Editor's Commentary

This publication contains three articles concerning issues important to American Indian studies. It also contains three papers presented at the ninth annual American Indian Studies Association (AISA) conference held at Arizona State University in Tempe on February 8 and 9, 2008.

Susan Miller's article argues that a few American Indian scholars trained in the discipline of history have rejected the "Euroamerican paradigm" of history in favor of an "Indigenous paradigm" rooted in the global Indigenous movement that surfaced during the 1970s for human rights. Rather than accepting the exogenous categories of analysis developed by cultural outsiders to justify or trivialize the brutality of colonialism's ongoing legacy, she stresses that these Indigenous scholars have identified the concepts of indigenousness, sovereignty, colonialism, and decolonization as central themes of their emerging discourse. Miller also notes that they are challenging the colonizer's master narrative, along with its flawed methodologies, by critically assessing historical sources for racial biases, by "expunging anti-Indigenous language," and "privileging Indigenous sources." Miller's illuminating study is important to American Indian studies (AIS) and should become required reading in introductory AIS courses.

Leanne Simpson uses an endogenous approach to probe the complexities of diplomacy among the precontact Nishnaabegs. She addresses the concepts of sacredness, sovereignty, and rights as the foundations of their treaty making. She states that they used treaties to establish and maintain peaceful relations with other human nations and animal nations including the moose, deer, and fish. She asserts that the Nishnaabegs saw treaties as sacred arrangements solemnized ceremoniously and kept through acts of mutual reciprocity and ethical responsibilities. These were the traditions and values that the Nishnaabegs carried with them in their treaty relations with the British crown and non-Indian settlers. She ends by arguing that Canada must decolonize its political relations with Indians in ways that respect the Nishnaabegs' concepts of treaty making.

The final article by John Penn, Joy Doll, and Neal Grandgenett takes us to the present-day Omaha reservation in Nebraska. It examines the use of cultural values, spirituality, kinship systems, and tribal systems of care as means to deter unhealthy and risky behavior, including drug abuse and violence, among Omaha youth. These problems, according to Omahas, stem from the breakdown of the traditional culture. The Omaha Nation Community Response Team has developed youth-based activities, such as horseback riding, sobriety powwows, and leadership camps, to promote sobriety and community harmony. Although the reservation is plagued by poverty, the authors indicate that the cultural approach to resolving social problems has begun to promote positive change among youth and adults alike.

The papers delivered during the AISA conference pertain to the development of AIS as an academic discipline. The presidential address by James Riding In explores some of the accomplishments and unfinished business facing AIS. He notes that AIS must develop its own theories and methodologies. He notes that AISA is devoted to developing AIS as an academic discipline but that most programs with an AIS designation are conceptually weak and lack the rigor of a tribal empowerment model.

Duane Champagne and Michael Yellow Bird presented their papers at a plenary session entitled "New Directions in American Indian Studies." Arguing that American Indian studies is for real, Champagne notes that that AIS does not fit within the ethnic study model because of historical, political, and social factors that divide Indians from "minority" populations whose history involves immigration and assimilation. Indians, like other Indigenous populations around the world, are struggling to recover or maintain their economic, political, and cultural autonomy. Champagne states that because budget-minded university administrators lack an understanding of the nature of those differences, very few AIS programs have been developed.

Yellow Bird's contribution discusses ways to strengthen AIS programs. Among other things, he argues that the future of AIS must ensure that empirical research methodologies are taught so students can tackle problems facing Indian communities. He stresses that AIS must set measurable standards to ensure that its faculty has relevance in realms of research, teaching, and service. He believes that AIS must adopt a global perspective as a means to encourage Indian nations...