This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2012)

BIA map of reservations in the continental United States

Tribal sovereignty: Map of the United States, with non-reservation land highlighted.

An American Indian reservation is an area of land managed by a Native American tribe under the United States Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs. There are about 310 Indian reservations in the United States, meaning not all of the country's 550-plus recognized tribes have a reservation—some tribes have more than one reservation, some share reservations, while others have none. In addition, because of past land allotments, leading to some sales to non-Indians, some reservations are severely fragmented, with each piece of tribal, individual, and privately held land being a separate enclave. This jumble of private and public real estate creates significant administrative, political, and legal difficulties.^[1]

The collective geographical area of all reservations is 55.7 million acres (225,410 km²), representing 2.3% of the area of the United States (2,379,400,204 acres; 9,629,091 km²). Twelve Indian reservations are larger than the state of Rhode Island (776,960 acres; 3,144 km²) and nine reservations larger than Delaware (1,316,480 acres; 5,327 km²). The territory of the Navajo Nation compares in size to West Virginia. Reservations are unevenly distributed throughout the country; the majority are west of the Mississippi River and occupy lands that were first reserved by treaty or 'granted' from the public domain.^[2]

Because tribes possess tribal sovereignty, even though it is limited, laws on tribal lands vary from the surrounding area.^[3] These laws can permit legal casinos on reservations, for example, which attract tourists. The tribal council, not the local or federal government, generally has jurisdiction over reservations. Different reservations have different systems of government, which may or may not replicate the forms of government found outside the reservation. Most Indian reservations were established by the federal government; a limited number, mainly in the East, owe their origin to state recognition.^[4]

The name "reservation" comes from the conception of the Indian tribes as independent sovereigns at the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Thus, the early peace treaties (often signed under duress) in which Indian tribes surrendered large portions of land to the U.S. also designated parcels which the tribes, as sovereigns, "reserved" to themselves, and those parcels came to be called "reservations."^[5] The term remained in use even after the federal government began to forcibly relocate tribes to parcels of land to which they had no historical connection.

At the present time, a slight majority of Native Americans and Alaska Natives live somewhere other than the reservations, often in big western cities such as Phoenix and Los Angeles.^[6][7] Today there are over 2.5 million Native Americans with about 1 million living on reservations.^[8]

History[link]

Beginnings[link]

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

In 1851, the United States Congress passed the Indian Appropriations Act which authorized the creation of Indian reservations in modern day Oklahoma. Relations between settlers and natives had grown increasingly worse as the settlers encroached on territory and natural resources in the West.

By the late 1860s, President Ulysses S. Grant pursued a stated "Peace Policy" as a possible solution to the conflict. The policy included a reorganization of the Indian Service, with the goal of relocating various tribes from their ancestral homes to parcels of lands established specifically for their inhabitation. The policy called for the replacement of government officials by religious men, nominated by churches, to oversee the Indian agencies on reservations in order to teach Christianity to the native tribes. The Quakers were especially active in this policy on reservations. The "civilization" policy was aimed at eventually preparing the tribes for citizenship.^{[citation needed]}

Reservation treaties sometimes included stipend agreements, in which the federal government would grant a certain amount of goods to a tribe yearly. The implementation of the policy was erratic, however, and in many cases the stipend goods were not delivered.^{[citation needed]}

Controversy[link]

The policy was controversial from the start. Reservations were generally established by executive order. In many cases, white settlers objected to the size of land parcels, which were subsequently reduced. A report submitted to Congress in 1868 found widespread corruption among the federal Native American agencies and generally poor conditions among the relocated tribes.

Many tribes ignored the relocation orders at first and were forced onto their limited land parcels. Enforcement of the policy required the United States Army to restrict the movements of various tribes. The pursuit of tribes in order to force them back onto reservations led to a number of Native American massacres and some wars. The most well known conflict was the Sioux War on the northern Great Plains, between 1876 and 1881, which included the Battle of Little Bighorn. Other famous wars in this regard included the Nez Perce War.

By the late 1870s, the policy established by President Grant was regarded as a failure, primarily because it had resulted in some of the bloodiest wars between Native Americans and the United States. By 1877, President Rutherford B. Hayes began phasing out the policy, and by 1882 all religious organizations had relinquished their authority to the federal Indian agency.

Most Indian reservations, like the Laguna Indian reservation in New Mexico (pictured 1943), are in the western United States, often in arid regions unsuitable for agriculture.

In 1887, Congress undertook a significant change in reservation policy by the passage of the Dawes Act, or General Allotment (Severalty) Act. The act ended the general policy of granting land parcels to tribes as-a-whole by granting small parcels of land to individual tribe members. In some cases, for example the Umatilla Indian Reservation, after the individual parcels were granted out of reservation land, the reservation area was reduced by giving the excess land to white settlers. The individual allotment policy continued until 1934, when it was terminated by the Indian Reorganization Act.

Land Tenure and Federal Indian Law[link]

With the establishment of reservations, tribal territories diminished to a fraction of original areas and indigenous customary practices of land tenure sustained only for a time, and not in every instance. Instead, the federal government established regulations that subordinated tribes to the authority, first, of the military, and then of the Bureau (Office) of Indian Affairs.^[9] Under federal law, the government patented reservations to tribes, which became legal entities that at later times have operated in a corporate manner. Tribal tenure identifies jurisdiction over land use planning and zoning, negotiating (with the close participation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs) leases for timber harvesting and mining. Tribes generally have authority over other forms of economic development such as ranching, agriculture, tourism, and casinos. Tribes hire both members, other Indians and non-Indians in varying capacities; they may run tribal stores, gas stations, and develop museums (e.g., there is a gas station and general store at Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Idaho, and a museum at Foxwoods, on the Mashantucket Pequot Indian Reservation in Connecticut).^[10] Tribal members may utilize a number of resources held in tribal tenure such as grazing range and some cultivable lands. They may also construct homes on tribally held lands. As such, members are tenants-in-common, which may be likened to communal tenure, but keep in mind, even if some of this pattern emanates from pre-reservation tribal custom, generally the tribe has the authority to modify tenant in-common practices.

Wagon loaded with squash, Rosebud Indian Reservation, ca. 1936

With the General Allotment Act (Dawes), 1887, the government sought to individualize tribal lands by authorizing allotments held in individual tenure.^[11] Generally, the allocation process led to grouping family holdings and, in some cases, this sustained pre-reservation clan or other patterns. There had been a few allotment programs ahead of the Dawes Act, but the vast fragmentation of reservations occurred from enactment of this act up to 1934, when the Indian Reorganization Act was passed. However, Congress authorized some allotment programs in the ensuing years –e. g., on the Palm Springs/Agua Caliente Indian Reservation in California.^[12]

Allotment set in motion a number of circumstances: 1) individuals could sell (alienate) the allotment – under the Dawes Act, it was not to happen until after twenty-five years. 2) individual allottes who would die intestate would encumber the land under prevailing state devisement laws, leading to complex patterns of heirship. Congress has attempted to mollify the impact of heirship by granting tribes the capacity to acquire fragmented allotments owing to heirship by financial grants. Tribes may also include such parcels in long-range land use planning. 3) With alienation to non-Indians, their increased presence on numerous reservations has changed the demography of Indian Country. One of many implications of this fact is that tribes can not always effectively embrace the total management of a reservation, for non-Indian owners and users of allotted lands contend that tribes have no authority over lands that fall within the tax and law-and-order jurisdiction of local government.^[13] The demographic factor, coupled with landownership data, led, for example, to litigation between the Devils Lake Sioux and the State of North Dakota, where non-Indians owned more acreage than tribal members even though more Native Americans resided on the reservation than non-Indians. The court decision turned, in part, on the perception of Indian character, contending that the tribe did not have jurisdiction over the alienated allotments. In a number of instances—e.g., the Yakama Indian Reservation—tribes have identified open and closed areas within reservations. One finds the majority of non-Indian landownership and residence in the open areas and, contrariwise, closed areas represent exclusive tribal residence and related conditions.^[14]

Spring roundup of Paiute-owned cattle begins at Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation, 1973

It is important to recognize that Indian Country today consists of tripartite government—i. e., federal, state and/or local, and tribal. Where state and local governments may exert some, but limited, law-and-order authority, tribal sovereignty is, of course, diminished. This situation prevails in connection with Indian gaming, since federal legislation makes the state a party to any contractual or statutory agreement.^[15]

Finally, other occupancy on reservations may be by virtue of tribal or individual tenure. There are many churches on reservations; most would occupy tribal land by consent of the federal government or the tribe. BIA agency offices, hospitals, schools, and other facilities usually occupy residual federal parcels within reservations. And curiously, many reservations include one or more sections ( approx. 640 acres) of school lands, granted to states at the time of statehood. As a general practice, such lands may sit idle or be grazed by tribal ranchers.

Indian New Deal[link]

The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, also known as the Howard-Wheeler Act, was sometimes called the Indian New Deal. It laid out new rights for Native Americans, reversed some of the earlier privatization of their common holdings, and encouraged tribal sovereignty and land management by tribes. The act slowed the assignment of tribal lands to individual members, and reduced the assignment of 'extra' holdings to nonmembers.

For the following twenty years, the U.S. government invested in infrastructure, health care, and education on the reservations, and over two million acres (8,000 km²) of land were returned to various tribes. Within a decade of John Collier's retirement (the initiator of the Indian New Deal) the government's position began to swing in the opposite direction. The new Indian Commissioners Myers and Emmons introduced the idea of the "withdrawal program" or "termination", which sought to end the government's responsibility and involvement with Indians and to force their assimilation. The Indians would lose their lands but be compensated (though those who lost their lands often were not.) Though discontent and social rejection killed the idea before it was fully implemented, five tribes were terminated: the Coushatta, Ute, Paiute, Menominee and Klamath, and 114 groups in California lost their federal recognition as tribes. Many individuals were also relocated to cities, but one third returned to their tribal reservations in the decades following.

Life and culture[link]

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

Many Native Americans who live on reservations deal with the federal government through two agencies: the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service.

The quality of life on some reservations is comparable to that in the developing world, with issues of infant mortality, life expectancy, nutrition and poverty, and alcohol and drug abuse. For example, Shannon County, South Dakota, home of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, is routinely described as one of the poorest counties in the nation.

Gaming[link]

In 1979, the Seminole tribe in Florida opened a high-stakes bingo operation on its reservation in Florida. The state attempted to close the operation down but was stopped in the courts. In the 1980s, the case of California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians established the right of reservations to operate other forms of gambling operations. In 1988, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which recognized the right of Native American tribes to establish gambling and gaming facilities on their reservations as long as the states in which they are located have some form of legalized gambling. Today, many Native American casinos are used as tourist attractions, including as the basis for hotel and conference facilities, to draw visitors and revenue to reservations. Successful gaming operations on some reservations have greatly increased the economic wealth of some tribes, enabling their investment to improve infrastructure, education and health for their people.

Law enforcement[link]

Serious crime, endemic in Indian Country, on Indian reservations, has historically been required by the 1885 Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. §§1153, 3242, and court decisions to be investigated by the federal government, usually the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and prosecuted by United States Attorneys of the United States federal judicial district in which the reservation lies.^[16] Crimes in Indian Country have a low priority both with the FBI^[17] and most federal prosecutors. Often serious crimes have been either poorly investigated or prosecution has been declined. Tribal courts were limited to sentences of one year or less,^[18] until on July 29, 2010 the Tribal Law and Order Act was enacted which in some measure reforms the system permitting tribal courts to impose sentences of up to three years provided proceedings are recorded and additional rights are extended to defendants.^[19][20] The Justice Department on January 11, 2010 initiated the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative which recognizes problems with law enforcement on Indian reservations and assigns top priority to solving existing problems.

The Department of Justice recognizes the unique legal relationship that the United States has with federally recognized tribes. As one aspect of this relationship, in much of Indian Country, the Justice Department alone has the authority to seek a conviction that carries an appropriate potential sentence when a serious crime has been committed. Our role as the primary prosecutor of serious crimes makes our responsibility to citizens in Indian Country unique and mandatory. Accordingly, public safety in tribal communities is a top priority for the Department of Justice.

Emphasis was placed on improving prosecution of crimes involving domestic violence and sexual assault.^[21]

Passed in 1953, Public Law 280 (PL 280) gave jurisdiction over criminal offenses involving Indians in Indian Country to certain States and allowed other States to assume jurisdiction. Subsequent legislation allowed States to retrocede jurisdiction, which has occurred in some areas. Some PL 280 reservations have experienced jurisdictional confusion, tribal discontent, and litigation, compounded by the lack of data on crime rates and law enforcement response.^[22]

As of 2012, a high incidence of rape continued to impact Indian women.^[23]

See also[link]

This "see also" section may contain an excessive number of suggestions. Please ensure that only the most relevant suggestions are given and that they are not red links, and consider integrating suggestions into the article itself. (December 2011)

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• J. P. Allen and E. Turner, Changing Faces, Changing Places: Mapping Southern Californians (Northridge, CA: The Center for Geographical Studies, California State University, Northridge, 2002).
• George Pierre Castle and Robert L. Bee, eds., State and Reservation: New Perspectives on Federal Indian Policy (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1992)
• Richmond L. Clow and Imre Sutton, eds., Trusteeship in Change: Toward Tribal Autonomy in Resource Management (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2001).
• Wade Davies and Richmond L. Clow, American Indian Sovereignty and Law: An Annotated Bibliography (Lanham,MD: Scarecrow Press, 2009).
• T. J. Ferguson and E. Richard Hart, A Zuni Atlas (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1985)
• David H. Getches, Charles F. Wilkinson, and Robert A. Williams, Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law, 4th ed. (St. Paul: West Group, 1998).
• Klaus Frantz, "Indian Reservations in the United States", Geography Research Paper 241 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999).
• James M. Goodman, The Navajo Atlas: Environments, Resources, People, and History of the Diné Bikeyah (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1982).
• J. P. Kinney, A Continent Lost: A Civilization Won: Indian Land Tenure in America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1937)
• Francis Paul Prucha, Atlas of American Indian Affairs (Norman: University of Nebraska Press, 1990).
• C. C. Royce, comp., Indian Land Cessions in the United States, 18th Annual Report, 1896–97, pt. 2 (Wash., D. C.: Bureau of American Ethnology; GPO 1899)
• Imre Sutton, "Cartographic Review of Indian Land Tenure and Territoriality: A Schematic Approach", American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 26:2 (2002): 63–113..
• Imre Sutton, Indian Land Tenure: Bibliographical Essays and a Guide to the Literature (NY: Clearwater Publ. 1975).
• Imre Sutton, ed., "The Political Geography of Indian Country", American Indian Culture and Resource Journal, 15()2):1–169 (1991).
• Imre Sutton, "Sovereign States and the Changing Definition of the Indian Reservation", Geographical Review, 66:3 (1976): 281–295.
• Veronica E. Velarde Tiller, ed., Tiller’s Guide to Indian Country: Economic Profiles of American Indian Reservations (Albuquerque: BowArrow Pub., 1996/2005)
• David J. Wishart and Oliver Froehling, "Land Ownership, Population and Jurisdiction: the Case of the 'Devils Lake Sioux Tribe v. North Dakota Public Service Commission'," American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 20(2): 33–58 (1996).
• Laura Woodward-Ney, Mapping Identity: The Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation, 1803–1902 (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2004)

External links[link]

• BIA full-size map of Indian reservations in the continental United States
• BIA index to map of Indian reservations in the continental United States
• US Census tallies for Indian reservations
• Chapter 5: American Indian and Alaska Native Areas, U.S. Census Bureau, Geographic Areas Reference manual (PDF)
• FEMA: Federally recognized Indian reservations
• Tribal Leaders Directory
• Wheeler-Howard Act (Indian Reorganization Act) 1934
• Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2003
• Gambling on the reservation April 2004 Christian Science Monitor article with links to other Monitor articles on the topic
• Henry Red Cloud of Oglala Lakota Tribe on the Recession’s Toll on Reservations—video report by Democracy Now!
• TribalJusticeandSafety.gov U.S. Department of Justice website devoted to Indian issues
• "Public Law 280 and Law Enforcement in Indian Country – Research Priorities"

v t e Indigenous rights Rights Conflict resolution Cultural diversity Cultural heritage Freedom from forced assimilation Freedom from forced removal Freedom from racial discrimination Freedom of religion Gender equality Human rights Indigenous intellectual property Indigenous language Land rights Land-use planning Right to determine indigeneity Self-determination Traditional knowledge Governmental organizations Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Arctic Council Bureau of Indian Affairs Council of Indigenous Peoples Fundação Nacional do Índio National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (Philippines) United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Non-governmental and political organizations Amazon Watch Assembly of First Nations Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador Congress of Aboriginal Peoples Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin Cultural Survival Friends of Peoples Close to Nature Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs National Indigenous Organization of Colombia Native American Rights Fund Survival International Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization Zapatista Army of National Liberation (more ...) Issues Bantustan / Indian reservation / Indian reserve / Ranchería Civilizing mission Colonialism Cultural genocide Manifest destiny Postdevelopment theory Settler colonialism Legal representation Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007 Historical cases 2009 Peruvian political crisis Chiapas conflict Depopulation of Diego Garcia High Arctic relocation Indian removal Mapuche conflict Oka Crisis Rubber boom San controversy Stolen Generations Category

Russell Means
Russell Means in 1987.
Born	Russell Charles Means (1939-11-10) November 10, 1939 (age 72) Wanblee, South Dakota, United States
Occupation	Activist, politician, actor, writer, musician
Years active	1968 – present
Spouse	Gloria Grant Means (three previous marriages) A total of 10 children, two with Gloria

Russell Charles Means (born November 10, 1939) is an Oglala Sioux activist for the rights of Native American people. He became a prominent member of the American Indian Movement (AIM) after joining the organization in 1968, and helped organize notable events that attracted national and international media coverage. The organization split in 1993, in part over the 1975 murder of Anna Mae Aquash, the leading woman activist in AIM.^[1]

Means has been active in international issues of indigenous peoples, including working with groups in Central and South America, and with the United Nations for recognition of their rights. He has been active in politics at his native Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and at the state and national level.

Since 1992, he has acted in numerous films and released his own music CD. He published his autobiography Where White Men Fear to Tread in 1997.

Early life[link]

Means was born in Wanblee, South Dakota, a community located in the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, to Theodora Feather and Harold "Hank" Means.^[2] He was baptized Oyate Wacinyapin, which means "works for the people" in the Lakota language. His Oglala Sioux parents met as students at an Indian boarding school.^[2]

In 1942, when Russell was three, the Means family resettled in the San Francisco Bay Area, seeking to escape the poverty and problems of the reservation. His father worked at the shipyard. Means grew up in the Bay area, graduating in 1958 from San Leandro High School in San Leandro, California.^[3] In his 1995 autobiography, Means recounted a harsh childhood; his father was alcoholic and he himself fell into years of "truancy, crime and drugs" before finding purpose in the American Indian Movement in Minneapolis.^[4]

His father died in 1967, and in his 20's, Means lived in several Indian reservations throughout the United States while searching for work. While at the Rosebud Indian Reservation in south-central South Dakota, he developed severe vertigo. Physicians at the reservation clinic believed that he had been brought in inebriated. After they refused to examine him for several days, Means was finally diagnosed with a concussion due to a presumed fist fight in a saloon. A visiting specialist later discovered that the reservation doctors had overlooked a common ear infection, which cost Means the hearing in one ear.^[5]

After recovering from the infection, Means worked for a year in the Office of Economic Opportunity, where he came to know several legal activists who were managing legal action on behalf of the Lakota people. After a dispute with his supervisor, Means left Rosebud for Cleveland, Ohio. In Cleveland, he worked with Native American community leaders against the backdrop of the American Civil Rights Movement.^[5]

Involvement with the American Indian Movement[link]

Means participated - together with his father - in the 1964 Alcatraz occupation. In 1968 at age 29, Means joined the American Indian Movement (AIM), where he rose to become a prominent leader.^[6] In 1970, Means was appointed AIM's first national director, and the organization began a period of increasing protests and activism. On Thanksgiving Day 1970, Means and other AIM activists staged their first protest in Boston: they seized the Mayflower II, a replica ship of the Mayflower, to protest the Puritans' and United States' mistreatment of Native Americans.^[7] Later that year, Means was one of the leaders of AIM's takeover of Mount Rushmore, a federal monument. In 1972, he participated in AIM's occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) headquarters in Washington, D.C. Many confidential records were taken or destroyed, and more than $2 million in damages was done to the building.

In 1973, Dennis Banks and Charles Camp led AIM's occupation of Wounded Knee, which became the group's most well-known action. ^[7] Means appeared as a spokesman and prominent leader as well. The armed standoff of more than 300 Lakota and AIM activists with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and state law enforcement lasted for 71 days. A visiting Cherokee from North Carolina and an Oglala Lakota activist from Pine Ridge Reservation were killed in April 1973. Earlier an FBI agent was shot and became paralyzed from his wounds.

In 1974, Means resigned from AIM to run for the presidency of his native Oglala Sioux Tribe (OST) against the incumbent Richard Wilson. The official vote count showed Wilson winning by more than 200 votes. Residents complained of intimidation by Wilson's private militia. The report of a government investigation confirmed problems in the election, but in a related court challenge to the results of the election, a federal court upheld the results.

In the late 1970s, Means turned to an international forum on issues of rights for indigenous peoples. He worked with the United Nations to establish the offices of the International Indian Treaty Council in 1977. At the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, he assisted in the organization of community institutions, such as the KILI radio station and the Porcupine Health Clinic in Porcupine, South Dakota.

In the 1980s, AIM divided into several competing factions. The division was in part over differences among members regarding support for the indigenous peoples in Nicaragua, a nation then led by a socialist government. Means announced his support for the Miskito group MISURASATA (later known as YATAMA), which was allied with the Contras. He traveled to the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua in 1985 and 1986 on fact-finding tours. Some members of AIM supported the Sandinistas of the national government, although they had forced removal of thousands of Miskito from their traditional territory. At that time, the Grand Governing Council of AIM, based in Minnesota, asked Means to cease representing himself as a leader of AIM.^{[citation needed]} Other chapters of AIM continued to support Means.

On January 8, 1988, Means held a press conference to announce his retirement from AIM (for the sixth time), saying it had achieved its goals.^[8] That January, the AIM Grand Governing Council, headed by the Bellecourt brothers, released a press release noting this was the sixth resignation by Means since 1974, and asking the press to "never again report either that he is a founder of the American Indian Movement, or [that] he is a leader of the American Indian Movement". The AIM General Governing Council noted there were many open issues and legislation regarding Native Americans for which they were continuing to work.^[9]

In 1993, the organization divided officially into two main factions: AIM Grand Governing Council, based in Minnesota, which has the legal right to use the name; and American Indian Movement of Colorado, based in Colorado and allied with Means.

On 3 November 1999, Means and Robert Pictou-Branscombe, a maternal cousin of Aquash from Canada, held a press conference in Denver at the Federal Building to discuss the slow progress of the government's investigation into Aquash's murder. It had been under investigation both by the Denver police, as Aquash had been kidnapped from there, and by the FBI, as she had been taken across state lines and killed on the Pine Ridge Reservation. Both Branscombe and Means accused Vernon Bellecourt, a high-ranking leader of AIM, of having ordered the execution of Aquash. Means said that Clyde Bellecourt, a founder of AIM, had ensured that it was carried out at the Pine Ridge Reservation. Means said that an AIM tribunal had banned the Bellecourt brothers but tried to keep the reason for the dissension internal to protect AIM.^[10]

The Associated Press (AP) reporter Robert Weller noted that this was the first time that an AIM leader active at the time of Aquash's death had publicly implicated AIM in her murder. There had long been rumors.^[11] Means and Branscombe accused three indigenous people: Arlo Looking Cloud, Theda Nelson Clark and John Graham, of having been directly involved in the kidnapping and murder of Aquash.^[10] The two men were indicted in 2003 and convicted in separate trials in 2004 and 2010, respectively. By then in a nursing home, Clark was not indicted.

As of 2004, Means' website states that he was a board member of the Colorado AIM chapter, which is affiliated with AIM-Autonomous Chapters.^[12]

Other political involvement[link]

Since the late 1970s, Means has often supported libertarian political causes, in contrast with several of the other leaders of AIM. In 1987, Means ran for nomination of President of the United States under the Libertarian Party, and attracted considerable support within the party, finishing 2nd (31.41%) at the 1987 Libertarian National Convention.^[13] He lost the nomination to Congressman Ron Paul.^[14]

In 2001, Means began an independent candidacy for Governor of New Mexico. His campaign failed to satisfy procedural requirements and he was not selected for the ballot. In the 2004 and 2008 Presidential Elections, Means supported independent Ralph Nader.

Nearly thirty years after his first candidacy, Means ran for president of the Oglala Sioux in 2004 with the help of Twila Lebeaux, losing to Cecilia Fire Thunder, the first woman elected president of the tribe. She also defeated the incumbent John Yellow Bird Steele.^[15]

Since the late 20th century, there has been a debate in the United States over the appropriate term for the indigenous peoples of North America. Some want to be called Native American; others prefer American Indian. Means says that he prefers "American Indian", arguing that it derives not from explorers' confusion of the people with those of India, but from the Italian expression in Dio, meaning "in God".^[16][17] In addition, Means notes that since treaties and other legal documents in relation to the United States government use "Indian", continuing use of the term can help today's American Indian people forestall any attempts by others to use legal loopholes in the struggle over land and treaty rights.

Following the non-binding United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in September 2007, a group of American Indian activists presented a letter to the U.S. State Department, indicating they were withdrawing from all treaties with the U.S. Government. In December, they began contacting foreign governments to solicit support for energy projects on the territory.

On December 20, 2007, Means announced the withdrawal by a small group of Lakota Sioux from all treaties with the United States government.^[18] Means and a delegation of activists declared the Republic of Lakotah a sovereign nation, with property rights over thousands of square miles in South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming and Montana.^{[19][dead link]} Means said that his group does not "represent collaborators, the Vichy Indians and those tribal governments set up by the United States of America".^[20]

On January 8, 2008 the elected leaders President Rodney Bordeaux of the 25,000-member Rosebud Sioux Tribe, and Chairman Joseph Brings Plenty of the 8,500-member Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, said that Means did not speak for their members or for any elected Lakota tribal governments. While acknowledging problems with the federal government's implementation of treaties, they opposed his plan to renounce treaties with the United States. They said the issue instead was to enforce existing treaties.^{[21][dead link] [22]}

In January 2012, he announced his endorsement of Ron Paul in his bid for President.^[23]

Other activities[link]

Acting[link]

Since 1992, Means has appeared as an actor in numerous films and TV movies: first as the chief Chingachgook in The Last of the Mohicans. He appeared as Arrowhead in the made-for-TV movie The Pathfinder (1996), his second appearance in a movie adapted from a novel by James Fenimore Cooper. He appeared in Natural Born Killers (1994), as Jim Thorpe in Windrunner: A Spirited Journey, as Sitting Bull in Buffalo Girls (1995), and had a cameo in the miniseries Into the West (2005).

He was a voice actor in the animated film Pocahontas (1995) and its sequel Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World (1998), playing the title character's father, Chief Powhatan. Means appeared as Billy Twofeathers in Thomas & the Magic Railroad (2000).

Means starred in Pathfinder, a 2007 movie about Vikings' battling Native Americans in the New World. Recently Means co-starred in Rez Bomb from director Steven Lewis Simpson, the first feature filmed on his native Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. He stars with Tamara Feldman and Trent Ford and Chris Robinson.

He also appears as a character in the Access Adventure Game Under a Killing Moon.^[24] In 2004 Means made a guest appearance on the HBO program Curb Your Enthusiasm. Means played Wandering Bear, an American Indian with skills in landscaping and herbal medicine.

Writing[link]

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (August 2011)

In 1995, Means published an autobiography, Where White Men Fear to Tread, written with Marvin J. Wolf. He recounted his own family's problems: his alcoholic father, and his own "fall into truancy, crime and drugs" before he found the American Indian Movement.^[4] Writing in the New York Times Book Review, the author Brent Staples said of Means:

"His repeated assertion that Native American culture is cosmologically superior to Europe’s seems patronizing, even coming from an Indian. The first law of the universe, after all, is that evil and stupidity are randomly distributed. Had the Lakota and others been the seers Mr. Means seems to think they were, they would have avoided at least some of the disasters that befell them."^[25]

In 1998 Vernon Bellecourt, a longtime leader of AIM, criticized Marvin Wolf for failure to consult with other AIM leaders about events that Means recounted. He said, "Not one of the people in the movement was asked by Means' co-author, Marvin J. Wolf, to confirm Means' version of events. It's a very reckless book. It puts out a lot of inaccuracies and petty attacks on people that are seen as very divisive."^[26]

The journalist Malcolm Brenner, who had covered Native American issues for newspapers from the Shiprock, New Mexico area, wrote in his review: "Over and over again, Means makes blanket condemnations of all 'White People' that he would assuredly bust my chops for if I made them about Indians... Readers should understand that this book is Russell Means' version of reality, and it does not necessarily bear any relationship to the truth...Ultimately, this book is a chronicle of Means' bottomless rage..." which Brenner notes may have been justified by "the circumstances of his life in particular or American Indian lives in general," but he thought Means' stance was overdone.^[27]

Patricia Holt, book editor for the San Francisco Chronicle wrote of the book, "It's American history -- warts, wounds and all."^[4] Mari Wadsworth of the Tucson Weekly wrote, "Critical readers do well to remain skeptical of any individual, however charismatic, who claims to be the voice of authority and authenticity for any population, let alone one as diverse as the native tribes of the Americas."^[28]

Music[link]

Russell Means recorded a CD entitled Electric Warrior under indie label SOAR.^[29] Songs include "Une Gente Indio", "Hey You, Hey Indian", "Wounded Knee Set Us Free", and "Indian Cars Go Far".

Representation in other media[link]

The American pop artist Andy Warhol painted 18 individual portraits of Russell Means in his 1976 American Indian Series. The Dayton Art Institute holds one of the Warhol portraits of Means in its collection.^[30]

Personal life[link]

Means has been married four times; his first three marriages ended in divorce. He has a total of ten children.^[2]

Means is married to Gloria (Grant) Means, a Dine educator and former rodeo rider.^[2] They have two sons: Tatanka Means, who is an actor, and Nataanii Nez Means. Means is also the stepfather of Gloria's son Scott from her previous marriage.

On December 29, 1997, Means was arrested for assault and battery of his 80-year-old father-in-law Leon Grant, a member of the Dine (Navajo) Nation. AIM Governing General Council issued a press release to reiterate its separation from Means.^[26]

In August 2011, Means was diagnosed with esophageal cancer.^[31][32] In late September, Means reported that through tomotherapy, the tumor had diminished greatly.^[33] At the start of November 2011, he said that his tumor was "95% gone."^{[citation needed]} On December 5, Means stated that he "beat cancer," that he beat "the death penalty."^{[citation needed]}

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikinews has related news: Lakota activists declare secession from US

Wikinews has related news: Lakota Freedom Delegation says spokesman Russell Means 'hijacked' organization

Wikinews has related news: 'No treaty withdrawal', says Lakota elder

• Russell Means official website
• Russell Means Freedom
• Russell Means at the Internet Movie Database
• Republic of Lakotah Official Web Site
• American Indian Movement on Russell Means

v t e Indigenous rights Rights Conflict resolution Cultural diversity Cultural heritage Freedom from forced assimilation Freedom from forced removal Freedom from racial discrimination Freedom of religion Gender equality Human rights Indigenous intellectual property Indigenous language Land rights Land-use planning Right to determine indigeneity Self-determination Traditional knowledge Governmental organizations Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Arctic Council Bureau of Indian Affairs Council of Indigenous Peoples Fundação Nacional do Índio National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (Philippines) United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Non-governmental and political organizations Amazon Watch Assembly of First Nations Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador Congress of Aboriginal Peoples Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin Cultural Survival Friends of Peoples Close to Nature Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs National Indigenous Organization of Colombia Native American Rights Fund Survival International Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization Zapatista Army of National Liberation (more ...) Issues Bantustan / Indian reservation / Indian reserve / Ranchería Civilizing mission Colonialism Cultural genocide Manifest destiny Postdevelopment theory Settler colonialism Legal representation Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007 Historical cases 2009 Peruvian political crisis Chiapas conflict Depopulation of Diego Garcia High Arctic relocation Indian removal Mapuche conflict Oka Crisis Rubber boom San controversy Stolen Generations Category