Literature Review

PATTERNS OF AGGRESSION: THE TENSION BETWEEN ASSIMILATION AND SELFDETERMINATION POLICY

Existing literature on Indian housing policy typically details the specifics of a particular policy, such as the Dawes General Allotment Act of 1887, and its impacts on Indian tribes as a silo event. Scholars such as Charles F. Wilkinson and Eric R. Biggs help extend analysis of Indian housing policy beyond a silo event by observing federal Indian policy eras and extract common themes amongst policies. According to Wilkinson and Biggs, Indian housing policy leading up to 1977 is predicated on the foundation of assimilation and separatism. They define assimilations as a means to limit or extinguish altogether the special federaltribal relationship through either rapid or gradual assimilation tactics. Rapid assimilation involves the immediate termination of Indian property rights and the obligation of the federal government’s trust to provide programs or funding to Indian programs. Gradual assimilation involves the process of introducing Indians to non-Indian life, which would gradually influence Indians to actively select to assimilate in non-Indian culture. In regard to separatism, it is framed as a means for Indian Country to exist and assisted by the federal government without being dominated. 43 They argue assimilation rooted policies tend to destroy Indian land and culture, while separatism or self-determination policies tend to preserve Indian rights. On a base level, Wilkinson and Biggs provides an appropriate framework to analyze the impacts of federal Indian housing policy.

SETTLER COLONIALISM: THE UNITED STATES EXPANSION AND THE INDIAN PROBLEM

The expansion of the United States of America from a small English colony in Jamestown to a massive conglomeration of 50 states is intrinsically tied to the dispossession of American Indian land. While scholars Charles F. Wilkinson and Eric R. Biggs put forth the analytical framework of observing patterns of assimilation and self-determination in Indian housing policy. They fall short in connecting federal Indian housing policy to the overall agenda of the United States expansion through dispossession. Outside the field of policy, anthropologist and ethnographer Patrick Wolfe and historian Lorenzo Veracini, introduce the concept of settler colonialism. According to Patrick Wolfe, settler colonialism is a logic of elimination that seeks to destroy to replace. 44 In the context of the formation of the United States and Indians; settler society represents English settlers who are seeking to eliminate or remove Indians from their original land in efforts to reclaim territory for the United States. Thus, by default, the very existence of Indians on land becomes a problem to the United States government as settlers try to expand their territorial claim.

According to Wolfe and Lorenzo, a major difference between colonialism and settler colonialism, is that colonialism is predicated on the notion colonizers attempt to maintain lasting control over a population to extract value in form of labor exploitation (i.e. slavery). In

43 Wilkinson, Charles., & Biggs, Eric. (1977). The Evolution of the Termination Policy. American Indian Law Review, 5(1), 139-184. doi:10.2307/20068014 44 Ibid. Wolfe, Patrick. (2006)

19

contrast, settler colonialism’s ultimate goal is to extinguish itself; the main premise of settler colonialism is for a settler society to replace indigenous populations, who are perceived as a threat to settler expansion. Wolfe deposits a prime example of a settler colonial act, was the 1838 forced relocation of Cherokee Indians from Georgia to Oklahoma, so southern settler society can utilize Cherokee land for slavery and cotton production. 45 The removal of Cherokee Indians from their land in Georgia further illustrates the key principle of settler colonialism is to remove an indigenous population so settler society can take possession of land and establish a society of their own. Another important attribute of settler colonialism is that its “impervious to regime change” and can manifest in multiple forms over time whether it be through genocide, forced relocation, spatial sequestration, assimilation, and other forms of paternalistic control. Additionally, settler society polities can actively shift from repression of indigeneity to its incorporation by recognition as a form of control. For instance, in the United States, Indians are recognized as a distinct population and are given sovereignty, however ultimate dominion of land remains in the power of the settler society. 46

The concept of settler colonialism in relation to Indian housing policy is important to understand because it further helps provide context of why and how anti-Indian federal Indian housing policy is produced and reproduces itself over time. The implications of settler colonialism driven policies for Indian tribes are severe and include loss of land, forced assimilation resulting in loss of culture and/or relocation. 47

LAST PRIORITY: GOV’T AGENCIES DOING THE BARE MINIMUM & LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY

Davis and Ferrell put forth the notion that government agencies, such as HUD and the BIA, lack of commitment to follow through on project and funding implementation contributes to poorly designed Indian housing policies. Davis tries to examine federal reports and treaties from as early as the 1880s following the relocation of Indian tribes to reservations. In the study Davis finds the United States federal government’s acknowledgment of inadequate housing conditions on reservations and promises to multiple tribes in treaties to provide housing support. Davis also highlights the 1912 report from the BIA entitled the Sanitary Homes for Indians and the 1928 Meriam Report, which both outline the dire need of Indian housing support. Davis works critiques federal government agencies inability to provide adequate housing to Indian tribes’ despite over a century of documented reports acknowledging the need to provide adequate housing to tribes. Davis further goes on to critique current and active policies such as NAHASDA. Davis claims NAHASDA’s lack of adequate funding support to assist tribes meet their housing needs follows the 150+ years of government agencies under funding Indian housing programs. 48

Similar to Davis, scholar Susan Ferrell critiques federal government agencies inability to provide adequate housing for Indian tribes. Ferrell studies examine the internal management structures of HUD and the BIA and draws from internal agencies reports to gather insights

45 Ibid. Wolfe, Patrick. (2006) 46 Veracini, Lorenzo. (2011) Introducing, Settler Colonial Studies, DOI:10.1080/2201473X.2011.10648799 47 Ibid. Wolfe, Patrick. (2006) 48 Davis, Virginia. (2002). Discovery of Sorts: Reexamining the Origins of the Federal Indian Housing Obligation. Harvard Blackletter Law Journal, 18, 211-240. 20

on internal inefficiencies. Ferrell’s studies conclude high staff turnover in both the BIA and HUD creates a gap of knowledge on complicated government initiatives needed for housing development. Staff biases and lack of understanding Indian Country challenges leads to poorly designed programs and unforeseen challenges. Lastly historical swings of the federal government support for Indian sovereignty and self-determination vs assimilation has led to an array of inconsistent policy development to support long term success. 49

49 Ferrell, J. Susan. (1995). Indian Housing: The Fourth Decade. St. Thomas Law Review, 7(3), 445-460.

21