Covering Indian Country Blog

Personal Stories

Complexity and Chaos

Trying to understand the relationship between the United States government and American Indian tribes is simply mind numbing. I’ve never covered international affairs, but I’m left pondering how tribal/federal relations compare in complexity to the U-S relationship with other sovereign nations.

I wonder, do other sovereign nations who receive aid from the United States jump through as many hoops as the nations within our own borders?

The founding fathers considered tribes sovereign nations, yet today they need to successfully complete a detailed approval process in order to be recognized by the federal government.

The examples of complexity and chaos seem endless. Perhaps the most prominent is the trust issue. Just when the historical or contemporary process of trust responsibility begins to make sense, there’s another caveat or disclaimer which sets off cognitive dissonance. It seems the same with issue after issue. It appears decades of congressional tinkering and agency rulemaking have built a system that is amazing in it’s sheer complexity. 

So far this week our dialogue about these issues has answered a few questions, but it’s raised many more.

I’ve reported on Indian Country for more than 15 years. Still, I often just don’t get it.

Can I succinctly and accurately explain to listeners issues that I’m
not sure I’ll ever master?

I’m not sure. I’ll keep trying.

Or maybe there’s an opening on the international desk somewhere.

--Dan Gunderson, Minnesota Public Radio

Posted on 03.09.05 at 1:47 AM by Victor Merina
Permalink and comments (184)

On Museum Tour, Disappointment by the Bucketful

The last time I visited the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington—about a month after it opened last year—I looked in vain for any trace of my tribe.  I was disappointed.

That experience and reaction are not unusual for many Native people visiting their new museum, large though limited. Proud of the museum we are, like it we do—but what would make us really LOVE the place is if all 560 tribes of Native Americans got equal time and space in the museum’s many displays.

Or if the whole place were devoted to just one tribe: our own. Especially mine, the Osage Tribe of Oklahoma.

During Monday’s museum tour for the traveling seminar journalists, I broke off after a few exhibits to continue my quest.

Ah, finally, I found it. There it was, a mention of my tribe—and I was thrilled.  Until I started reading.

In the Kiowa tribal exhibit in a fourth-floor section called “Our Peoples” was this headline:  “Osages MASSACRE Adante’s Band.”

The description was almost newspaper-style, quoting survivors. It reported an 1833 attack by Osages in a place now called, gulp, “Beheading Mountain.”

“The Osages had beheaded their victims with swords and left the heads in brass buckets the Kiowas had. Not many escaped.”

Ouch.

It’s a good example of being careful what you ask for.

It’s also a good example of how an “Indian story” can fall short and disappoint.

Now, next time I tour the museum, I’ll look for a NICE mention of my tribe—for what media critics are fond of calling a “positive story.”

Now, let me tell you about my ancestor, Three Buckets …

Denny McAuliffe, reznet project director, University of Montana

Posted on 03.08.05 at 2:13 AM by Victor Merina
Permalink and comments (96)