363 Wilson, Pamela. "Disputable Truths: The American Stranger, Television Documentary and Native American Cultural Politics in the 1950s." Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1996. CHAPTER SIX: ALL EYES ON MONTANA: TELEVISION AND THE CULTURAL POLITICS OF REGION Questions of intercultural power and cultural control--based upon regional culture, race, ethnicity, religion and economic factors such as land ownership--gathered force and erupted in the political controversy surrounding the reception of The American Stranger. The documentary, produced with the unprecedented cooperation of various Indian tribes, political interest groups, and localized community activists, was filmed primarily in Indian communities in Montana. This national report foregrounded the localized knowledge of Montana's Native Americans and their supporters, blaming federal "termination" policies for the social and economic conditions on Montana's Blackfeet reservation and the "landless Indians" living on Hill 57 in Great Falls. Termination efforts were subsequently challenged by a coalition of American Indian interest groups and sympathetic non-Indians, drawing upon the public indignation and call to arms aroused by The American Stranger. The content of The American Stranger was significantly influenced by the involvement of regional tribal leaders and Montana activists, and the documentary was subsequently appropriated as a powerful discursive tool in their ongoing struggles on behalf of Indian rights and local grassroots interests. The single broadcast, along with subsequent localized screenings of the show's kinescope, 364 became the focal convergence for a host of ideological and political public debates surrounding the "Indian question." Why was The American Stranger particularly relevant to Montana activists, tribal and citizens’ groups? Although tribal groups are scattered throughout the nation, the U.S. government has institutionalized Indian Affairs as a "land" issue, subsumed under the Department of the Interior and its parallel Congressional committees (Interior and Insular Affairs). "Indian affairs" has also generally been considered a regional (Western) issue, since the majority of land at stake was in the West due to a history of continued westward relocation and removal of Indians beyond the western boundaries of white settlement. In the late 1950s, Montana's ranking Democratic Senator James Murray was the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, a committee split along party lines between those sympathetic to populist interests (including Indian constituents) and those with strong allegiances to Western land-based business interests. The coalition that united Indian and non-Indian citizens of Montana in political and social action around Native American issues was essentially formed in 1953-54, when citizens’ groups from around the state rallied to express support for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes threatened by the Flathead Termination Bill. This coalition was a loosely woven and informal confederation of localized, state and regional groups--tribal, religious, partisan and non-partisan--which found themselves coming together in various configurations over and over again during the postwar years on a number of social and political issues. Well-connected to State legislators and Montana’s Congressional delegation, and heavily Democratic in their party 365 affiliations, many of these groups had the constituency to gather a great deal of populist clout when called upon to do so. This Montana pro-Indian network included localized groups, such as Great Falls’ Friends of Hill 57 or the Montana Citizens Against Termination, which were chartered to address a particular local social and/or political need specific to their communities, as well as (on the other extreme) regional chapters of national organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Organization and American Friends Service Committee. Other groups included those with a long-term organization but for which the specific projects varied according to the needs of the community or region, such as the Cascade County Community Council in Great Falls or the Business and Professional Womens’ Clubs (with local and state chapters), and those which existed primarily for other purposes but which took a political stand upon and became involved in issues which they deemed relevant to their mission, such as the Montana Farmers Union. The projects of the organizations and individuals in this network ranged from humanitarian benevolence within the community to active political lobbying at the state and national levels. An important regional organ was The People's Voice, a Helena-based statewide leftist newspaper. Many Democratic newspaper editors also served as conduits for community activism. Many of these Montana groups were spearheaded by women activists, a notable point in a political world which consisted almost entirely of men at the Congressional level and in federal agencies, as well as in government-sanctioned tribal leadership.1 For example, the Montana Farmers Union was actively involved in the fight against Flathead termination. MFU Vice-President Dick Shipman of Lewiston, Montana, was a central player in the 1954 hearings on the Flathead Termination bill 366 before the joint session of the House Subcommittee on Indian Affairs and the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. In his statement at the hearings, he described the circumstances of his own cultural heritage as a (white) “neighbor and friend” of the Indians of Montana: My family came to Montana in the early 1880s, and my father ranched in country where the buffalo still grazed. The “Indian problem” was not a newspaper item, but was an important factor in the daily life of the Montana cattleman. I grew up in “Indian country.” My ranch and the region it lies in are rich in Indian tradition. On my own account then, I speak here today as a neighbor and friend of the Indians of Montana. I have come to know and respect the American Indian citizens of my state. Their economic future and the well-being of my whole state will be injured if the Federal Government withdrawal from the Flathead Reservation. This is the view of both the organizations I represent today. The Montana Farmers Union includes almost one half of all the farm families in the state and our members are deeply concerned with the fate of our Indian citizens. I am also here [as a representative of] the Association on American Indian Affairs. .Our opposition to withdrawal rests on three grounds: moral, economic and legal. In our opinion, withdrawal is indefensible on any one of these grounds. Morally concerned about the effect that termination would have “upon the honor and integrity of our country,” Shipman asserted that they as individuals, a nation or a government must act in accordance with “ageless principles of moral law” rather than to violate such principles of “public morality” in the name of the United States Government. Speaking as a non-Indian, white American, and specifically to the fellow white Americans on the Congressional committees, Shipman also expressed white shame at the actions carried out by a white Government: When the intentions of the Government became known to the Indians of the Flathead Reservation last fall, an elder tribesman stood up at his 367 tribal council meeting and said, “It has now become clearly understood by us that a treaty with the U.S. Government means nothing.” I read those words with a feeling of shame. Later, he added, “I say we must all share the blame, that we should learn from the past and not make the same old mistakes again and again.” Speaking of anti-Indian racism (a rare topic of white discourse during this period), Shipman noted that “too many of our white Americans are unready to welcome the Indian into full and equal association. The State of Montana, for example, has no law guaranteeing the Indian protection against discrimination. It is not the Indian’s fault that in the towns and cities of his home state he is sometimes denied service in hotels and restaurants and generally is given employment only when no suitable white person is at hand.” Shipman entered into the widely-argued debate as to whether federal consultation with tribes was an adequate alternative to gaining their consent to policy changes affecting their futures; he urged a greater partnership with Indian tribes in any planning for change regarding their futures: The Indians have been told that this thing will be done to them. They have been told that it was so decided for them in Washington. They have been told to get ready for it overnight. Such things are not in the tradition of this land of freedom. Let me assure this Committee that there is no mystery or question as to how the Indian people feel about the proposed bill. They are opposed to it, and more; they are disillusioned, and they are bitter. They cannot understand why the great American Government could strike such a final and irrevocable blow against them. They have made their own consultation among their people, and you will hear it from their own spokesmen that the vast majority of Indians living on the reservations are opposed to termination. All the Indians of Montana are apprehensive and fear that this is only the beginning and wonder who will be the next to be liquidated. 368 Shipman provided a detailed historical account of the circumstances by which the Little Shell Band of Chippewa, who composed most of the population of Hill 57 in Great Falls, had come to be there. He described the conditions on Hill 57: Some 50 families, among whom there are 287 children, live in huts and shacks under slum conditions of the worst sort. There is no water supply on Hill 57; no sewage disposal, no electricity. Tuberculosis and dysentery are prevalent. the Indians who live here are sub-citizens on the edge of a beautiful and prosperous city; eking out a hand-to-mouth existence.