*Each week leading up to the election my blog posts will focus on various issues, people and policies that voters should consider as they head to the polls. This is blog #3 in that series. SIDENOTE: I purposely use the terms Indian and American Indian as opposed to Native American because the word native implies that tribes are properly recognized and respected as the original inhabitants of this land.*
Growing up in Central Virginia, the running joke in a lot of communities was that every person of color in the area “had Indian in them.” It was the explanation given for girls with less kinky hair or for boys with a copper-colored complexion. When asked what tribe they belonged to, the common response was Blackfoot or Cherokee even though neither of those groups had a physical presence in the area. Although some saw this mythical ancestry as a form of reverence, it was actually ignorance. That ignorance was highlighted in Jay Z’s 2001 song, “Girls, Girls, Girls.” With vocal backing by the King of Pop, Michael Jackson, Jay-Z asks a potential Indian paramour “what tribe she with: red dot or feather?” Ignorance is pervasive. But often ignorance leads to erasure.
The United States federal government recognizes seven Indian tribes in the Commonwealth of Virginia and a total of eleven tribes are acknowledged by state officials. The dominant tribes in that area are Pamonkey and Monocan who have laid ancestral claims to the land for over 12,000 years. Although the entire Commonwealth of Virginia was once inhabited by indigenous populations, these groups remain overlooked and at times, legally ignored.
To be sure, the legacy of conquest meant that American Indians and enslaved Africans were often forced to live in close proximity to each other. This proximity resulted in a number of blended families and children of mixed racial heritage who were discriminated against in distinct and overlapping ways based not on their self-identity, but on social identity. In 1924 Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act that granted citizenship and affirmed the right to vote for American Indians. The concept of federalism, however, meant that states had the authority to oversee the meaning and protection of citizenship for people of Indian descent.
In the 1920’s, Virginia began adopting a number of laws and policies designed to redefine racial classifications while erecting strict punishments for interracial marriage known as anti-miscegenation laws. The 1924 Racial Integrity Act allowed state and local officials to arbitrarily change racial classifications listed on vital records. In practice, this Act collapsed diverse groups of people into two subjective categorizations of “White” and “Colored.” The distinction was based on the rule of hypodescent that rendered anyone with one drop of non-white blood as Colored. With no regard for how people identified themselves or how they declared their identity on paperwork for births and marriages, Virginia set in motion generations of slowly erasing the Indian presence. Eugenicists believed that people claimed to be of Indian descent to avoid broader segregation laws that limited access to and the protection of freedom. In reality, reducing ethnic classifications from six to two meant that Indian descendants would have a more difficult time gaining federal recognition and in turn, sovereignty. Further, it placed Indian children beyond the scope of inclusion because their “colored” designation prevented them from attending white-only schools, while also excluding them from traditional community mobilization efforts to pursue legal redress against racial discrimination. In reviewing my own family history, I’ve learned that for decades Indians in the area were pejoratively referred to as “ishee;” a shorthand slur for Indians who received government benefits known as “free issues.” The term referenced the fact that Indians, whether recognized by the state or not, were permanently branded an underclass that forced them into separate schools, separate communities, and separate nodes of power.
The legacy of this separate and unequal status is profound. Not just for Virginia, but for the entire United States. Indian children were forced into separate schools that were designed to “civilize” them and pushed assimilation rather than education. Today, about 17 percent of American Indian students pursue education beyond college. Literacy, graduation, and persistence rates vary for students based on whether they attend traditional public schools or Native schools. However, efforts to address challenges to educational excellence often depend on which children are deemed deserving of a quality education. Data from the Government Accountability Office show that Indian students are subjected to higher rates of discipline and punishment than other students. These early interactions with law enforcement have lasting effects as arrest and incarceration rates for Indian residents have increased in certain areas. Similarly, a fascinating study by The Guardian shows that American Indians have a higher likelihood of being killed by law enforcement than any other racial or ethnic group in the United. Over the last five years, we’ve also seen a marked increase in the number of young Indians dying at the hands of law enforcement. The dramatically higher rates of depression, poverty, addiction, homelessness, and violence reflect a sense of social indifference to the challenges faced by Indian communities. This separate and unequal approach to justice mirrors longstanding battles to determine whose lives are protected and whose are expendable.
As Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren celebrated the fact that she, like many, many other Americans has Indian ancestry, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a devastating ruling that allows state officials in North Dakota to actively discriminate against Indian voters. In 1884, the Supreme Court ruled against the petition of John Elk to earn the right to vote in local elections. Elk had denounced his tribal affiliation, moved to the city of Omaha, and worked hard to fully participate as an American citizen. After being denied the ability to register to vote, Elk argued that the denial of Indian voting undermined the Equal Protections embedded in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court decided that Elk was not a citizen, could never become a citizen, and in turn, was not entitled to participate in elections. Although the case was struck down forty years later, it set in motion state level efforts to weaken the citizenship standing of Indian communities.
