A case before the U.S. Supreme Court has Native Americans in Utah and other states concerned the outcome could revive the centuries-old practice of separating indigenous children from their families.

The court will decide the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act. The 1978 law ended the practice of forcibly placing native children in nonnative homes or in "Indian boarding schools" to assimilate them into white culture.

Dozens of tribes and ACLU chapters have filed briefs, urging the high court to uphold the Act.

Heather Tanana, assistant professor of law at the University of Utah, said many families who adopted native children believed they were saving them from growing up "uncivilized."

"They would take kids away on this assumption that the environment they were growing up in was unsafe," Tanana explained. "To the contrary, this connection to your family, to your tradition and culture has positive health and mental health outcomes."

The plaintiffs, a Texas family blocked from adopting a native child, claim the law unfairly bestows rights on tribal nations not provided to other racial minorities. Indigenous leaders fear a reversal could significantly change the way the federal government deals with tribal nations on major issues.

Tanana is a citizen of the Navajo Nation who said the Act establishes a legal preference that native children who are removed from their homes must first be placed with extended family members or in native foster homes. She said some state legislatures have begun extending protections for native families.

"Many states are proceeding with having their own state ICWA statutes," Tanana pointed out. "In fact, Utah is in the process of putting together its ICWA statute. Many of them incorporate federal provisions, and then other states even go a step beyond and have more protections."

Tanana added the case turns on whether treating native tribes as sovereign nations is a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.

The federal government has always recognized tribes as sovereign nations, thus the political distinction. They interact with tribes on a government-to-government basis, and they do not do so with any other racial group.

A new survey of Native American teens and young adults highlights a growing preference for the term "Indigenous" rather than being referred to as "American Indian."

Researchers from the Aspen Institute's Center for Native American Youth surveyed close to 1,000 Native Americans under age 24, including a large contingent from California.

Cheyenne Runsabove, associate director of youth programs at the center, said the term "Native American" is still dominant.

"Fifty-three percent of Native youth prefer the word 'Native American,' and only 7% prefer the word 'American Indian,'" Runsabove reported. "We continue to see that 7% going down, and what we continue to see uptick is the word 'Indigenous.'"

The report, called "Center Us," also found many Native youths are apathetic toward U.S. elections and disappointed in the rate of change. It also found Native youth who feel culturally educated are four times more likely to see themselves as capable of making a difference than those who do not.

Runsabove pointed out culture is identity for Native youth and noted more than 60% of California Native youth said they feel either moderately, a lot, or a great deal culturally educated.

"Language, history, stories, connection to land, all of those things are at the core of identity for Native youth," Runsabove explained. "And so, we have to be mindful of their true cultural identities."

The survey noted big differences between young people in urban areas versus small towns and reservations, when it comes to the availability of culturally-informed health care, after-school programs and money for college.


get more stories like this via email

The idea of revoking military medals awarded to soldiers at the Wounded Knee Massacre has gained traction recently, but some expect that to stop during the next administration.

During the 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre that took place on the present-day Pine Ridge Reservation, 25 U.S. Army men died and hundreds of Lakota people were killed.

Nineteen Army men involved were awarded Medals of Honor, the military's highest award.

Some say revoking military medals is a slippery slope, but others argue that recipients need to deserve the distinction.

On a South Dakota Humanities Council panel last week, Retired U.S. Army Major, professor, and military historian Dwight Mears said letting the awards stand is "objectively pretty offensive."

"Because," said Mears, "it inverted what essentially amounted to many, many crimes committed at Wounded Knee into an act of emulation, right?"

Various groups and lawmakers have called on the U.S. to reconcile this since the 1970s.

Mears said as the law stands now, Medals of Honor come strictly from the executive branch - and he said he doesn't expect any revocations to happen under President-elect Donald Trump.

In August, U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds - R-SD - and Sen. Elizabeth Warren - D-MA - asked that the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defense to allow more time for the review process.

But historian Brad Tennant said the event's historic nature makes that difficult.

Even the number of Lakota people who were killed is unclear. Estimates range from about 150 to more than 300.

"I think that's going to be the biggest challenge, to get beyond the guessing game and look at the reality," said Tennant. "Here we have a situation where several hundred individuals were killed and approximately two-thirds of them were women and children."

A U.S. Department of the Interior panel heard testimony from Lakota people and others in Rapid City in September.




get more stories like this via email

Montana has joined a coalition of Indigenous groups working to address Canadian coal mining pollution in the state's Kootenai River.

The International Joint Commission, formed in 1909, works to settle boundary waters differences between the U.S. and Canada. It has formed a governance body to take on the issue.

Tom McDonald, vice chair of the Salish and Kootenai Tribal Council, based on western Montana's Flathead reservation, said Canadian coal mines have been polluting the Kootenai for more than a century.

"To the point where the fisheries in Montana, as the watershed drains into Montana from Canada, it's caused fish to be deformed," McDonald explained. "Our native fish, like bull trout."

McDonald pointed out after years of stalled talks with Canada, the binational governance body will establish a cleanup plan for the 18,000-square-mile watershed over the next two years. One of the group's members is from Montana.

McDonald noted the runoff has affected the Kootenai River for nearly 400 miles into Montana and Idaho, and added the tribes finally resorted to involving the International Joint Commission to help. He emphasized selenium levels from the Canadian mines have reached the point where tribal members, who subsist on the fish in the river, cannot eat it.

"We don't know how far it's going into the food web," McDonald stressed. "We've been asking for Canada to fix the problem, enforce their regulatory laws against the coal mines, and they just haven't been able to do that. It's just elevated every year, and they keep expanding and getting bigger."

The Canadian company NWP Coal is proposing a new mine in the same watershed as the existing coal mines. The company claims its project will not increase selenium contamination but does not address the current pollution issue.


get more stories like this via email