Blast from the Past: “Indian Civil Rights Issues in Oklahoma,” January 1974

Scholarship on the Legal History of the Leech Lake Reservation

Douglas P. Thompson, Jason Decker, Torivio A. Fodder, Gavin M. Ratcliffe, Michael J. Dockry, Ben Benoit, and Christopher Murray, have published “Opportunities for Reconciliation: The Legal History of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation and the Chippewa National Forest” in the Mitchell Hamline Law Review.

Here is the abstract (painting):

Blast from the Past: Announcement of the Publication of the Indian Law Report

From the Neshnawbe News, early summer 1974:

Blast from the Past: Victoria Barner’s Suit against Michigamua and U of M

From Nishnawbe News [NMU], Summer 1972:

Wenona Singel: “Intergenerational trauma to indigenous families is real”

From MSU Today, here is “Faculty voice: Intergenerational trauma to indigenous families is real.”

Winona Singel

Wenona Singel

Professor of Law and Director of Indigenous Law and Policy Center Wenona Singel is currently researching and writing a book on her family’s multi-generational experience with forcible removal of Indian children in U.S. history. Below is an excerpt.

Five generations of my family experienced and responded to U.S. policies of forced displacement and assimilation. In 1840, my third-great-grandfather lost his Native family around the time of the U.S. military’s forcible mass detention and removal of Native people in southern Michigan.

He was raised by a Native family that moved from southern Michigan to the northern part of the Lower Peninsula. My ancestors lived in northern Michigan settled in a Native village at Burt Lake, where they purchased multiple lots of land. Later, they transferred title to that land to the Governor of Michigan to be held in trust for their benefit.

On October 15, 1900, Sheriff Fred Ming of Cheboygan County and a lumber speculator named John McGinn poured kerosene on the entire Native village at Burt Lake, destroying everything but the church and one small shack. Following that event, which is now referred to as the Burt Lake Burnout by Michigan Native communities, children of Burt Lake village, including my great-grandfather’s generation, were sent to the federally operated Mount Pleasant Indian Industrial School.

Indian boarding schools throughout the U.S. were well-documented sites of forcible assimilation, abuse, and neglect. Native children, who were frequently removed from their homes against their parents’ wishes, arrived at the schools, where they were stripped of their traditional clothing. Their hair was cut short, they were forbidden from speaking their Indigenous languages, they were taught menial skills, and they suffered from numerous forms of physical and sexual abuse as well as malnutrition, rampant spread of disease, and other forms of neglect.

Many Native children died during their institutionalization at Indian boarding schools, and the U.S. has only identified a portion of the grave sites of these children. Those who survived Indian boarding schools speak of persistent feelings of unworthiness and shame for being Indian.

My grandfather was among the children born to the generation that attended the Mount Pleasant Indian Industrial School. He attended Holy Childhood School of Jesus, an Indian boarding school operated by the Catholic Church in Harbor Springs, Michigan.

At Holy Childhood, my grandfather met my grandmother, who also lived at the school. They later married and had five children, all of whom were taken from them by social services.

One of the lasting legacies of Indian boarding schools is that children who attended these schools grew up without exposure to their own families’ parenting skills. Instead, survivors grew up learning cooking and cleaning over academics and were subjected to institutional abuse.

These experiences deeply traumatized many survivors of the schools and left them unprepared for gainful employment and economic prosperity in adulthood. Furthermore, social services agencies in the twentieth century treated Native families as incapable of raising their own children.

By 1978, 25% to 35% of all Native children in the U.S. were removed from their homes and placed in foster care, adoptive homes, or institutions. In nearly all cases, Native children were placed with families who were not Native, leading to the widespread loss of children’s cultural identity and connection with their tribal communities.

Like so many of the Native children born in the 1950s, my mother was removed from her family as an infant and lived in multiple foster care homes until she was adopted by a white Catholic family with one of her biological sisters at the age of five.

My mother and aunt experienced loss of their Anishinaabe cultural identity. They also confronted cruel negative stereotypes about Native Americans in their schools, church, and family.

As an 18-year-old girl, my mother became pregnant with me and left her adoptive family. For three years, my mother and I “couch-surfed” in temporary housing until my sister was born and we found an income-pooling commune founded by a church in Detroit. The following year, when I was four, my baby sister was taken from us and adopted by a white family.

Today, I am a parent to two children. I am committed to documenting the impact of federal and state Indian law and policy on Native families and the intergenerational trauma it produces. I want my own children to be the first generation in my family since at least 1840 not to experience separation from their parents. (However, my sister lost custody of her son following life in the adoptive home that she fled during adolescence.)

I became extremely self-reliant as a child to compensate for the challenges my family had as a result of abuse and neglect. However, many negative impacts of the toxic stress of my early years continue to affect me today, such as constant hyper-vigilance and the sensation of being in survival mode, even though I’ve long established the security I lacked in my youth.

My story is not exceptional; rather, it’s representative of and part of a pattern common to Native families throughout the country. Themes of substance abuse, thoughts of suicide, domestic violence, lack of secure housing, and financial issues plagued the adults in my family, contributing to toxic stress.

On the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale, which measures children’s exposure to various forms of abuse, neglect, dysfunction, and chaos, I score an 8 out of 10. Scores of 8 through 10 are shared by an estimated 1% to 3% of the U.S. population.

I know many Native community members who score a 10 out of 10. Studies have shown that people with an ACE score of 4 or more have a greater likelihood of developing chronic health conditions, they are four times more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders than the general population, and they have a lower life expectancy.

They are also 12 times more likely to attempt suicide.

My work is intended to help other Native families understand how federal and state Indian policies have contributed to multiple generations of profound harm that continue to cause reverberating impacts in the present.

I am exploring how evidence-based strategies for surviving and thriving despite high ACE scores can be scaled and tailored to address historic trauma using culture, traditional teachings, and education.

I am also examining how our justice and political system might respond and provide remedies for the intergenerational harm.

I am an advocate of a multi-pronged approach that includes components such as an acknowledgement of the full effect of the harms experienced by Native families; formal and meaningful apologies; accountability for individuals, organizations, and governments; restitution; rehabilitation; and healing as defined and prescribed by Indigenous communities.

Try as they did, the federal and state governments did not succeed at whitewashing our people. It came close. And now they must take action on each of these prongs to help Indigenous people heal.

Fletcher on TraverseCityist Podcast on Michigan History

Here.

What do you remember learning in United States or Michigan History classes?  Matthew Fletcher explains the timeline of events that occurred after the signing of the Declaration of Independence up to the present time. Fletcher is the Harry Burns Hutchins Collegiate Professor of Law at the University of Michigan. He teaches and writes in the areas of federal Indian law, American Indian tribal law, Anishinaabe legal and political philosophy, constitutional law, federal courts, and legal ethics. He also sits as the Chief Justice of the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, the Porch Band of Creek Indians and the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. Matthew is also the author of The Eagle Returns, The Legal History of the Grand Travers Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. This interview was recorded on July 17, 2024.

Episode 16 is sponsored by the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Tribal Council.

Blast from the Past: Arlinda Locklear on New York Indian Land Claims in 2011 Lecture at the Heard Museum

Ezra Rosser on Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff

Ezra Rosser has published “Progress and the Taking of Indigenous Land” in the Ohio State Law Journal.

Here is the abstract and some images supplied by Ezra:

The taking of Indigenous land in furtherance of other societal goals is so ubiquitous and so fundamental to the American project that sometimes acts of dispossession are not even recognized as such. This Article argues that the generally accepted understanding of Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, a key case of the American takings law canon, is wrong because it overlooks Native Hawaiian claims to the land taken. Hawai‘i’s Land Reform Act allowed tenants a right to purchase land over the objections of the owner of the underlying property and in Midkiff the U.S. Supreme Court said that states had the right to use their eminent domain authority in such a way. The common understanding of the case is that it is a progressive victory, an example of how government can fight back against inequality and the power of large landowners. But beneath the surface, this Article argues, the case is really about dispossession. By showing how land reform predictably worked to transfer Indigenous land to upper class, relatively wealthy tenants, the Article situates Midkiff within a long history of taking Native land in order to accomplish progressive ends. By seeing Midkiff for what it is—a judicially authorized taking of Indigenous land—the significance of the case within the Property and Indian Law cannons can be more fully appreciated. Indigenous peoples are often forced to pay—in the form of diminishment of their property rights—for progressive victories, with their losses swept under the rug by courts and scholars alike. The Midkiff decision is part of a pattern of treating the property rights of Indigenous peoples as impediments to progress.

The Attack on Talton v. Mayes During the Navajo Peyote Ban Case

Arthur Lazarus, the general counsel of the Association on American Indian Affairs (and the drafter of the original bill that became the Indian Child Welfare Act), filed amicus briefs in a suit by a Navajo tribal citizen challenging the power of the Secretary of the Interior to approve the Navajo Tribal Council’s ban on peyote use by the Native America Church. The case was filed as Oliver v. Seaton (D.D.C.):

The challenge really was against the Navajo ban, but Mr. Oliver challenged the Secretary’s approval of the ban, alleging that the approval violated the Exercise Clause. An important aspect of the AAIA’s amicus brief was that Talton v. Mayes, which seemingly held the federal Constitution did not regulate tribal power, did not govern the violation of “fundamental rights.”

There’s an interesting effort to compare tribal nations to the American territories here. We know from cases as recent as Puerto Rico v. Sanchez-Valle regarding Puerto Rico’s sovereignty that tribal sovereignty is more robust that Lazarus credits here. Note the conclusion, invoking the axiom that the “Constitution . . . follows the flag,” usually invoked in war crimes commission law like in the Guantanamo Bay cases.

Needless to say, the Navajo Nation was upset that the AAIA threw its support behind the Native American Church and not the tribe.

Mr. Oliver ultimately did not prevail. See Oliver v. Udall, 306 F.2d 819 (D.C. Cir. 1962).

“Just Fine with Us”

August 28, 1980

Postscript — Frank Kelley was wrong.