Forgotten Tribes: Unrecognized Indians and the Federal Acknowledgment Process

Conclusion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 [First Page] [256], (1) Lines: 0 t ——— 0.4pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: T [256], (1) CONCLUSION On a winter’s day in January 2001 Utah sheriff deputies raided the home of James Warren Flaming Eagle Mooney and seized a computer, ceremonial pipe, and thirty-three pounds of peyote cactus. In the roundup the State of Utah arrested the leader on a dozen counts of drug trafficking and one charge of racketeering. Law enforcement officials soon charged Mooney with operating a church and illegally administering the hallucinogenic plant to his devoted followers. Only members of the Native American Church who are also members of a federally recognized tribe can use peyote as part of their religious ceremonies. Had Mooney possessed this status, his actions would be legal.Yet,althoughheclaimedtobeanerstwhilememberofthenonrecognized Oklevueha Seminole Band of Oklahoma, the “Peyote priest” was now facing a long prison term. In battling the charges Mooney found little support from other peyote users. Leaders of the Native American Church shunned him, believingrenegadessuchasMooneyweretarnishingtheirpeople’sreputation.1 Unfortunately for him, Mooney discovered the ongoing importance of the acknowledgment issue, as federal tribal status remained central to a wide range of Native activities—including the use of peyote. the opposite of extinction As revealed in this work, tribal recognition is a pivotal development in postwar Native American policy. It is also one of the most ambiguous, acrimonious, and controversial methods for defining and measuring Indian identity and tribalism in modern America. By and large the federal government is not dealingsatisfactorilywiththerisingnumberofunacknowledgedIndiangroups and their demands for status and identity as tribal peoples. Although the bia process allows for significant differences in community organization and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 [257], (2) Lines: 16 to ——— 0.0pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [257], (2) blood quantum, like earlier federal programs such as the Dawes Act and the Indian New Deal, the fap still seeks to apply a single model to all groups, despite their differences. As my writings show, when officials designed the bia process in the late 1970s, the tribal recognition program was a welcomed confirmation of tribes and their right to exist in modern America. The overall purpose of the project should be applauded today. Yet the ambiguous and contested concepts enmeshed in the Federal Acknowledgment Process have generated a continuously whirring controversy. In light of the significant indigenous rights and federal resources at stake, this situation is not likely to change in the near future. As I show, a small but important body of scholarship has painted the fap as an inequitable policy. A dozen congressional hearings and a dozen or more testimonials from knowledgeable academics also seem to bear witness that the process is “broken.” Yet no viable alternatives have seen the light of day. By detailing the historical development of the bia’s policy, however, it has been my purpose to show that, in some respects, the fap has served the interests of many parties. At the close of the 1970s many tribes and federal officials designed the bia process as a bulwark against the growing number of nonfederal Indian groups coming forward to claim an Indian identity. When judged against the understated wishes of many reservation tribes, members of Congress, segments of the non-Indian public, and the bia, the recognition programhasfunctionedasitwasintended.Itsslow,exacting,andburdensome procedureshavematchedthegoalsofmanypartiesinterestedintheissue.That said, the bia program has clearly failed to live up to its promise as well as to its stated goals. As the decades have passed, it has not always provided an expeditious, fair, and objective remedy for many groups left out of the federal fold. Currently, tribal groups with strong claims remain stuck in an Indian status limbo from which there often seems no release. Alternativestobureaucracyonceexisted.Duringthe1970s,however,thebia and recognized tribes rejected more liberal and inclusive modes of acknowledging Indian entities, instead insisting upon prodigious amounts of written proof of ancestry, political leadership, community functioning, and outside verification of Indianness. The bia dismissed self-identification, oral testimonials , and a people’s own unique sense of community and social organization...