The Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934, sometimes known as the Indian New Deal, was U.S. federal legislation that secured certain rights to Native Americans (known in law as American Indians or Indians), including Alaska Natives.^[1] These include actions that contributed to the reversal of the Dawes Act's privatization of communal holdings of American Indian tribes and a return to local self-government on a tribal basis. The Act also restored to Indians the management of their assets (being mainly land) and included provisions intended to create a sound economic foundation for the inhabitants of Indian reservations.

The IRA was perhaps the most significant initiative of John Collier Sr., Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) from 1933 to 1945. He had worked on Indian issues for ten years prior to his appointment, particularly with the Indian Defense Fund. He had intended to reverse some of the worst government policies and provide ways for American Indians to re-establish sovereignty and self-government, to reduce the losses of reservation lands, and establish ways for Indians to build economic self-sufficiency. Various other interests effected changes to the legislation that reduced protections for Indians and preserved oversight by BIA.

The act did not require tribes to adopt a constitution. But, when a tribe chose to do so, the constitution had to:

1. allow the tribal council to employ legal counsel;
2. prohibit the tribal council from engaging in any land transactions without majority approval of the tribe; and,
3. authorize the tribal council to negotiate with the Federal, State, and local governments.

Background[link]

At the time the Act passed, it was U.S. policy to eliminate Indian reservations, dividing their territory and distributing it to individual Indians to own like any other person, in a process called "allotment." Before allotment, reservation territory was not owned in the usual western sense, but was reserved for the benefit of entire Indian tribes, with its benefits apportioned to tribe members according to tribal law and custom. Generally, Indians held the land in a communal fashion. It was not possible for any non-Indian to own land on reservations, a fact which limited the value of the land to the Indians (It reduced the market for it).

The process of allotment started with the General Allotment Act of 1887, and by 1934, two thirds of Indian land had converted to traditional private ownership (i.e. it was owned in fee simple) and most of that had been sold by its Indian allottee.

The Indians who sold their land (most received 80 acres) often did not get much value for it, either getting a poor price or squandering the cash windfall they received. This left Indians as a class poor.

John Collier, who was appointed Commissioner of what is now called the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1933 under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had become convinced that federal Indian policies needed to be changed to correct injustices. He had already worked ten years at the Indian Defense Fund and become familiar with many issues.

The Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt in 1934.

Implementation and results[link]

The act slowed the practice of allotting communal tribal lands to individual tribal members. It did not restore to Indians land that had already been patented to individuals, but much land at the time was still unallotted or was allotted to an individual but still held in trust for that individual by the U.S. government. Because the Act did not disturb existing private ownership of Indian reservation lands, it left reservations a checkerboard of tribal and fee land, which remains the case today.

However, the Act also provided for the U.S. to purchase some of the fee land and restore it to tribal status. Due to the Act and other actions of federal courts and the government, over two million acres (8,000 km²) of land were returned to various tribes in the first 20 years after passage.

In 1954, the United States Department of the Interior (DOI) began implementing the termination and relocation phases of the Act, which had been added by Congress and represented the continuing interest by some of having American Indians assimilate to the majority society. Among other effects, termination resulted in the legal dismantling of 61 tribal nations within the United States and ending their recognized relationships with the federal government. This also ended the eligibility of the tribal nations and their members for various government programs to assist American Indians.^[2]

Constitutional challenges[link]

Since the late 20th century and the rise of Indian activism over sovereignty issues, as well as many tribes' establishment of casino gambling on reservations as a revenue source, the US Supreme Court has been asked repeatedly to address the IRA's constitutionality. The provision of the Act that is controversial is the one that allows the US government to acquire non-Indian land (by voluntary transfer) and convert it to Indian land ("take it into trust"). In so doing, the US government partially removes the land from the jurisdiction of the state, which makes certain activities, such as casino gambling, possible on the land that wouldn't otherwise be. It also makes the land exempt from state property taxes and some other state taxes. Consequently, many people oppose implementation of this part of the Act and, typically represented by state or local governments, they sue to prevent it.

In 1995, South Dakota challenged the authority of the Secretary of Interior, under the IRA, to take 91 acres (370,000 m²) of land into trust on behalf of the Lower Brulé Sioux Tribe (based on the Rosebud Indian Reservation), in South Dakota v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 69 F.3d 878, 881-85 (8th Cir. 1995). The Eighth Circuit found Section 5 of the IRA to be unconstitutional, ruling that it violated the non-delegation doctrine and that the Secretary of Interior did not have the authority to take the land into trust.^[3]

The US Department of the Interior (DOI) sought U.S. Supreme Court review. But, as DOI was implementing new regulations related to land trusts, the agency asked the Court to remand the case to the lower court, to be reconsidered with the decision to be based on the new regulations. The US Supreme Court granted Interior's petition, vacated the lower court's ruling, and remanded the case back to the lower court.^[3]

Justices Scalia, O'Connor and Thomas dissented, stating that "[t]he decision today--to grant, vacate, and remand in light of the Government's changed position--is both unprecedented and inexplicable." They went on, "[W]hat makes today's action inexplicable as well as unprecedented is the fact that the Government's change of legal position does not even purport to be applicable to the present case."^[4] Seven months after the Supreme Court's decision to grant, vacate, and remand, the DOI removed the land in question from trust.^[3]

In 1997, the Lower Brulé Sioux submitted an amended trust application to DOI, requesting that the United States take the 91 acres (370,000 m²) of land into trust on the Tribe's behalf. South Dakota challenged this in 2004 in district court, which upheld DOI's authority to take the land in trust. The state appealed to the Eighth Circuit, but when the court reexamined the constitutionality issue, it upheld the constitutionality of Section 5 in agreement with the lower court. The US Supreme Court denied the State's petition for certiorari. Since then, district and circuit courts have rejected non-delegation claims by states. The Supreme Court refused to hear the issue in 2008.^[3]

In 2008 (before the US Supreme Court heard the Carcieri case below), in MichGO v Kempthorne, Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote a dissent stating that she would have struck down key provisions of the IRA. Of the three circuit courts to address the IRA's constitutionality, Judge Brown is the only judge to dissent on the IRA's constitutionality.^[5] The U.S. Supreme Court did not accept the MichGO case for review, thus keeping the previous precedent in place. The First, Eighth and Tenth Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals have upheld the constitutionality of the IRA.^[6]

In 2008, Carcieri v Kempthorne was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court; the Court ruled on it in 2009, with the decision called Carcieri v. Salazar.^[7] In 1991, the Narragansett Indian tribe bought 31 acres (130,000 m²) of land. They requested that the DOI take it into trust, which the agency did in 1998, thus exempting it from many state laws. The State was concerned that the tribe would open a casino or tax-free business on the land and sued to block the transfer. The state argued that the IRA did not apply because the Narragansett did not receive federal recognition as a tribal nation until 1980, after the 1934 passage of the IRA.^[8] The US Supreme Court agreed with the State.

In a challenge to the U.S. DOI's decision to take land into trust for the Oneida Indian Nation in present-day New York state, Upstate Citizens for Equality (UCE), New York State, Oneida County, Madison County, the town of Verona, the town of Vernon, and others argue that the IRA is unconstitutional.^[9] Most recently, Judge Kahn dismissed several portions of UCE's complaint, including the failed theory that the IRA is unconstitutional, on the basis of longstanding and settled law on this issue.^[10]

Approval By Tribes[link]

Section 18 of the IRA required that members of the affected Indian nation or tribe vote on whether to accept it within one year of the effective date of the act (25 U.S.C. 478), and had to approve it by a majority. There was confusion about who should be allowed to vote on creating new governments, as many non-Indians lived on reservations many Indians owned no land there, and also over the effect of abstentions. Under the voting rules, abstentions were not counted but in Oglala Lakota culture, for example, abstention had traditionally equaled a no vote. The resulting confusion caused disputes on many reservations about the results.

Outcome[link]

The act has helped conserve the communal tribal land bases. But, because Congress altered the legislation proposed by Collier, reducing elements of tribal self-government and preserving BIA oversight, leasing authority and other interventions, the act has not been considered as successful in terms of tribal self governing. On many reservations, its provisions have exacerbated longstanding differences between traditionals and those who had adopted more European-American ways. Many Native Americans believe their traditional systems of government were better for their culture.^[11]

Notes and references[link]

v t e Aboriginal title in the United States Statutes Colonial era Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions (1629 New Netherland) Royal Proclamation of 1763 (British North America) Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783 United States Northwest Ordinance (1787) Nonintercourse Act (1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834) Removal Act (1830) Dawes Act (1887) Curtis Act of 1898 Reorganization Act (1934) Indian Claims Commission Act (1946) Indian Land Claims Settlements (1978–2006) Indian Claims Limitations Act (1982) Precedents Marshall Court Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) Taney Court Fellows v. Blacksmith (1857) New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble (1858) 1890—1950 Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy (1896) United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co. (1941) Warren Court Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States (1955) Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation (1960) Burger Court Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida (1974) County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State (1985) South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe (1986) Rehnquist Court Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho (1997) Idaho v. United States (2001) City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York (2005) By state Alaska California Hawaii Indiana Louisiana Maine New Mexico New York Rhode Island Vermont Compare Indigenous land rights Aboriginal title Native title in Australia

Native Hawaiians
(Kānaka Maoli)

Notable Native Hawaiians: Kamehameha the Great · James "Duke" Aiona Daniel Akaka · Queen Liliʻuokalani.
Total population
alone: 164,918, any combination: 527,077 as of the 2010 census.
Regions with significant populations
United States
Hawaii  California  Nevada  Washington  Guam
Languages
English, Hawaiian, Hawaiian Pidgin English
Religion
Protestant, Roman Catholic
Related ethnic groups
Marquesans, Tahitians, Māori, Samoans and other Polynesian peoples

Native Hawaiians (in Hawaiian, kānaka ʻōiwi, kānaka maoli or Hawaiʻi maoli) refers to the indigenous Polynesian people of the Hawaiian Islands or their descendants.^[1] Native Hawaiians trace their ancestry back to the original Polynesian settlers of Hawaii.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau report for 2000, there are 401,162 people who identified themselves as being "native Hawaiian" alone or in any combination.^[2] 140,652 people identified themselves as being "native Hawaiian" alone.^[3] The majority of native Hawaiians reside in State of Hawaiʻi, California, Nevada and Washington. Two-thirds live in the State of Hawaiʻi while the other one-third is scattered among other states with a high concentration in California.

The history of native Hawaiians, and of Hawaiʻi in general, is classified into four major periods: antiquity (Ancient Hawaiʻi), monarchy (Kingdom of Hawaiʻi), territorial (Territory of Hawaiʻi), and statehood (State of Hawaiʻi).

Origins[link]

The early settlement history of Hawaiʻi is still not completely resolved. Some believe that the first Polynesians arrived in Hawaiʻi in the 3rd century from the Marquesas and were followed by Tahitian settlers in AD 1300 who conquered the original inhabitants. Others believe that there was only a single, extended period of settlement. Patrick Kirch, in his 2001 Hawaiki, argues for an extended period of contact but not necessarily for a Tahitian invasion:

There is substantial archaeological as well as paleoecological evidence confirming Hawaiian settlement no later than 800 AD, and quite possibly as early as AD 300–500 (Kirch 1985; Athens 1997). The immediate source of the colonizing population in Hawaiʻi is likely to have been the Southern Marquesas, but continued contact between Hawaiʻi and islands in the core region is indicated by linguistic evidence (lexical borrowings from the Tahitic subgroup), abundant oral traditions (Cachola-Abad 1993), botanical indications, uniquely shared mtDNA sequences in populations of the Pacific Rat (Matisoo-Smith et al. 1998), and possibly some archaeological style changes as well. However, long-distance voyaging between Hawaiʻi and the central Eastern Polynesian core became less frequent after about AD 1200, and was little more than a memory encoded in Hawaiian oral traditions by the time of European contact.^[4]

The only evidence for a Tahitian conquest of the islands are the legends of Hawaiʻiloa and the navigator-priest Paʻao, who is said to have made a voyage between Hawaiʻi and the island of "Kahiki" (Tahiti) and introduced many new customs. Some Hawaiians believe that there was a real historical Paʻao. Early historians, such as Fornander and Beckwith, also subscribed to this Tahitian invasion theory, but later historians, such as Kirch, simply do not mention it.

King Kalakaua, in his book, The Legends and Myths of Hawaii, claims that Paʻao was from the South Pacific. The religion he brought, the Kahuna religion was from Tahiti or Samoa. Paʻao was instrumental in bringing the High Chief Pili from Tahiti to rule the island of Hawaii. These later chiefs from the South Pacific would intermarry with the existing Hawaiian chiefs of that time.

Some writers believe that there were other settlers in Hawaiʻi, peoples who were forced back into remote valleys by newer arrivals. They claim that stories about menehune, little people who built heiau and fishponds, prove the existence of ancient peoples who settled the islands before the Hawaiians.^[5] Luomala, in her 1951 essay on the menehune, argues that these stories, like stories of "dog people" with tails living in deep forests, are folklore and not to be construed as evidence of an earlier race. Archaeologists have found no evidence suggesting earlier settlements and menehune legends are simply not mentioned or discussed in current archaeological literature.

The very First of three Native Hawaiians to arrive on mainland American soil were Mormon convert Jonathan Hawai'i Napela who came for a visit to Salt lake City, then returned to Hawaii and later, with permission from King Kamehameha V, in 1873 arrived two keiki's (boys) from Laie Hawaii (Maui county) who were to become the very first native Hawaiian residents in America, named Kiha Kaa'wa (living descendants of Kiha still live in American mainland including his grandchildren), and Kahana Pukahi. The Native Hawaiian Kieki's learned to speak English and were adopted by two Mormon missionaries, whose names were George Nebeker (adopted kiha Kaawa) and William King (kahana Pukahi) The following years several Native Hawaiians traveled to American mainland and settled in Salt Lake City and then the town of Iosep Utah!

Demographics[link]

At the time of Captain Cook's arrival, native Hawaiians may have numbered some 250,000 to 800,000; there has been debate over such estimates.^[6][7] Over the span of the first century after first contact, the native Hawaiians were nearly wiped out by new diseases introduced to the islands. It seemed like there was no overcoming it but, they had. Native Hawaiians did not have resistance to influenza, smallpox, measles, and whooping cough, among others. The census of 1900 identified only 40,000 native Hawaiians. The census of 2000 identified 400,000 native Hawaiians, demonstrating a trend of dramatic growth since annexation by the U.S. in 1898.^{[citation needed]}

Old Hawaiian woman, photographed by Christian Hedemann (1883)

Hawaiian language[link]

The Hawaiian language was once the primary language of the native Hawaiian people. Today, native Hawaiians predominately speak the English language because of over a century of being a part of the United States of America, as a Territory and then as a State of the Union. Another large contributing factor was an 1896 law that required that English "be the only medium and basis of instruction in all public and private schools." This law prevented the Hawaiian language from being taught as a second language. Some native Hawaiians (as well as non-native Hawaiians) have learned the native Hawaiian language as a second language. As with others local to Hawaii, native Hawaiians often speak Hawaiian Creole English (referred to in Hawai'i as Pidgin), a creole which developed during Hawaiʻi's plantation era in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with the influence of the various ethnic groups living in Hawaii during that time.

The Hawaiian language has been promoted for revival most recently by a state program of cultural preservation enacted in 1978. Programs included the opening of Hawaiian language immersion schools and the establishment of a Hawaiian language department at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. As a result, Hawaiian language learning has climbed among all races in Hawaiʻi.

In 2002, the University of Hawaii at Hilo established a masters program in the Hawaiian Language.^[8] In fall 2006, they established a doctoral (Ph.D) program in the Hawaiian Language. In addition to being the first doctoral program for the study of Hawaiian, it is the first doctoral program established for the study of any native language in the United States of America. Both the masters and doctoral programs are considered by global scholars as pioneering in the revival of native languages.

Hawaiian is still spoken as the primary language by the residents on the private island of Niihau.

Education[link]

Native Hawaiian schoolchildren, circa 1900

Hawaiian children are publicly educated under the same terms as any other kids. In Hawaii, native Hawaiians are publicly educated by the Hawaiʻi State Department of Education, an ethnically diverse school system that is the United States' largest and most centralized. Hawaiʻi is the only U.S. state without local community control of public schools.

In all U.S. states, native Under the administration of Governor Benjamin J. Cayetano from 1994 to 2002, the state's educational system established special Hawaiian language immersion schools. In these schools, all subject courses are taught in the Hawaiian language and use native Hawaiian subject matter in curricula. These schools were created in the spirit of cultural preservation and are not exclusive to native Hawaiian children. Currently, these schools are challenged by a relative lack of native speakers of the Hawaiian language and a dearth of educational materials in Hawaiian, since olelo Hawaii is typically a first language only for those who live on Niihau.

Some native Hawaiians are educated by the Kamehameha Schools, established through the last will and testament of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, a princess of the Kamehameha Dynasty. Arguably the largest and wealthiest private school in the United States, Kamehameha Schools was intended to benefit indigents and orphans, with preference given to native Hawaiians. Although this Hawaiians-only preference is not explicitly stated in her will, subsequent Bishop Estate trustees have interpreted her wording to mean that. Kamehameha provides a quality education to thousands of children of whole and part native Hawaiian ancestry at its campuses during the regular school year, and also has quality summer and off-campus programs that are not restricted by ancestry. Kamehameha Schools' practice of accepting primarily gifted students, in lieu of intellectually challenged children, has been a controversial topic amongst the native Hawaiian community. Many 'rejected' families feel that the gifted students could excel at any learning institution, public or private. Thus, the Hawaiian community may be better served by educating children from high-risk, high-crime districts so that a greater proportion of disadvantaged youths may grow up to be responsible community contributors.

Since the late 1990s, Kamehameha Schools has faced several high profile legal battles. The highest profile of these legal battles involved the selection and remuneration of trustees. Ultimately, this suit, directly and indirectly, brought about the resignation or removal of all five of the then serving trustees, and a restructuring of the administration of both the trust and the schools. Other legal challenges have concerned the admission of non-native Hawaiians to the school. A few non-Hawaiians have sued for admission, claiming that the last will and testament of Bernice Pauahi Bishop has been misinterpreted, and further that the then current policies of race-based admissions were discriminatory and thereby should be struck down.^[9] In 2007, Kamehameha's Maui campus graduated its first non-Hawaiian student. The student's 2002 admission to the school created an uproar within the Hawaiian community.^[10]

As with other children in Hawaiʻi, some native Hawaiians are educated by other prominent private academies in the Aloha State. They include: Punahou School, Saint Louis School, Mid-Pacific Institute and Iolani School.

Hawaiian revival[link]

Native Hawaiian culture has seen a revival in recent years as an outgrowth of decisions made at the 1978 Hawaiʻi State Constitutional Convention, held 200 years after the arrival of Captain Cook. At the convention, the Hawaiʻi state government committed itself to a progressive study and preservation of native Hawaiian culture, history and language.

A comprehensive Hawaiian culture curriculum was introduced into the State of Hawaiʻi's public elementary schools teaching: ancient Hawaiian art, lifestyle, geography, hula and Hawaiian language vocabulary. Intermediate and high schools were mandated to impose two sets of Hawaiian history curricula on every candidate for graduation.

Statutes and charter amendments were passed acknowledging a policy of preference for Hawaiian place and street names. For example, with the closure of Barbers Point Naval Air Station in the 1990s, the region formerly occupied by the base was renamed Kalaeloa.

Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA)[link]

Another important outgrowth of the 1978 Hawaiʻi State Constitutional Convention was the establishment of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, more popularly known as OHA. Delegates that included future Hawaiʻi political stars Benjamin J. Cayetano, John D. Waihee III and Jeremy Harris enacted measures intended to address perceived injustices towards native Hawaiians since the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi in 1893. OHA was established as a trust, administered with a mandate to better the conditions of both native Hawaiians and the Hawaiian community in general. OHA was given control over certain public lands, and continues to expand its land-holdings to this day (most recently with Waimea Valley, previously Waimea Falls Park).^[11]

Besides purchases since its inception, the lands initially given to OHA were originally crown lands of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi used to pay the expenses of the monarchy (later held by the Provisional Government following the fall of the monarchy in 1893). Upon the declaration of the Republic of Hawaiʻi, they were officially designated as public lands. They were ceded to federal control with the establishment of the Territory of Hawaiʻi in 1898, and finally returned to the State of Hawaiʻi as public lands in 1959.

OHA is a semi-autonomous government body administered by a nine-member board of trustees, elected by the people of the State of Hawaiʻi through popular suffrage. Originally, trustees and the people eligible to vote for trustees were restricted to native Hawaiians. Rice v. Cayetano reached the United States Supreme Court suing the state to allow non-Hawaiians to sit on the board of trustees and for non-Hawaiians to be allowed to vote in trustee elections. Justices ruled in favor of Rice on 23 February 2000 forcing OHA to open its elections to all residents of the State of Hawaiʻi regardless of ethnicity.

Federal developments[link]

Native American Programs Act[link]

In 1974, the Native American Programs Act was amended to include native Hawaiians. This paved the way for native Hawaiians to become eligible for some, but not all, federal assistance programs originally intended for Native Americans. Today, Title 45 CFR Part 1336.62 defines a Native Hawaiian as "an individual any of whose ancestors were natives of the area which consists of the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778."

There is some controversy as to whether or not native Hawaiians should be considered in the same light as Native Americans.^[12][13]

Native Hawaiians Study Commission[link]

The Native Hawaiians Study Commission was created by the Congress of the United States on December 22, 1980 (Title III of Public Law 96-565). The purpose of the Commission was to "conduct a study of the culture, needs and concerns of the Native Hawaiians." The Commission published and released to the public a Draft Report of Findings on September 23, 1982. Following a 120-day period of public comment, a final report was written and submitted on June 23, 1983 to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

United States apology resolution[link]

On 23 November 1993, U.S. President Bill Clinton signed United States Public Law 103-150 also known as the Apology Resolution which had previously passed Congress. This resolution "apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii".^[14]

Washington-based constitutional scholar Bruce Fein has outlined a number of counter-arguments disputing the accuracy of the assertions made in the Apology Resolution.^[15]

Akaka Bill[link]

In the early 2000s, the Congressional delegation of the State of Hawaiʻi introduced the Native Hawaiian Federal Recognition Bill named after U.S. Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI). The Akaka Bill would establish the process of recognizing and forming a Native Hawaiian government entity to negotiate with state and federal governments. The significance of the bill is that it would establish, for the first time in the history of the islands, a new political and legal relationship between a Native Hawaiian entity and the federal government. This Native Hawaiian entity would be a newly created one without any historical precedent in the islands or direct institutional continuity with previous political entities (unlike many Native American Indian groups, for example).

This bill came under scrutiny by the Bush administration's Department of Justice as well as the United States Senate Judiciary Committee. The political context surrounding the Akaka Bill is both controversial and complex. Proponents, who consider the legislation an acknowledgement and partial correction of past injustices, include Hawaiʻi's Congressional delegation as well as the current Republican Governor Linda Lingle. Opponents include the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights who question the constitutionality of creating race-based governments, libertarian activists who challenge the historical accuracy of any claims of injustice, and other Native Hawaiian sovereignty activists who feel the legislation would thwart their hopes for complete independence from the United States.

A poll commissioned in 2005 by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs asserted that 68 percent of Hawaiʻi residents support the bill, 17 percent do not support it and 15 percent refused to answer or had no opinion. Another poll conducted earlier that year by The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii indicated that 67% of Hawaiʻi residents were against the Akaka bill. It has been speculated that the phrasing of the questions asked in both of the respective polls influenced the results^{[citation needed]}, and so no definitive survey to determine levels of public support has yet been carried out in Hawaiʻi.

Akaka said on the floor of the U.S. Senate in Dec. 2010 that “misleading attacks” and “unprecedented obstruction” led to the failure of legislation in the 111th Congress.

Ka Huli Ao: Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law[link]

In 2005, with the support of Senator Daniel Inouye, federal funding through the Native Hawaiian Education Act created the Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa's William S. Richardson School of Law. A few years later, the program became known as Ka Huli Ao: Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law. The inaugural director of Ka Huli Ao is Honolulu attorney Melody Kapilialoha MacKenzie. MacKenzie is also recognized as the chief editor of the Native Hawaiian Rights Handbook which is a legal publication that describes Native Hawaiian law, a subset of laws of the State of Hawaiʻi. Melody MacKenzie worked as a clerk to the schoolʻs namesake, William S. Richardson for four years and also served as the Executive Director of the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation for four years, then worked as a senior staff attorney for another six years.

Ka Huli Ao focuses on research, scholarship, and community outreach. Ka Huli Ao provides a monthly lunch time discussion forum referred to as Maoli Thursday which is free and open to the public. Ka Huli Ao maintains its own blog as well as a Twitter account and a Facebook group. Ka Huli Ao also provides law students with summer fellowships. Law school graduates are eligible to apply for post-J.D. fellowships that last for one year.

Notable Native Hawaiians[link]

Culture and arts[link]

There have been established several cultural preservation societies and organizations over the course of the twentieth century. The largest of those institutions is the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, established in 1889 and designated as the Hawaiʻi State Museum of Natural and Cultural History. Bishop Museum houses the largest collection of native Hawaiian artifacts, documents and other information available for educational use. Most objects are held for preservation alone. The museum has links with major colleges and universities throughout the world to facilitate research.

With the support of the Bishop Museum, the Polynesian Voyaging Society's double-hulled canoe Hōkūle‘a has contributed to rediscovery of native Hawaiian culture, especially in the revival of non-instrument navigation by which ancient Polynesians originally settled Hawaiʻi.^[16]

One of the most commonly known arts of Hawaii is hula dancing. It is an interpretive and expressive dance famous for its grace and romantic feel that expresses stories and feelings from almost any phase of life.

See also[link]

• Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement
• Culture of Hawaii
• Hawaiian sovereignty movement
• Population history of American indigenous peoples
• History of Hawaii
• Hawaiian kinship

References[link]

17.wn.com/Native_Hawaiian_Birds_of_Hawaii_and_their_Bird_Calls A poll commissioned in 2005 by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs asserted that 68 percent of Hawaiʻi residents support the bill, 17 percent do not support it and 15 percent refused to answer or had no opinion. Another poll conducted earlier that year by The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii indicated that 67% of Hawaiʻi residents were against the Akaka bill. It has been speculated that the phrasing of the questions asked in both of the respective polls influenced the results[citation needed], and so no definitive survey to determine levels of public support has yet been carried out in Hawaiʻi.Akaka said on the floor of the U.S. Senate in Dec. 2010 that “misleading attacks” and “unprecedented obstruction” led to the failure of legislation in the 111th Congress.

Further reading[link]

• Maenette K. Nee-Benham and Ronald H. Heck, Culture and Educational Policy in Hawaiʻi: The Silencing of Native Voices, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1998
• Scott Cunningham, Hawaiian Magic and Spirituality, Llewellyn Worldwide, Ltd., 2000
• Rona Tamiko Tamiko Halualani, In the Name of Hawaiians: Native Identities and Cultural Politics], University of Minnesota Press, 2002
• Marshall D. Sahlins, How Natives Think: About Captain Cook, for Example, University of Chicago Press, 1995
• Thomas G. Thrum, Hawaiian Folk Tales: A Collection of Native Legends, International Law & Taxation Publishers, 2001
• Thomas G. Thrum, More Hawaiian Folk Tales: A Collection of Native Legends and Traditions, International Law & Taxation Publishers, 2001
• Houston Wood, Displacing Natives: The Rhetorical Production of Hawaiʻi, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1999
• Kanalu G. Terry Young Rethinking the Native Hawaiian Past, Taylor & Francis, Inc., 1998
• Patrick W. Hanifin
  • Hanifin, Patrick (2002). "To Dwell on the Earth in Unity: Rice, Arakaki, and the Growth of Citizenship and Voting Rights in Hawaii". Hawaii Bar Journal (Honolulu, HI, USA: Hawaii State Bar Association) 5 (13): 15-44. ISSN 0440-5048. OCLC 1775767 and 474805275. Archived from the original on April 3, 2002. http://kenconklin.org/mediawiki/media/b/b7/HanifinCitizen.pdf. Retrieved May 19, 2012. 
  • Hawaiian Reparations: Nothing Lost, Nothing Owed. XVII Hawaiiʻi Bar Journal No. 2 (1982)^{[dead link]}

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Native Hawaiians

• Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA)
• Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement
• Ka Huli Ao Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law official website
• Ka Huli Ao Blog

Red Cloud (Lakota: Maȟpíya Lúta), (1822 – December 10, 1909) was a war leader and a chief of the Oglala Lakota (Sioux). He led as a chief from 1868 to 1909. One of the most capable Native American opponents the United States Army faced, he led a successful campaign in 1866–1868 known as Red Cloud's War over control of the Powder River Country in northeastern Wyoming and southern Montana.

After signing the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868), he led his people in the important transition to reservation life. Some of his US opponents mistakenly thought of him as overall chief of the Sioux. The large tribe had several major divisions and was highly decentralized. Bands among the Oglala and other divisions operated independently, even though some individual leaders such as Red Cloud were renowned as warriors and highly respected as leaders.

Early life[link]

Red Cloud was born close to the forks of the Platte River, near the modern-day city of North Platte, Nebraska. His mother, Walks As She Thinks, was an Oglala Lakota and his father, Lone Man, was a Brulé Lakota chief. These were two of the major seven Lakota divisions.

As was traditional among the matrilineal Lakota, in which the children belonged to the mother's clan and people, Red Cloud was mentored as a boy by his maternal uncle, Old Chief Smoke (1774–1864). Old Chief Smoke played a prominent, major role in the boy's early-mid life and brought him in to the Smoke household when his parents died around 1825. At a young age, Red Cloud fought against neighboring Pawnee and Crow, gaining much war experience.

Red Cloud's War[link]

Red Cloud's War was the name the US Army gave to a series of conflicts fought with American Indian Plains tribes in the Wyoming and Montana territories. The battles were waged between the Northern Cheyenne, allied with Lakota and Arapaho bands, against the United States Army between 1866 and 1868. In December 1866, the Native American allies attacked and defeated a United States unit in what the whites would call the Fetterman Massacre (or the Battle of the Hundred Slain); it was the event on the Plains to that point with the highest US fatalities.^[1]

Red Cloud

Captain William J. Fetterman was sent from Fort Phil Kearny with two civilians and 79 cavalry and infantrymen to chase away a small Indian war party that had attacked a wood party days before. Captain Frederick Brown accompanied Fetterman; the two were confident in their troops and anxious to go to battle with the Indians. They disobeyed orders to stay behind the Lodge Trail Ridge and pursued a small decoy band of warriors, led by an Indian on an apparently injured horse. The decoy was the prominent warrior Crazy Horse. Fetterman and his troops followed the decoy into an ambush by more than 2,000 Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho. Combined Indian forces suffered only 14 casualties, while they killed the entire 81-man US detachment.

Following this battle, a US peace commission toured the Plains in 1867 to gather information to help bring about peace among the tribes and with the US. Finding that the American Indians had been provoked by white encroachment and competition for resources, the commission recommended assigning definite territories to the Plains tribes. The Lakota, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho bands, and others settled for peace with the US under the Treaty of Fort Laramie. The US agreed to abandon its forts and withdraw completely from Lakota territory.

Treaty of 1868[link]

The treaty established the Great Sioux Reservation, covering the territory of West River, west of the Missouri River in present-day Nebraska (which had been admitted as a state in 1867), and including parts of South Dakota. Uneasy relations between the expanding United States and the natives continued. In 1870, Red Cloud visited Washington D.C., and met with Commissioner of Indian Affairs Ely S. Parker (a Seneca and U.S. Army General) and President Ulysses S. Grant.

In 1871, the government established the Red Cloud Agency on the Platte River, downstream from Fort Laramie. As outlined in the Treaty of 1868, the agency staff were responsible for issuing weekly rations to the Oglala, as well as providing the annually distributed supply of cash and annuity goods. The agent and Washington officials would determine how much of the annuity was to be paid in cash or goods, and sometimes the supplies were late, in poor condition, inadequate in amount, or never arrived at all. Red Cloud took his band to the agency (a predecessor of the Indian reservation) and tried to help them in the transition to a different way of life. In the fall of 1873, the agency was removed to the upper White River in northwestern Nebraska.

Great Sioux War of 1876–1877[link]

Red Cloud settled at the agency with his band by the fall of 1873. He soon became embroiled in a controversy with the new Indian agent, Dr. John J. Saville.

In 1874, General George Armstrong Custer led a reconnaissance mission into Sioux territory that reported gold in the Black Hills, an area held sacred by the local Indians. Formerly, the Army tried to keep miners out but did not succeed; the threat of violence grew. In May 1875, Sioux delegations headed by Red Cloud, Spotted Tail, and Lone Horn traveled to Washington, D.C. in an attempt to persuade President Grant to honor existing treaties and stem the flow of miners into their lands. The Indians met on various occasions with Grant, Secretary of the Interior Delano, and Commissioner of Indian Affairs Smith. He told them on May 27 that Congress was ready to resolve the matter by paying the tribes $25,000 for their land and resettling them into Indian Territory. The delegates refused to sign such a treaty, with Spotted Tail saying about the proposal:

“When I was here before, the President gave me my country, and I put my stake down in a good place, and there I want to stay.... You speak of another country, but it is not my country; it does not concern me, and I want nothing to do with it. I was not born there.... If it is such a good country, you ought to send the white men now in our country there and let us alone.”^[2]

Red Cloud, close-up in his war bonnet

Seated, L to R: Yellow Bear, Jack Red Cloud, Big Road, Little Wound, Black Crow; Standing, L to R: Red Bear, Young Man Afraid of his Horse, Good Voice, Ring Thunder, Iron Crow, White Tail, Young Spotted Tail, ca. 1860-1880

Although Red Cloud was unsuccessful in finding a peaceful solution, he did not take part in the Lakota war of 1876-1877, which was led by Tȟašúŋke Witkó (Crazy Horse) and Tȟatȟáŋka Íyotake (Sitting Bull).

In the fall of 1877, the Red Cloud Agency was removed to the upper Missouri River. The following year it was removed to the forks of the White River, in present-day South Dakota, where it was renamed the Pine Ridge Reservation.

His last days[link]

Red Cloud became an important leader of the Lakota as they transitioned from the freedom of the plains to the confinement of the reservation system. His trip to Washington, DC had convinced him of the number and power of European Americans, and he believed the Oglala had to seek peace.

Red Cloud continued fighting for his people, even after being forced onto the reservation. In 1887 Red Cloud opposed the Dawes Act, which broke up communal tribal holdings, and allocated 160-acre plots of land to heads of families on tribal rolls for subsistence farming. The US declared additional communal tribal lands as excess, and sold it to emigrant settlers. In 1889 Red Cloud opposed a treaty to sell more of the Sioux land. Due to his steadfastness and that of Sitting Bull, government agents obtained the necessary signatures for approval through subterfuge, such as using the signatures of children. He negotiated strongly with Indian Agents such as Dr. Valentine McGillycuddy.

He outlived all the other major Sioux leaders of the Indian Wars. He died in 1909 at the age of 87 on the Pine Ridge Reservation, where he was buried.

Legacy and honors[link]

Announcements of the death and recognition of Red Cloud's achievements was printed in major newspapers across the country. As had been typical of the US perception during Red Cloud's prominence in war, the article in The New York Times mistakenly described him as leader of all the Sioux bands and tribes, but noted his abilities as a leader and diplomat. While he was a prominent leader, the Lakota were highly decentralized and never had one overall leader, especially of the major divisions, such as Oglala and Brulé.^[3][4][5]

Red Cloud was among the Indians photographed by Edward S. Curtis. In 2000, he was posthumously selected for induction into the Nebraska Hall of Fame. He has been honored by the United States Postal Service with a 10¢ Great Americans series postage stamp.

Note: Red Cloud descendants have continued to be chosen as traditional chiefs of the Lakota Sioux:

• Jack Red Cloud, 1909–1928 (included as a younger man in photo to the right)
• James Red Cloud, 1928–1960
• Charles Red Cloud (his brother), 1960–1979, and
• Oliver Red Cloud, 1979–present.

Oliver Red Cloud (90 years old), is the fourth-generation direct descendant of Chief Red Cloud. Oliver is a chief of the Oglala Lakota Sioux people and Speaker of the traditional Lakota Sioux Nation. He is the Chairman of the "Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council".

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Red Cloud

• "Red Cloud", New Perspectives on The West, PBS, 2001
• "Red Cloud". Chief of the Oglala Lakota. Find a Grave. Oct 25, 2002. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=6878358. Retrieved Aug 18, 2011. 
• Red Cloud - bronze sculpture
• "Chief Red Cloud's Great-Great Grandson on Native American Issues", video interview by Democracy Now!

This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions may be available. (February 2009)

John Fredson, also known as "Zhoh Gwatsan" (Wolf Smeller), was a Neetsaii Gwich'in (American Indian tribe in the Na-Dene Language family), and was born near Table Mountain in the Sheenjek River watershed in 1896.

Historical significance[link]

He was the first Alaska Native to graduate from a university, Sewanee, The University of the South, and was the primary founder of the Venetie Indian Reserve, the largest reservation in Alaska. The Reserve was established in 1941 and was approximately 1.4 million acres (5,700 km²) at the time of its establishment. John Fredson was also part of the climbing party of Archdeacon Hudson Stuck, who led the party which ascended Denali, the highest peak in North America. Fredson was 14 at the time of the ascent and was the base camp manager. His role is documented in the book about the 1913 climb, Ascent of Denali.^[1] He stayed at base camp for 31 days by himself, hunting caribou and Dall sheep, while awaiting the return of the climbing party. He saved his ration of sugar for their return.

Life's work[link]

In his later years, Fredson built a solarium for tuberculosis patients at a hospital in Fort Yukon, Alaska. The hospital was the only one in the far north, and was often over whelmed by Alaska Native patients, primarily Gwich’in, needing treatment for epidemics which they had no immunity to. John worked at the hospital upon his return from Sewanee, and after service in the U.S. Military. He then established the community of Venetie, with the help of the many Neetsaii Gwich'in in the Chandalar River watershed. He also had the assistance of Chief Johnny Frank, a notable medicine man and storyteller among the Gwich'in whose own life exploits are detailed in the book Neerihiinjik: We Traveled From Place to Place.^[2] Fredson also worked with the famed linguist Edward Sapir while at Sewanee, and helped to place Gwich'in within the Na-Dene language family. This work is documented in the book John Fredson Edward Sapir Ha'a Googwandak.^[3] His work on communicating Gwich'in concepts of space and time may have also impacted Sapir's later work that established the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.

Family life[link]

John Fredson married Jean Ribaloff. Ribaloff was a nurse at the hospital in Fort Yukon when Fredson was working there.^[4] He died of pneumonia on August 22, 1945.

References[link]

1. ^ Stuck, Hudson (2005-05-01). Ascent of Denali. Wolf Creek Press. ISBN 0-9732683-1-X. 
2. ^ Frank, Sarah; Craig Mishler (ed.), and Judy Erick (trans.). Neerihiinjik: We Traveled from Place to Place: Johnny Sarah Haa Googwandak: The Gwich'in Stories of Johnny and Sarah Frank. Alaska Native Language Center, 2nd ed., 2001. ISBN 1-55500-054-1. 
3. ^ Sapir, Edward. John Fredson Edward Sapir Ha'a Googwandak: Stories Told by John Fredson to Edward Sapir. Alaska Native Language Center, 1982. ISBN 0-933769-02-4. 
4. ^ Mackenzie, Clara Childs. Wolf Smeller: A Biography of John Fredson, Native Alaskan. Alaska Pacific University Press. ISBN 0-935094-09-1.