Blood Struggle Study and Discussion Questions

(Based on: Tanis Thorne, HISTORY 15A NATIVE AMERICAN HISTORY, University of California, Irvine, https://eee.uci.edu/clients/tcthorne/Hist15/bloodstruggle.htm)

Ch. 1: Indian Country, 1953

1. Why was the BIA perceived as a “master” rather than a “guardian”?
2. In what ways was the BIA, whose purpose was to protect Indians’ resources, actually conflicted and forced to attend to the needs of the dominant society?

Ch 2 (Skim)

1. How does the evidence in this chapter regarding the Nez Perce help dispel “the stereotype of the Indian leaders at the treaty talks as passive and intellectually overmatched.”
2. What treaty promise(s) would become the source of the modern “salmon wars” in the courts ?
3. What was the impact of the the assimilation policy (52-56)?

Ch. 3 (Skim):

1. What does the word “termination” evoke in Native people today?
2. How did John Collier’s romanticism influence Indian policy?
3. What was Felix Cohen’s contribution, e.g. p. 61: the “inherent powers” [of a limited sovereignty] doctrine
4. What were the flaws and ideal objectives of New Deal land reform?l
5. What was the Post WWII Hoover Commission recommendation?
6. Why did termination become such a popular policy after WWII? What were conditions in Indian country? What beliefs of the dominant society, and what self-serving goals, were reflected in this policy? (e.g Senator Arthur Watkins of Utah as a key architect of termination) Why did some tribal people support

Ch. 4  (Skim):

1. The core question is: how did a national political movement emerge after WWII? What were the reasons for Indians anger and disillusionment?
2. Who were the “sustaining Indian figures” and how (and did?) they keep Indian worldview alive during the “deadening years” of cultural imperialism?
3. Why is D’Arcy McNickle significant to the Indian movement? Vine Deloria, Jr.?
4. Why and how did WWII revive “the Indians’ capacity to act on their own behalf?” Why did “new Indian intellectuals” numbers increasing dramatically after 1960?

Ch. 5 (Skim):

1. Why was the Kinzua Dam protest as a catalytic event?
2. Why were Indian lands, waters, minerals vulnerable to appropriation by eminent domain and other means in the dramatic demographic and economic expansion in America after WWII?
3. Why was the availability of OEO funding such a dramatic turning point for reservations and their leadership? (Cf. p. 191-195)

Ch. 6: Red Power

1. Why was the fishing litigation in the Northwest (though less dramatic) in the end far more important to the sovereignty movement than these other events: Lumbee and the KKK | Alcatraz | NARF |AIM and Trail of Broken Treaties | Wounded Knee II?

Ch 7: Salmon People

1. Why were Indian treaty rights over fishing so controversial?
   • Who had the most to loose from Indian’s exercising this right?
   • Make a case pro and con for denying Indian’s these treaty rights.
2. Why did the issue of treaty rights come to a crisis after WWII?
3. What was Judge Belloni’s 1969 decision and his reasoning for same, and questions left unresolved (pp. 165-166)? What did Indian’s have at this point, that they didn’t have pre-1945, to get the Justice Department to take the case against the state for the Indians in 1970?

Ch. 8: Turning Points

1. What was the irony of termination, allegedly to liberate the Indians from paternalism, and allow them to sink or swim on their own?
2. Describe the Memominee resistence: why did some persons tried to reverse termination and how and why they succeeded in this effort?
3. Wilkenson argues the Indian movement did not “crystallize” until the 1970s. What necessary conditions for a “movement” had been met by that point?
4. P. 196: Nixon’s 1970 message on self-determination marked a “pathbreaking moment” and shift in Indian policy. Yet it was curiously unilateral and preceded Wounded Knee II, the reversal of Menominee termination, and other well-known incidents in political activism. This seems to challenge our conventional understanding and also presents an enigma. (Note that the powers of sovereigns and the recognition of sovereignty as central to tribal self-determination emerging in the late 1970s and early 1980s. cf. p. 239)
   • What evidence is presented in this book for why the policy shifted in 1970? (cf. p. 214)
   • What was this new policy and how did it ripen into fulfillment in the 1980s (pre-gaming!)?
   • How much of this was spurred by judicial activism by liberal judges like Thurgood Marshall, do you think? (cf. p. 248)
5. What was the reasoning behind the Boldt decision (U.S. v. Washington)? What was the public reaction

Ch. 9: Reclaiming Heartlands

1. The return Blue Lake to Taos Pueblo was a key event. What action had the Taos people taken for its return on what legal grounds? Did the return set a precedent? Why is this case so significant?
2. T/F Although the Indian Claims Court, set up after WWII and handling dozens of cases, purportedly addressed historic injustices of land and resource loss, deserving cases requiring remedial action still remained.
3. What pandora’s box did the Passamaquoddy open with Tom Tureen’s help? Why did this have such wide and ponderous implications across the Eastern Seaboard (the original 13 states)?
   • How was the matter ultimately resolved?
   • Was the intervention of the Justice Department on the Indian’s side crucial to the outcome?
   • What did the tribes get and what did the state’s landowner’s get in the compromises brokered in multi-lateral talks and sealed by federal legislation, e.g the Main Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 (in some cases litigation, p. 252)?
4. Why weren’t tribes able to reclaim land in the Ruby Valley and Black Hills cases, however?
5. In the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), what was the resolution (p. 235-7)? What were the weaknesses of the reform legislation of 1987?

Ch. 10: Sovereignty

1. What are the main trends in the courts regarding Indian sovereignty?
   • When and why did the trend shift from favoring the tribes?
   • Has Congress had a similar shift?
   • Why is Worcester v. Georgia pivotal in Indian litigation (cf. p. 320)?
2.  T/F. The tribal position (pro-sovereignty) is that State law hardly ever applies to Indian reservations within their borders, except when Congress has expressly provided for state jurisdiction.
3. Name at least 3 important Supreme Court victories for tribal sovereignty in the 1970s and 1980s.
4. What 1978 case was the biggest defeat and why?
5. Name the most important pieces of Indian legislation of the 1970s and 1980s.
6. P. 267-8 Why does Wilkenson describe the Indian position as nonetheless “fragile”?

Skim Ch 11, be able to summarize the evidence for tribal progress in cultural and economic revitalization, and obstacles to same. (cf. p. 346-97)

Skim Ch 12, be able to summarize the evidence of wise environmental stewardship by tribes? Why do tribes sometimes conflict with environmental organizations (p. 324)?

Ch. 13:  How and why did California tribes play a critical role in legalizing Indian high-stakes gaming?

Ch.14: Summarize the evidence presented here for tribal progress in cultural and economic revitalization, and obstacles to same. (cf. p. 346-97).

“Economic development on Indian reservations if first and foremost a political problem. At the heart of it lie sovereignty and governing institutions through which sovereignty can be effectively exercised,” write professors of the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. (pp. 349-50) Explain.