A case before the U.S. Supreme Court has Native Americans concerned the outcome could revive a centuries-old practice of separating indigenous children from their families.

The court will consider the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act, a 1978 law aimed at ending the practice of placing native children in nonnative homes or sending them to "Indian boarding schools" in Arizona and other states designed to "civilize" them.

Dozens of native tribes and ACLU chapters in at least a dozen states have filed briefs urging the court to uphold the statute.

Theodora "Tedde" Simon, advocate for the racial and economic justice program for the ACLU of Northern California, said many tribes still consider the separation practices cultural genocide

"They were physically beaten and abused, prevented from using their native languages, engaging in any kind of tradition or culture," Simon explained. "Their hair was cut, their names were changed. Kind of anything that was indigenous about them was scrubbed away and removed."

The case was supported on appeal by conservative groups, who claim the law gives tribal nations rights not provided to other racial minorities. Native advocates fear a reversal could change how the federal government interacts with tribal nations on major issues.

Simon, who is a member of the Navajo Nation, said many Native Americans believe when possible, keeping a native child in their indigenous culture is in everyone's best interest.

"All kinds of studies have been done showing that Native children have much better life outcomes across all of these indicators when they have the ability to be connected to their culture and their language and their heritage," Simon pointed out.

Simon added many Native Americans believe the case is not just about children's rights but is also an attack on the power and authority of tribal nations to defend their gaming rights, restore tribal lands to reservations, and manage their water rights in the Colorado and other river basins.

"This has the potential to be the most important Supreme Court case relating to Native American people in our lifetime," Simon asserted. "If the Supreme Court is to rule ICWA unconstitutional, it would have potentially devastating impacts on tribal sovereignty and the existence of Native nations."

A new survey of Native American teens and young adults highlights a growing preference for the term "Indigenous" rather than being referred to as "American Indian."

Researchers from the Aspen Institute's Center for Native American Youth surveyed close to 1,000 Native Americans under age 24, including a large contingent from California.

Cheyenne Runsabove, associate director of youth programs at the center, said the term "Native American" is still dominant.

"Fifty-three percent of Native youth prefer the word 'Native American,' and only 7% prefer the word 'American Indian,'" Runsabove reported. "We continue to see that 7% going down, and what we continue to see uptick is the word 'Indigenous.'"

The report, called "Center Us," also found many Native youths are apathetic toward U.S. elections and disappointed in the rate of change. It also found Native youth who feel culturally educated are four times more likely to see themselves as capable of making a difference than those who do not.

Runsabove pointed out culture is identity for Native youth and noted more than 60% of California Native youth said they feel either moderately, a lot, or a great deal culturally educated.

"Language, history, stories, connection to land, all of those things are at the core of identity for Native youth," Runsabove explained. "And so, we have to be mindful of their true cultural identities."

The survey noted big differences between young people in urban areas versus small towns and reservations, when it comes to the availability of culturally-informed health care, after-school programs and money for college.


get more stories like this via email

The idea of revoking military medals awarded to soldiers at the Wounded Knee Massacre has gained traction recently, but some expect that to stop during the next administration.

During the 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre that took place on the present-day Pine Ridge Reservation, 25 U.S. Army men died and hundreds of Lakota people were killed.

Nineteen Army men involved were awarded Medals of Honor, the military's highest award.

Some say revoking military medals is a slippery slope, but others argue that recipients need to deserve the distinction.

On a South Dakota Humanities Council panel last week, Retired U.S. Army Major, professor, and military historian Dwight Mears said letting the awards stand is "objectively pretty offensive."

"Because," said Mears, "it inverted what essentially amounted to many, many crimes committed at Wounded Knee into an act of emulation, right?"

Various groups and lawmakers have called on the U.S. to reconcile this since the 1970s.

Mears said as the law stands now, Medals of Honor come strictly from the executive branch - and he said he doesn't expect any revocations to happen under President-elect Donald Trump.

In August, U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds - R-SD - and Sen. Elizabeth Warren - D-MA - asked that the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defense to allow more time for the review process.

But historian Brad Tennant said the event's historic nature makes that difficult.

Even the number of Lakota people who were killed is unclear. Estimates range from about 150 to more than 300.

"I think that's going to be the biggest challenge, to get beyond the guessing game and look at the reality," said Tennant. "Here we have a situation where several hundred individuals were killed and approximately two-thirds of them were women and children."

A U.S. Department of the Interior panel heard testimony from Lakota people and others in Rapid City in September.




get more stories like this via email

Montana has joined a coalition of Indigenous groups working to address Canadian coal mining pollution in the state's Kootenai River.

The International Joint Commission, formed in 1909, works to settle boundary waters differences between the U.S. and Canada. It has formed a governance body to take on the issue.

Tom McDonald, vice chair of the Salish and Kootenai Tribal Council, based on western Montana's Flathead reservation, said Canadian coal mines have been polluting the Kootenai for more than a century.

"To the point where the fisheries in Montana, as the watershed drains into Montana from Canada, it's caused fish to be deformed," McDonald explained. "Our native fish, like bull trout."

McDonald pointed out after years of stalled talks with Canada, the binational governance body will establish a cleanup plan for the 18,000-square-mile watershed over the next two years. One of the group's members is from Montana.

McDonald noted the runoff has affected the Kootenai River for nearly 400 miles into Montana and Idaho, and added the tribes finally resorted to involving the International Joint Commission to help. He emphasized selenium levels from the Canadian mines have reached the point where tribal members, who subsist on the fish in the river, cannot eat it.

"We don't know how far it's going into the food web," McDonald stressed. "We've been asking for Canada to fix the problem, enforce their regulatory laws against the coal mines, and they just haven't been able to do that. It's just elevated every year, and they keep expanding and getting bigger."

The Canadian company NWP Coal is proposing a new mine in the same watershed as the existing coal mines. The company claims its project will not increase selenium contamination but does not address the current pollution issue.


get more stories like this via email