Are They Racists? The Anti-Indian Movement in Montana
As tribal governments have become more sophisticated about asserting themselves through treaty rights, jurisdictional disputes have created controversy. Those who oppose tribes because of their fear of Indian governance have coalesced themselves into the anti-Indian movement. Local organizations like All Citizens Equal (ACE) on the Flathead Reservation join groups like the Citizen's Equal Rights Alliance (CERA) at the national level to form a national anti-Indian movement.
One of the first questions people ask when they become aware of an organized anti-Indian movement is "Is it racist?" In the question they are seeking a way to understand the movement and place it in the political landscape with which they are familiar. The context in which most people place words like racism, prejudice, and discrimination is the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. In that context an oppressed minority, African Americans, sought inclusion, a piece of the pie, equal opportunity, and integration.
But the struggle for civil rights in Indian country is different. It rests on sovereignty and autonomy as well as inclusion and integration. This difference confuses people. That confusion often gives the anti-Indian movement an edge in the rhetorical arena.
Anti-Indian activists use the language of patriotism to portray their disputes with tribes. One often hears that non-Indians living on the reservation are subjected to "taxation without representation." They make lofty arguments about "equal protection under the law" being denied to American citizens who happen to find themselves within the borders of a reservation. Anti-Indian activists complain that whites are denied rights granted to Indians who belong to the tribe. They complain of jurisdictional confusion, corruption of tribal officials, bureaucratic incompetence, and on and on the list goes. But when the issue of racism comes up, they are quick to say that their beef is not with Indian people, but with tribal government and federal Indian policy. "All men are created equal," they say. And it is confusing. After all, we ought to be able to disagree about an issue with tribal government without being a racist. Shouldn't we?
Of course from issue to issue that is true, but what becomes plain about the anti-Indian movement is that, consistently, over time, on issue after issue, these groups have opposed tribal governments' positions on all issues. More importantly, the basis of their disagreement strikes at the core of the concept of sovereignty. And it is here we find the answer to the question of whether the anti-Indian movement is racist. This movement, taken at face value, is a systematic effort to deny legally established rights to a group of people who are identified on the basis of their shared culture, history, religion, and tradition. It is racist by definition.