“I know my race must change. We cannot hold our own with the White men as we are. We only ask an even chance to live as other men live. We ask to be recognized as men. We ask the same law shall work alike on all men. If the Indian breaks the law, punish him by the law. If the White man breaks the law, punish him also.” -- Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce in Howard and McGrath, War Chief Joseph, 1941.

Introduction
Racism was firmly entrenched in the social and intellectual stream of Colonial America. Its common mantra of savagism derived from the dramatic differences between American Indians and Whites concerning values that shape behavior, particularly in those aspects of religion, land use, and community life. Thoughts in the social and intellectual stream, however, were accompanied by countervailing political and legal events. Indeed, while social thinking launched a campaign to prove that Indians were inferior, the political stream launched a treaty making process that eventually became a unique British model in government to government relations with indigenous people during the historic period of European imperialism. Once the Colonies shed themselves from British hegemony, ideas would quickly dominate the process of human relations. Certainly, the British model of treaty making was adopted as a means to avert conflict and to build alliances with powerful tribes. Fledgling academic fields, largely through the influence of Jefferson, made American Indians their guinea pigs: tribal communities became laboratories and tribal gravesites became mining fields as the need for experimental specimens grew. The age of science was led by medicine and anthropology, both of which set out to establish a theory of racism. Bounties were paid so that sufficient samples of Indian crania could be gathered to support a spurious science. This followed a maligned procedure, namely that crania size was the key variable to prove intellectual superiority, and would become the bane to modern anthropology. Once phrenology proved spurious and fruitless, a cultural model was advanced. This was guided by arbitrary criteria that framed Euro-American lifestyles as “civilization” and tribal lifestyles as “savagism.” This social and intellectual lens shaped cultural relations throughout the 19 th Century and well into the 20 th, including, of course, the social institutions that were charged with the task of civilizing the savage Indians. Institutional racism gained its impetus in formal political thinking with passage of the Civilization Act Fund. It was limited to agricultural parameters; hence, it did not launch the process of civilizing the savage with a bang. It simply planted the seed. Its passage came only a few years after the British were finally ousted as a threat to the new nation, and of course, after which Indian tribes were no longer needed as military and political allies. Institutional racism’s next launching came in the form of land policy during the period of the Indian Removal Act. Even though U.S. Supreme Court decisions supported tribal arguments regarding state powers, the administration opted to wrest land through social engineering and removed tribes to Indian Territory. Removal, of course, was a means to rationalize the inherent separate political status of tribes, but an even more onerous – and equally racist - land policy resurfaced in 1887 with Congress’ passage of the General Allotment Act that harbored intentions to civilize tribal people. Land policy was followed quickly by a formal educational policy that was designed as a model of comprehensive de-culturalization. Its mantra captured its essence: “kill the Indian and save the man.” Indian schools yanked children out of families and communities. They deigned to strip children of their tribal languages. They forced conversion to the more acceptable, civilized Christian religion. Indeed, federal Indian law thrust Christianity forward as an essential marker for civilized societies. Unfortunately for Indian societies, God's work did not end with reforms in language, land use, and education. It assaulted another fine-tuned and vital cultural practice: restorative justice. Indian societies, structured to follow tradition, vested authority in communal practices that turned to elders for guidance. Social cohesion and reciprocity were central to this model of life; hence, justice not only resolved issues of victim's rights and community safety but also directed attention to the enhancement of social tranquility, particularly regarding the maintenance of personal relationships. Restorative justice, the outcome of which was reached through family meetings with perpetrators and victims, provided a balance between concerns for victim compensation, perpetrator punishment, and community stability. It was not looked upon favorably by the U.S. government or by Christian reformers. In 1883, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ex parte Crow Dog, (109 U.S. 556, 1883), found in favor of a tribe's restorative justice model, but the reform movement would answer this decision with passage of the Major Crimes Act in 1885. In one fell swoop, Congress dealt a major blow to cultural tradition. It stripped away a legal taproot of tribal sovereignty and tore asunder a principal role of elders in Indian societies -- a role that would not be reinstated for almost 100 years with passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 that relies upon elders to provide expert testimony in child welfare matters, particularly with regard to cultural standards for child rearing. Needless to say, tribal communities are still in a process of healing from a century of estrangement during which reformers -- then as well as now -- have encouraged young people to ignore their elders. This report, drawn from testimonials gathered through talking circles, points to residuals of this estrangement as Indians struggle with institutional dissonance inherent in the conflict between American Indian culture and mainstream American practices in the human services. It is, of course, a work in progress because as the testimonials portray a "soul wound," they also capture the strength of Indian communities, i.e., the restoration and revival of cultural practices. This report signals a beginning point for Indians and non-Indians that they must create opportunities to join hands in the healing process. Contents | Next