Plains Indian Agrariaism and Class Conflict
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Great Plains Quarterly Great Plains Studies, Center for 1987 Plains Indian Agrariaism and Class Conflict Russel Lawrence Barsh University of Washington Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsquarterly Part of the Other International and Area Studies Commons Barsh, Russel Lawrence, "Plains Indian Agrariaism and Class Conflict" (1987). Great Plains Quarterly. 315. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsquarterly/315 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Great Plains Studies, Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Plains Quarterly by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. PLAINS INDIAN AGRARIANISM AND CLASS CONFLICT RUSSEL LAWRENCE BARSH Relatively little has been done to trace the landless bureaucratic class emerged, and their political structures of American Indians competition for political influence has domi through the years 1890 to 1940, when reserva nated reservation life ever since. As in many tion economics were undergoing their most developing countries, modernization was ac dramatic changes. That failure has left the false companied by a conflict between small-scale impression of a fifty-vear institutional vacuum. agrarian capitalism and central planning. In fact, the middle years were times of complex If valid, this thesis requires reversing some reJisrrihutions of power ;md the emergence of well-entrenched historical judgments, i.c., that indigellous socioeconomic classes. It was also the Ceneral Allotment Act was bad because it perhaps the earliest period in which Plains reduced the Indians' aggregate landholdings, Indians enjoyed anything like an American and that the Indian New Deal was good style, decentralized elective democracy. because it stopped allotment and encouraged Federal programs shifted the control of the Indian self-government. On the contrary, Indians' food supply. From being skilled hunt allotment may have given Indian leaders the er-organizers they became recipients of gc)\"ern opportunity to reestablish their economic and nwnt patronage, heelme small landholders political independence from the Bureau of and, finally, tribal technocrats. In other words, Indian Affairs-and the New Deal reorganiza they experienced two cycles of centralization. tion program crushed this emergent Indian An agrarian entrepreneurial middle class and a bourgeoisie and its growing power. TRADITIl,l\:AL MERITOCRACY RLl.\.\cl Barsh has taught law and imblic policy at Traditional Plains Indian leadership was the Universit:\' of Washington. Since 1984 he has earned and evolved through ceremonies of worked dircctly in advocacy and devcloi)ment for recognition by family and community.' With natil'C peoples. no fixed number of leaders and virtually universal competition for recognition, good [CI'Q 7 (Spring Il)H7): ill-'ll11 people were able to rise to influence within 81 84 GREAT PLAINS QUARTERLY, SPRING 1987 each family and eventually to win acknowl sharing networks, each individual's economic edgement as family representatives in the contribution to the family system was similar. nation's councils.' This situation helped to maintain a certain balance of representation THE PATRONAGE SYSTEM and power among families and obviated any lasting concentrations of control.3 Thus, tradi tional government could best be described as By the 1870s, traditional plains economies an open-ended meritocracy with many gently had been shattered by war, relocation, loss of competing poles of authority. hunting territories, destruction of game by Individual freedom was ensured by the railroad contractors, and restrictions on the representation of all families in council and by movements of "Agency Indians." For at least a the requirement of consensus for national generation, most Indians were entirely depen action. Equally important was the nature of dent on government aid for sustenance. Under the economy, which rewarded coordination these circumstances, reservation administra but did not make it necessary for survival. tors not surprisingly wielded power by control Even the smallest family, functioning as a ling the distribution of rations, tools, and cooperative economic unit, could provide for employment. "If you are an agitator, then you itself under most circumstances. Only in times don't get so much; but if you are [an] of war or disaster were wider economic and undertaker you get more rations every time" security arrangements unavoidable. Govern (U.S. Senate 1929, 12378). ment therefore functioned "at need" rather Reservation agents themselves were politi than as a permanent, coercive establishment. cal appointees rather than civil servants until Although traditional leaders were not 1907, and they well understood the power of necessarily more productive as hunters, they patronage. Operating under a general policy of were notable as facilitators of collective action breaking traditional political institutions, (Service 1974, 50-51; Clastres 1974, 34; Ber agents identified the most cooperative men in nard 1928).4 This enabled them to accumulate the community and subsidized their campaigns a surplus of goods and obligations that could for leadership (U.S. Senate 1929, 12442, be mobilized, through sharing and gifting, to 12760). "The agent, having control of the food win support for their plans. In an economy supply and its distribution, as well as control based on unpredictable resources such as over the Indians' personal freedom, held power wildlife, moreover, even skillful producers with which the chiefs could not compete" faced periodic shortages. Family networks (MacGregor 1946, 35). provided a system of social security against Economic and political influence thus these unavoidable shortages, and individuals passed from individuals skilled at organizing successful at collecting and reallocating re Indians to those whom whites trusted to serve sources inevitably acquired a degree of influ as conduits. Rewarding cooperative Indians ence and trust. Effective leadership depended with salaries as chiefs, policemen, judges, and on knowing how to distribute what had been clerks gave them the financial resources to produced. build up their own following through philan The traditional political system was none thropy, competing with and ultimately displac theless characterized by considerable social ing the influence of the former leaders whose mobility (Goldschmidt 1959, 214). No one sources of wealth had disappeared. But while could control the economic factors crucial for the superintendent's chiefs enjoyed economic survival. Wildlife was freely available, and privileges, they lacked any real power over productivity depended chiefly on individual reservation affairs. "They do no harm-or skill and effort. Thus, while long-term social anything else," one contemporary Sioux writer security benefited from the existence of family observed ("Iktomi" 1937, 105). PLAINS INDIAN AGRARIANISM 85 AGRARIAN DEMOCRACY "The time is at hand when every person should pay his way," the Lodge Pole Indian The allotment of agricultural lands among Stockmen's Association told satisfied Con individual Indian households began in the gressmen. "The days of getting something for 1850s and was extended to all reservations in nothing are gone" (U.S. Senate 1934, 296). 1887. Relative security of legal title created an It is also significant that one-third of the opportunity for enterprising individuals to young Indians who attended Carlisle Indian regain a limited degree of independence from School became farmers and ranchers (Fried the ration list (U.S. Senate 1929, 12503, man 1912, 282), forming the nucleus of an 12512). Farming and ranching also gave ambi educated agrarian bourgeoisie. Agriculture was tious men an opportunity to accumulate not viewed as a hardship, but as a marriage of wealth outside the Bureau of Indian Affairs' traditional values and eo nomic autonomy. patronage system and, through sharing and "Cling to your landed estate," Crow rancher gifting, to establish themselves as autonomous Robert Yellowtail admonished Carlisle's grad leaders. Many who are viewed today as uating class seventy years ago. "Sell not a foot "traditional" leaders had their start on the of it" (Yellowtail 1913,411). "We gained self farm (Mails 1979,68). respect," Frank Fools Crow recalls of this Nonetheless, agrarian leaders took advan period, "and were able to maintain much of tage of the patronage system until they gained our traditional way of1ife" (Mails 1979, 109).5 sufficient independence to compete with the Characteristic of this agrarian movement Indian bureau for power. Allotments could was the appearance of relatively autonomous not be mortgaged, so a successful start de Indian ranchers' associations (Grinnell 1915, pended on government aid to buy cattle or 176-77; U.S. Senate 1934, 295-97). Many were farm machinery (Trosper 1978; Carlson 1981). cooperatives, pooling land and sharing the Many also worked for the Indian Service long costs of fencing. For example, the Lodge Pole enough to finance a family spread, as did a Indian Stockmen's Association on Montana's recent Carlisle graduate who had become a Fort Belknap Reservation fenced nearly thirty "successful ranchman" (Friedman 1909, 53): square miles for its fifty-two members in the 1920s. The Association also offered an inde He has