The sun rose dim on us in the morning, and at night it sunk in a dark cloud, and looked like a ball of fire. That was the last sun that rose on Black Hawk. His heart is dead, and no longer beats quick in his bosom. He is now a prisoner to the white men; they will do with him as they wish. . . . Farewell, my nation!
- BLACK HAWK, Sauk

Iroquois do not wish to be subjects of any foreign nation . . . . We ask only to be left to our way and our traditions. We want the same freedom for ourselves that the whites wanted when they fled European tyranny.
- CLINTON RICKARD, Tuscarora

What we're trying to do here is to recreate a nation that was gutted by statehood in 1907. It isn't easy, and we don't always have the answers, but we're going to do it. If you look at Cherokee history and all the things that have happened to us over the years, you'll see that after every upheaval, we've managed to land on our feet. We're resilient and tenacious, and someday our communities will be whole again.
- WILMA MANKILLER, Cherokee

Native Americans entered the twentieth century weary from four centuries of fighting the invasion of their lands and cultures. Many Indian leaders believed their people were a dying race and questioned whether they would even see the turn of the century. In his famous 1854 oration, Chief Seattle says:

It matters little where we pass the remnant of our days. They will not be many. The Indian's night promises to be dark. Not a single star of hope hovers above his horizon. Sad-voiced winds moan in the distance. Grim fate seems to be on the Red Man's trail, and wherever he will hear the approaching footsteps of his fell destroyer and prepare stolidly to meet his doom, as does the wounded doe that hears the approaching footsteps of the hunter. A few more moon, a few more winters, and not one of the descendants of the mighty hosts that once moved over this broad land or lived in happy homes, protected by the Great Spirit, will remain to mourn over the graves of a people once more powerful and hopeful than yours. (Native Net)

With their population and their food supply decimated, Indians had become completely dependent on the government for survival. Unfortunately for the Indians, they were at the mercy of a government which did not believe there was anything about the Native American heritage that was worth retaining. The U.S. government operated on the premise that the "Indian problem" would not be solved until there were no more identifiable Indians (Hirschfelder and de Montano 23).

The most destructive legislation affecting Native Americans, the Dawes General Allotment Act, was passed in 1887 and would shape the state of Native America in the first half of the twentieth century. The act ignored Indian land use patterns that were thousands of years old, intending to assimilate Indians into white America by making them individual land owners. It assigned 160 acres to each head of a family, 40 acres to each of the head of the family's children, and 80 acres to each unmarried Indian over the age of 18. By introducing private ownership to the Indian, a concept which Indians did not understand, government officials were able to finagle land away from individual Indians, gradually passing the land into white hands. Approximately 138 million acres of land belonged to the Indians prior to this Act, but 45 years later, only 48 million acres remained in Indian possession (Burnette 26). When the Indian Reorganization Act, which finally terminated the destructive Dawes Act, was passed in 1934, it encouraged tribes to "create constitutions, by-laws, and systems of self-government" (Burnette 26).

Although the intentions of the Indian Reorganization Act were good, as Indians preferred to be left to govern themselves, in practice the results spelled disaster because of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Despite the Grant administration's crusade against corruption in the 1870s, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was thoroughly corrupt, and the Indians were at their mercy. The Indians depended on the government for their survival, since all their traditional means of subsistence by now had been exhausted. The BIA administered Indian affairs in a manner reminiscent of the white government in South Africa under apartheid. BIA policemen could enter an Indian's home without a warrant, for the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution were not considered applicable to Indians (Burnette 27). Forbidden were the wearing of long lair by males, face painting of both sexes, wearing Indian dress, dancing, and feasts (Hirschfelder and de Montano 22). Indian children were ripped away from their families and taken to government schools where they were forbidden to speak their language in the classroom. Any profit obtained from land owned by an Indian went into a trust controlled by the BIA, and Indians were not allowed to sell their own land without the express written permission of the BIA (Burnette 27). Punishments for disobeying BIA dictates included the withholding of rations or imprisonment with hard labor. Indians were not only unable to fight on the battlefield, but unable to fight in court as well. Although Indians had become U.S. citizens under the Snyder Act of 1924, they were excluded, as untaxed individuals living on reservations, from Article I of the U.S. Constitution (Burnette 27).

In 1953, the Eisenhower administration introduced what was to be the solution to the "Indian problem"-the termination policy. All United States services to the Indian tribes would be terminated, and the tribes would be given money instead. It was to ensure the Indian's instant assimilation into white America. The reservations would be disbanded and the Indian tribes would find themselves under the jurisdiction of state authorities in civil and criminal matters. The tribes that accepted this offer found their reservations instantly infested with unscrupulous businessmen. The Indians knew nothing about business, but had extra money in their pockets and land to sell. This combination spelled disaster. Tribes that had been somewhat wealthy found themselves destitute overnight. In addition, many tribes refused to accept the government's offer.

By the end of the 1950s, Indian resistance and public pressure caused the government to abandon its termination policy. It had become clear that termination "resulted in further impoverishment, land loss, and insupportable costs to state and local units of government" (Hirschfelder and de Montano 30). In the 1960s, Indian policy turned toward self-determination, or self-government. American Indians, "seeking to reverse 150 years of repressive and vacillating federal policies, fought to re-establish Indian reservations as substantially independent, economically viable communities" (Hirschfelder and de Montano 34). Encouraged by the gains Black Americans received as a result of the civil rights movement, Indians in the 1960s and 1970s became more vocal and adamant concerning their rights.

The formation of the American Indian Movement (AIM) in the late 1960s led to active protests. In 1969, AIM took over Alcatraz Island and occupied it for 14 months. The occupiers released "The Alcatraz Proclamation" in an attempt to illustrate to the public how the Indians had been treated:

We, the native Americans, reclaim the land known as Alcatraz Island in the name of all American Indians by right of discovery. We wish to be fair and honorable in our dealings with the Caucasian inhabitants of this land, and hereby offer the following treaty: We will purchase said Alcatraz Island for twenty-four dollars in glass beads and red cloth, a precedent set by the white man's purchase of a similar island about 300 years ago. We know that twenty-four dollars in trade goods for these sixteen acres is more than was paid when Manhattan Island was sold, but we know that land values have risen over the years. Our offer of $1.24 per acre is greater then the $0.47 per acre the white men are now paying the California Indians for their lands. We will give the inhabitants of this island a portion of the land for their own to be held in trust . . . by the Bureau of Caucasian Affairs . . . in perpetuity-as long as the sun shall rise and the rivers do down to sea. We will further guide the inhabitants in the proper way of living. We will offer them our religion, our education, our life-ways in order to help them achieve our level of civilization and thus raise them and all their white brothers up from their savage and unhappy state. (Native Net)

AIM took over the BIA building in Washington, DC from November 2-6, 1972, and then Wounded Knee II erupted in 1973. For 71 days, AIM occupied the site of the 1890 massacre, surrounded by 200 FBI agents and federal marshals with armored personnel carriers, airplanes, and helicopters (Parman 158). The impact of all three occupations was meager, for government promises to investigate grievances were merely face-saving devices (Parman 159). Additionally, media coverage of the events did not capture the nation's attention. On one hand, the Indians made the mistake of occupying Alcatraz and Wounded Knee for too long, and the story eventually became old news (Parman 158). On the other hand, the media tends to slant coverage of such events to please their audience. Americans do not want to see shows that make them feel guilty about their country's history, and since they are often uninformed about Indian history, they tend to view Indian claims as preposterous (Mander 202).

During the 1970s, Indians began going to court to argue their treaty rights and reclaim their land. Fish-ins had become common in disputes over Indian treaty fishing rights, disputes which dated back to the late nineteenth century. Indians also began demanding that their water rights be protected. Increasingly, the courts recognized the Indians claims, as every treaty signed between the government and Indians remains in effect to this day, and therefore Indians have won a majority of their cases. The 1970s also saw important legislation passed such as the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (1975), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978), the Indian Child Welfare Act (1978), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979).

During the 1980s, the Supreme Court affirmed tribal sovereignty which "gave Indian people the right to control land, natural resources, economic development, law and order, education, and health within tribal boundaries" (Hirschfelder and de Montano 35). This significant gain for Native Americans quickly came into jeopardy during the Reagan administration. Many Indians became nervous when Reagan, as a presidential candidate, was asked what famous lives he wished he had lived. Reagan responded that he had always been "fascinated by those who saw this new world-Cortés, Lewis and Clark, Father Serra-when it was virtually untouched by man" (Nabokov 405). In Reagan's first inaugural speech, he praised "the brave pioneers who tamed the empty wilderness" (Mander 197). In office, Reagan hurt Native Americans as he did all poor Americans. In 1983 alone, Indian aid was slashed by one-third, from 3.5 billion to 2 billion (Nabokov 406). Reagan vetoed most bills that crossed his desk that called for cash settlements to tribes. Reagan waited until he was on his way out of office to virtually declare war on the Indian people with the following statement, which was in response to a student in Moscow asking Reagan how the United States could justify its Indian policy:

Maybe we made a mistake in trying to maintain Indian cultures. Maybe we should not have humored them in wanting to stay in that kind of primitive life-style. Maybe we should have said, "No, come join us. Be citizens along with the rest of us." (Nabokov 405)

Indian leaders were appalled by Reagan's words, and the White House had to implement some hasty damage control, claiming that Reagan just meant that the United States did not oppose assimilation (Nabokov 405). Unconvinced, Indians asked how the President of the United States, a student of history, could not know that Indians had become citizens by law in 1924. Susan Harjo, head of the National Congress of American Indians, summed it up when she said, "[Reagan] has headed the worst administration for Indians since the days of outright warfare and termination" (Nabokov 405).

Reaganism hurt Native Americans, but by then they had learned to play the game to survive. In the early 1980s, "Indians stunned everyone by imaginatively exploiting the white man's get-rich-quick ethic and their own freedom from state-taxation" by initiating Indian gambling (Nabokov 407). The Seminole tribe of Florida was the first tribe to enter into the gaming industry in 1979, and by 1982, their bingo operation was annually netting $2.7 million (Utter 134). By 1987, almost 50 tribes were running bingo parlors, bringing in more then $250 million annually, and that year the Supreme Court told the states to keep their hands off Indian gaming for good (Nabokov 407).

Indian gaming is the most politically charged Indian issue of the later part of the twentieth century. Some oppose the allowance of illegal activities on reservations, arguing that there is nothing to stop them from engaging in other illegal activities, such as drug dealing. However, the billions of dollars that Indian gaming is now pulling in is being used for schools, home rehabilitation services, and emergency assistance programs (Utter 137). Would the opponents of Indian gaming feel the same way if they lived on an Indian reservation? A September 1992 New York Times article gave their readers a taste of reservation life when it stated that the Sioux Pine Ridge reservation led the nation in poverty. The Pine Ridge reservation "is disheveled, potholed and dusty" the article reported. "None of the 15 miles of roads have names, and a third are unpaved. There is no train, bus, bank, theater, clothing store, drug store, barber shop, restaurant, place to get a car fixed or home delivery of mail" (32L).

In fact, the poor state of Indian reservations was what prompted AIM to choose Alcatraz Island as its occupation site in 1969. According to AIM, as stated in the Proclamation, Alcatraz resembled a typical reservation:

We feel that this so-called Alcatraz Island is more than suitable for an Indian reservation, as determined by the white man's own standards. By this, we mean that this place resembles most Indian reservations in that:

1. It is isolated from modern facilities, and without adequate means of transportation.

2. It has no fresh running water.

3. It has inadequate sanitation facilities.

4. There are no oil or mineral rights.

5. There is no industry and so unemployment is very great.

6. There are no health-care facilities.

7. The soil is rocky and non-productive, and the land does not support game.

8. There are no educational facilities.

9. The population has always exceeded the land base.

10. The population has always been held as prisoners and kept dependent upon others. (Matthiessen 37)

Reservations are in bad shape because they lie on the most unproductive land in the nation. As the original Indian land base was decimated by the encroachment of the whites, the settlers took the best lands for themselves, and the invasion did not stop until only worthless land remained for Indian use. However, in recent years, land that was once considered useless by the whites, and therefore left to the Indians, suddenly became valuable again when rich mineral deposits were found. This has led to a new assault on Indians, as what little land they can call their own continues to be exploited. Well-know Indian activist Russell Means explains:

Right now, today, we who live on the Pine Ridge Reservation are living in what white society has designated a "National Sacrifice Area." What this means is that we have a lot of uranium deposits here, and white culture (not us) needs this uranium as energy production material. The cheapest, most efficient way for industry to extract and deal with the processing of this uranium is to dump the waste by-products right here at the digging sites. Right here where we live. This waste is radioactive and will make the entire region uninhabitable forever. This is considered by industry, and by the white society that created this industry, to be an "acceptable" price to pay for energy resource development. Along the way, they also plan to drain the water table under this part of South Dakota as part of the industrial process, so the region becomes doubly uninhabitable. The same sort of thing is happening down in the land of the Navajo and Hopi, up in the land of the Northern Cheyenne and Crow, and elsewhere. . . . We are resisting being turned into a National Sacrifice Area. We are resisting being turned into a National Sacrifice people. The costs of this industrial process are not acceptable to us. It is genocide to dig uranium here and drain the water table-no more, no less. (Matthiessen 515)

Gaming is currently the best chance Indians have to lift themselves out of this state of poverty, defend themselves against further invasion of their lands, and be truly self-sufficient. The government has demonstrated time and again that they do not act in the best interests of Indian peoples. In 1988, Senator John McCain, Vice Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, addressed the Indian gaming issue in his Senate report:

Some members of Congress, including myself, have stated that they would rather see Tribes involved in other revenue raising activities. We must ask ourselves, however, if we have provided Tribes with sufficient opportunities to generate non-gaming revenues and thereby allow Tribes to increase their economic self-sufficiency. The answer is a resounding no. We have not done enough. Once this gaming debate is over, I challenge those involved in this debate to devote their energies toward increasing long-term economic development opportunities for Indian tribes. (Utter 139)

A more recent example of the importance of Indian gaming revenues to Native Americans involves the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI). The Smithsonian Institution opened the New York City NMAI on October 30, 1994, and plans to open the Washington, DC NMAI in the year 2000. But the NMAI has recently received a blow from Congress, as the House subcommittee that oversees appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution targeted the NMAI in its downsizing efforts. A March 11, 1995 Washington Post article reported that the subcommittee had voted to rescind nearly $23 million that had already been approved for the project in the 1995 budget (H6). A hearing on March 10, according to the Post, gave Smithsonian Secretary I. Michael Heyman the opportunity to make a case for NMAI. Heyman told the subcommittee that the Smithsonian views the rescission and potential desertion of the Mall museum with real alarm, that backing off from the project would break the institution's promise to the American Indian community (H6). Heyman also pointed out that the museum's fund-raising campaign already has $26 million in cash and pledges, of the $35.5 million it is obliged to raise (H6). Ten million of the $26 million was donated to the campaign by the Mashantucket Pequot tribe of Connecticut on October 24, 1994 (Agent and St. Thomas 1). Before Indian gaming existed, no tribe could have made a donation such as this to any cause. And since the government is threatening to eliminate its support of this immensely important project, a project that has the potential to educate millions of Americans about Indian peoples, the monetary contributions of the Indians themselves become even more important. Although many twentieth century events in Native American history have occurred in the past 30 years, and therefore would not be included in many of the previously used textbooks, most of the older textbooks did not mention twentieth century events at all. The last time Indians are mentioned in Exploring Our Country (1965), the railroads were being built: "In the West, Indians were always a danger. Every worker kept his rifle handy. He was ready at a moment's notice to drop his shovel and pick up his gun whenever the Indians attacked" (342). Earlier in the book, modern Indians were mentioned in a paragraph entitled "Where do the Indians live today?":

Our national government has set aside large tracts of land on which many Indians live. These lands are called Indian Reservations. There are reservations in a number of states.

Today, most of the Indians are farmers. Many of them have attended government schools. Some of them have gone to college and have become nurses, teachers, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, judges, and congressmen. (300)

This excerpt is so generalized that it makes it seem as if Native Americans have no problems. It claims that most Indians are farmers, yet most reservation land does not support agriculture. The occupations that it singles out comprise the minority, and are not representative of the Native American population. Several of the older textbooks have similar accounts.

Living in the United States (1966) presents no information on Indians in the twentieth century. Only in the following paragraph do the authors let the students know that Indians are not relics of the past :

As people continued to come to the New World, they needed room to settle. So they took the Indians' lands and drove them away. Sometimes they forced Indians to work for them. Some Indians died from diseases brought by the Europeans. But many Indians still live in America today. (12)

Five Centuries In America (1966) leaves the student with no question that the Indians were a defeated people by the start of the twentieth century by ending with Chief Joseph's surrender speech, the most quoted of all Indian speeches (Brown 328). According to this textbook, given that Chief Joseph made this speech in 1877, Indians did not exist in the twentieth century. Most of the other previously used textbooks also end Indian history with the Indian wars.

Most of the information presented in this section would be news to school children who depended on their textbooks for information on Native Americans, for there is little improvement in the currently used textbooks. Most discussion of twentieth century Indians in the currently used textbooks appears under the section on the civil rights movement, often appearing under the headers "Others Seek Rights" or "Civil Rights for Other Americans." The United States: Its History and Neighbors (1988) sums up the Indian movement in two sentences: "American Indians organized to achieve the rights they had been granted in earlier treaties. They began to take more control over their lands, their mineral resources, and their education" (509). Most of the textbooks briefly discuss the protests of the 1960s and 1970s, and little more. It appears from its closing paragraph that America: The People and the Dream (1994) views Indian arts and craft as the most important outcome of the protests:

During the 1960s, Indian leaders worked to improve living conditions and to restore pride in their cultural heritage. Dennis Banks founded the American Indian movement (AIM) in 1968. This organization worked for "Red Power" by demanding less government control over Indian affairs and a renewed interest in preserving traditional arts and crafts. Indian students from across America attended the Institute of American Indian arts in Santa Fe, New Mexico. There they learned and performed traditional Indian songs, dances, and crafts. (799)

Earlier in the book, America: The People and the Dream devotes three pages, mostly illustrations, to a discussion of "American Indian Heritage: Today." It discusses the rebirth of the Indian heritage, mostly in terms of powwows and crafts, and discusses none of the important issues concerning Native Americans. The worst textbook in this case is The United States and Its Neighbors (1995) which ends its discussion of Indians with Chief Joseph's surrender speech. The only discussion of modern Native America is a four-page spread on the powwow. Presenting this aspect of modern Native America, exclusive of any other information about contemporary Native Americans, creates a stereotypic image of Indians. There is no excuse for textbooks published in the 1990s to ignore twentieth century Indian history.

The textbooks generally cover early Indian leaders-such as Hiawatha, Powhatan, Massasoit, Tecumseh, Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Chief Joseph, and Geronimo-but virtually ignore twentieth century leaders. Only one book, America: Yesterday and Today, presents information on Wilma Mankiller, the first woman to become principal chief of the Cherokee Nation (although A History of US: All The People mentions her name). Mankiller, in her decade as chief, has presided over the nation's most explosive period of growth-a tripling of the tribe's membership, a doubling of its budget, and the opening of three new healthcare centers (Norman 96). Mankiller is actively trying to preserve the Cherokee language and improve schools:

When people talk to me about education, I talk to them about history. We need to know what we have done before, so that we can do it again, better. I want to reach the young people early enough to help them think well of themselves. I want to reach out before they are lost to us. I want them to grow up proud to be Cherokee, and determined that the Cherokee people will never disappear. (Norman 96)

Another important figure is Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the only Native American currently serving in Congress. Campbell recently made headlines when he switched political parties from Democrat to Republican. A History of US: All The People mentions Campbell but, as with Chief Mankiller, only in passing. No other important Indian leaders are mentioned in any of the textbooks. There are many other, less prominent leaders who could be discussed in addition to Mankiller and Campbell. Matthew King was a Lakota chief who was a well-known spiritual leader, keeper of Red Cloud's peace pipe, and author of the book Wisdomkeepers, which profiles Native American elders (Burns 100). Oren Lyons, an Onondaga Chief, is a political activist concerned with environmental issues who perceives human laws to be in conflict with natural laws (Burns 101). There are many Native American leaders whose wisdom concerning nature and Native American life could enlighten students.

The textbooks that give more comprehensive information on Native Americans are A More Perfect Union (1991), The American Nation (1995), and A History of US: All The People (1995). A More Perfect Union discusses the BIA, BIA schools, poverty, health problems, the Indian Civil Rights act, the Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, and land claims. However, the only subject that is covered in depth is the land claim cases. It mentions BIA schools, but does not mention the devastating effect they had on Indian life. It never mentions allotment or termination, two of the most devastating-and therefore important-policies to affect Native Americans in the twentieth century. Of all the textbooks, The American Nation and A History of US: All The People devote the most information to Native Americans in the twentieth century. They discuss subjects that some of the other textbooks cover, such as AIM, the BIA, land claims, and reservation life. But they are the only textbooks to mention the occupation of Alcatraz and Wounded Knee; Indian control of cultural artifacts; and Indian gaming. A History of US: All The People is the only textbook to mention the BIA building occupation and fish-ins. The American Nation is the only textbook to discuss termination, the Indian Education Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. However, like the other textbooks, both books do not go into much detail. Students will not understand why these events took place if more information about them is not presented. Additionally, A History of US: All The People presents all of this information, not as part of a chapter, but as a shaded box, an aside. Until the textbooks start granting modern Native American issues more prominence in the textbooks, students are not going to view Indian issues as very important. Native American issues currently on the forefront that the textbooks do not even mention include the quest to build the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, DC, the destruction of natural resources on the reservations, and the struggle to free Leonard Peltier.

It is no wonder that the textbooks do not cover the case of Leonard Peltier, given their aversion to controversy. Leonard Peltier is an AIM activist who is currently serving two life sentences in Leavenworth federal prison for allegedly murdering two FBI agents. The two agents were killed in a June 26, 1975 shootout on the Pine Ridge reservation that inspired the biggest search in FBI history. Peltier has been in prison for 20 years, despite the fact that his prosecutors dismissed as worthless the testimony of the only person ever to claim to have witnessed Peltier's participation in the killings-a witness who later admitted to incriminating Peltier under the duress of FBI investigators-and the real murderer has confessed to the killings (Matthiessen xx). This case is an embarrassment to the American nation, as the evidence has been clearly presented in print, television, and film, that Peltier was set up. In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, written by Peter Matthiessen and originally published in 1983, was yanked off the shelves two months after its release and did not reappear until 1991. The epilogue to the re-released book explains the reason:

The author and The Viking Press-and also some South Dakota booksellers-were sued for libel by former governor William Janklow for $24 million. In January 1984, both author and publisher and attorney Bruce Ellison were sued by Special Agent David Price of the FBI for $25 million. . . . Both suits were intended mainly as chastisement and harassment as well as a means of keeping this book out of circulation. (565)

It took eight years of litigation, eight court decisions-going all the way to the Supreme Court-to determine that the book was free of libel. It is understandable why the FBI wanted to prevent the publication of this book, as it presents the Peltier case in 588 pages of detail and, based on the author's interviews with 60 persons involved, incriminates the FBI.

Peltier's continued incarceration serves as a symbol for all indigenous people fighting the destruction of their cultures. Literally millions of individuals and organizations worldwide have sent letters and signed petitions demanding executive clemency for Peltier, myself included. An excerpt of my January 20, 1993 letter to President Clinton, which includes information based on my own research and information I received over the internet discussion group on indigenous issues, Native Net, follows:

I am writing as a concerned American citizen to express my deep concern and anger over the continuing incarceration of Leonard Peltier, a Native American leader who has been jailed for two consecutive life terms for a crime he evidently did not commit. As documented in the overwhelmingly detailed book by Peter Matthiessen, In The Spirit of Crazy Horse, as well as a segment on the television program 60 Minutes, and in the recent feature-length documentary Incident at Ogalala, there is compelling evidence that Mr. Peltier was framed for the crime for which he was convicted. The real murder of the FBI agents has been found; he confessed on the 60 Minutes program and to Mr. Matthiessen, and his testimony is included in Incident at Ogalala.

During the Bush administration, both Mr. Matthiessen and Senator Inouye, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, said that Mr. Peltier's fate was in the hands of the President. Mr. Peltier's legal remedies are apparently exhausted. When Mr. Bush was in office, he was asked by Senator Inouye to consider a reduction of Mr. Peltier's sentence to time served, a commutation of his sentence, or a Presidential pardon. Former-President Bush did not grant this request.

Mr. Peltier's case is a clear abuse of human rights, and the United States government should not let an abuse of human rights stand one day longer. . .

President Clinton responded on March 29, 1993:

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me concerning Mr. Leonard Peltier. Mr. Peltier's case is now being considered by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and it would be inappropriate for me to intervene in ongoing workings of our judicial system. We must have faith in our judicial system to right any wrong that may have occurred. The pardon attorney at the Justice Department is aware of this case.

Two years later, Peltier is still incarcerated. Jim Vander Wall, author of "A Warrior Caged: The Continuing Struggle of Leonard Peltier," says:

The U.S. government has made Leonard Peltier an example of how far it is willing to go to destroy a movement [AIM] which is committed to defending the rights of indigenous peoples. The case provides a clear message that the alleged protections of civil and human rights under U.S. law are fictional where matters of state security are concerned. The systematic program of political repression of dissidents demonstrated in the Peltier case belies the U.S. government's publicly articulated advocacy of human rights. (306)

Students of American History need to know that this is a case of monumental importance in the Native American community, and the case should not be completely ignored because it makes the U.S. government look bad. The U.S. government looked bad because it practiced legalized slavery in its early years, but that information is not kept from students. The difference between slavery and the Peltier case is that slavery has been abolished and denounced as a grave mistake, and Leonard Peltier still sits in jail. The American History textbooks will only cover righted wrongs, and since much of the wrongs inflicted on Native Americans in the twentieth century have not been righted, the textbooks virtually ignore twentieth century Indian issues. Today's Indian issues are highly controversial, but by presenting controversial issues, textbook publishers will teach students to handle controversy as they become adults.

	Exploring Our Country	Living in the Americas	Living in the United States	Five Centuries in America	Liberty and Union	America! America!	The American People	America Past and Present	Our Country's History	The US: Past, Purpose and Promise
Granted right to vote	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	Y	N	N
Granted citizenship	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	Y
Indian Reorganization Act	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N
Bureau of Indian Affairs	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N
Termination Policy	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
education of Indians	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
break up of families	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Indians in the World Wars	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
self-determination	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N	N	N	N	N	N
American Indian Movement	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N	Y	N	Y	N	N
Alcatraz Occupation	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N	N	N	N	N
BIA Building Occupation	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N	N	N	N	N
Wounded Knee II	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	Y	N	N	N	N
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N	N	N	N
American Indian Religious Freedom Act	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N	N	N	Y
Archaeological Resources Protection Act	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N	N	N	N
Fish-ins	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N	N	N	N
Land dispute cases	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	Y	N	N	N
Tribal sovereignty	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N	N	N	N
Exploitation of reservation resources	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N	N	N	N
Indian gaming	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N
National Museum of the American Indian	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Leonard Peltier case	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Ben Nighthorse Campbell	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Chief Wilma Mankiller	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Fig. 13

	America: Yesterday & Today	Exploring America's Heritage	The US: Past to Present	America Will Be	The US & Its Neighbors	The US: Its History & Neighbors	America: People & the Dream	The American Nation	A More Perfect Union	A History of US
Granted right to vote	N	Y	N	N	N	N	Y	N	Y	N
Granted citizenship	N	Y	Y	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y	N
Indian Reorganization Act	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	Y	N	N
Bureau of Indian Affairs	N	N	N	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	N
Termination Policy	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N
education of Indians	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y
break up of families	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N
Indians in the World Wars	N	N	Y	N	N	N	Y	Y	N	N
self-determination	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N
American Indian Movement	Y	N	N	N	N	N	Y	Y	N	Y
Alcatraz Occupation	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	Y
BIA Building Occupation	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
Wounded Knee II	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	Y
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	Y	Y	N
American Indian Religious Freedom Act	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N
Archaeological Resources Protection Act	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	Y
Fish-ins	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
Land dispute cases	N	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y
Tribal sovereignty	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Exploitation of reservation resources	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Indian gaming	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	Y
National Museum of the American Indian	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Leonard Peltier case	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Ben Nighthorse Campbell	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
Chief Wilma Mankiller	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y

Fig. 14

[Home][Previous][Next]