anti-
    Indian Movement organizers and right-wing helpers rest their 
    efforts to dismember Indian tribes. 

    There victims on all sides of the growing Indian/non-Indian 
    controversy over property ownership inside and near Indian 
    reservations. Only a small number of people can be said to 
    intentionally provoke conflicts and violence between Indians and 
    non-Indians. Due to these conflicts, however, 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 

    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. 


    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 

      -   The forced division of tribally reserved territories under 
    the 1887 General Allotment Act and the failure of the U.S. 
    government to fully repudiate this disgraceful act creates the 
    popular impression that acts of land confiscation and relocation 
    of tribal populations is morally acceptable and justified. 

      -   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 government unlawfully expanded 
    their civil and criminal jurisdiction (following non-Indian 
    reservation residents) into Indian reservations without the 
    consent of tribal governments. Finally, the mistake caused 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 

      -   State governments have mistaken Indian nations as a threat 
    to their sovereignty. States governments and their subordinate 
    governments agreed 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 ensure 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 effect 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 conflict as a way of advancing their ideas of "white 
    supremacy." Furthermore, failure to encourage open negotiations 
    fosters wider public participation and encouragement of the Wise 
    Use Movement - the ultimate trap which catches the United States 
    in its own historical inconsistencies. 


      -   Citizens of the United States should abandon the idea that 
    Indian nations are going to disappear "in the face of inevitable 
    progress." Indian nations are neighbors of the United States and 
    should be treated with the same respect that the United States of 
    America asks for itself. 

      -   The diversity of Indian nations must be understood as a 
    reflection of the diversity of all of America's lands. Cultural 
    and Biological diversity are essential to human existence. 

      -   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-board for non-Indian views on 
    tribal government 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 of 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" 

      -   Where tribal, state, and U.S. federal conflicts obtain, a 
    tripartite intergovernmental 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 includes 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. 

   To have a current Center For World Indigenous Studies Publication
          Catalogue sent to you via e-mail, send a request to



                  Center For World Indigenous Studies
                             P.O. Box 2574
                          Olympia, WA  U.S.A.

                           FAX: 360-956-1087
       OCR Provided by Caere Corporation's OmniPage Professional