Indian Ceremonial Practices -- Dances -- Continuing Religion
Jeff Boscole
"Indians Struggle for their Heritage" The Seattle Times, Nov. 22, 1987, B3
by Marsha King copyright
The atmosphere in the Tulalip ceremonial house on this rainy night
overpowers the senses.
Two roaring fires light the dark; pungent smoke fills the air, stinging the
eyes. Sparks fly up through openings in the high-pitched cedar ceiling like
bright souls to the black, starless sky. Men with painted faces beat on skin
drums. They shake carved sticks called "kuich-meins" tied with hundreds of
rattling deer hooves. Women slap wooden paddles and chant.
A thousand Indians from Washington's coastal tribes -- from babies to
grandmothers wrapped in blankets -- gathered on the Tulalip reservation
last week (note date at top) to bid farewell to Fred Cayou Sr., a Swinomish
Indian who died four years ago. They came to sing Cayou's "Seyowen" song
one last time, then send it to join him in the spirit world on the other side.
It was a second burial of sorts, and a spiritual catharsis for Cayou's
family. According to tradition, after this night they would mourn no more.
For decades, traditional Indian rituals like the Cayou memorial were deemed
heathen and outlawed in the United States. Government agents punished and
imprisoned practitioners. Indian children, taken from their homes, were
placed in boarding schools and taught to forget their heritage. Missionaries
ardently set out to Christianize their parents.
The native religions went underground. Believers buried their masks and
ceremonial regalia. The ceremonial houses fell into disrepair. Only through
secret rituals in private homes or the deep backwoods did the old ways survive.
The Cayou family was one that kept the religion alive.
Though restrictions were loosened through the years, Congress did not
repudiate the suppression until 1978, with the American Indian Religious
Freedom Act.
_A BINDING OF OLD WOUNDS_
This weekend, regional church leaders apologized to Northwest native Americans
for Christianity's part in their persecution. The gesture is an attempt to
bind up old wounds.
"It's something that needs to be done," says the Rev. Dr. William Cate,
president of the Church Council of Greater Seattle, who believes too many
Christians consider Indian religion inferior to their own.
In the Tulalip ceremonial smokehouse, the Indians carried pictures of Cayou
around the room while chanting with great dignity in slow procession. There
were two images: Cayou -- the handsome soldier in an army uniform; and
Cayou -- the Indian painted on a drum.
Young initiates of the smokehouse religion, considered too fragile in spirit,
were not permitted to gaze at his pictures.
"The person who has died might take their power from them," explains Maxine
Williams, aunt to Cayou. "They're not strong enough to hang onto it."
Indians say these traditional rituals are enjoying a revival in the Northwest,
especially among younger people who are turning to their elders to rediscover
the language, the ancient ceremonies, the lost sense of themselves.
"We can safely say there are 4,000 to 5,000 Seyowen people in the Northwest,"
says Williams, who claims both Swinomish and Samish ancestry. Seyowen or the
smokehouse religion is one of about five Native American religions practiced
in this region. Many have strong Christian ties. At the family's request,
a Catholic priest opened the Tulalip smokehouse ceremony saying the
"Our Father" and passing out rosaries.
Traditionalists center their beliefs in strength and purity of body and mind
which comes from the right relationship with Mother Earth.
_QUEST FOR A PURE PLACE_
"The outdoors or nature is our temple," says Sam Cagey, an elder of the
Lummi tribe. "We need a pure, clean place for questing and seeking a vision,
but now you find garbage, raped areas, all violated."
Still, Cagey knows where to find that purity. He has come deep into the
Mount Baker Forest, to stand in the early snow. Below, a clear creek rushes
over boulders down the mountain.
"We bring our initiates up here," says Cagey, pointing upstream. "For
purification, cleansing and whatever else might come with it."
In winter, the water is so cold "when you get out your body feels like it's
on fire," he says.
A truck pulls up on the dirt road. Dick Green and Dave Oreiro, both Lummis,
have come to kill an elk for a naming ceremony.
"I don't want to kill this elk, but I gotta do it," Green explains. "It's
part of what I believe. It's sort of low down to have turkey or beef on
an Indian table for such an important thing as an Indian naming ceremony."
Green says the woman to be honored searched for years before she finally
found the right Indian name.
Cagey, 63 and suffering from diabetes, grabs a thin walking stick and
unsteadily hikes 20 minutes into the snowy woods to show off an 800-year-old
cedar tree.
According to ancient tradition, every part of the cedar tree is used: bark
for clothing, the trunk for canoes, paddles and spear handles. Even its buds
were medicine.
"What the buffalo was to the Plains Indians, the cedar was to us," says Cagey.
_LAWSUITS FOR SANCTITY_
Some Indians work hard against what they consider threats to their forest
sanctuaries and ancient burial sites.
The fight stretches from the U.S. Supreme Court to Orcas Island. The high
court will hear arguments Nov. 30 (1987) in "Lyng vs. the Northwest Indian
Cemetery Protective Association," a California sacred-sites case. he
dispute lies over the Department of Agriculture's plans to put a road through
a national forest area which Indians claim is a sacred "high ground."
On Orcas, the Lummi tribe is negotiating with Northwest Building Corp. over
development of Madrona Point. The Indians believe the site is an ancient
burial ground, though an archeologist hired by the development corporation
could find no scientific evidence of such use.
The Indians explain their ancestors were interred in canoes amidst the tree
branches, destroyed by a fire a century ago. What remains are their
ancestors' spirits.
The corporation is willing to cooperate with the Lummis, says project manager
Wayne Reisenauer, and may sell the land to the Indians if they can come up
with $2 million.
Some say even when evidence proves that Indians worshipped a particular place,
the Christian society has difficulty accepting the validity of that worship.
As Ralph Johnson, professor of Indian law at the University of Washington,
puts it: "If Christ had been crucified on a cross on a mountain in Kansas,
you can bet your boots nobody would be logging it. The Judeo-Christian society
has great difficulty believing the Indians can be worshiping something that
doesn't fit the pattern of Christian religion."
In the past five years, court cases over sacred sites have gone both ways.
"The courts have been split," says Johnson. "Some courts have said Indians
are entitled to preservation of timber and stopping Forest Service roads
because it interferes with their religious freedom. Other courts take the
opposite view."
The Forest Service, trying to comply with the American Indian Religious Freedom
Act, has worked with tribes to inventory sacred sites within the Mt. Baker-
Snoqualmie National Forest. When activities such as road building might
disturb these areas, the Forest Service consults with the Indians.
"That's working pretty well, from our side anyway," says Doug MacWilliams,
forest supervisor.
Activists with the Lummi tribe disagree.
"They've walked into tribes and said, 'These are your options. Pick one or
we'll go on without you,'" says Kurt Russo, a white employee of the Lummi
tribe for the last 10 years.
Tribes eagerly await the Forest Service's draft land-management plan due out
next month. Open for a 90-day public comment period, the plan will suggest
various alternatives for managing the 1.7 million-acre forest over the next
10 to 15 years. That includes balancing Indian needs with other groups'
desires.
Somehow, Indian passion over old trees, pure creeks and undisturbed grave
sites makes more sense by the light of the fire in the smokehouse.
Before the memorial, the family of Fred Cayou prepared for four days and
nights, singing with and counseling each other. To strengthen their power,
the younger generation journeyed to the mountains to cleanse themselves at
private places along the rivers and creeks.
"It's important to my people to preserve this. It's all we have left that
the white man has never taken away," Williams says.
In the end, they burned Cayou's cherished belongings -- a drum, paddle jacket,
hair hat and "kuich-mein." Observers were forbidden to look into the fire so
as not to disturb Cayou's spirit coming to claim what was being burned.
Certain believers, chosen for their spiritual strength, sang his song. The
young relatives, releasing their own spirit voice, moaned and sighed out
their sorrow.
According to custom, when the song ended, the family distributed a roomful
of gifts. Then all who wished danced to the drums until dawn.
-------------===============***************================--------------
"Prejudice Recalled: Churches pledge to support Indian spiritual practices"
by Marsha King The Seattle Times, 22 Nov. 1987 copyright
An eloquent apology was extended yesterday to Indian and Eskimo peoples of the
Pacific Northwest by the bishops and leaders of nine Christian denominations.
The document will be mailed to 26 tribes and 1,800 congregations across the
region -- with a request that it be shared this Thanksgiving season.
"Dear Brothers and Sisters," Episcopal Bishop Robert Cochrane read at a
quiet ceremony yesterday. "This is a formal apology on behalf of our churches
for their longstanding participation in the destruction of traditional
Native American spiritual practices."
The declaration was delivered to Indian leaders at a gathering of about 25
people at the corner of First Avenue and Spring Street in Settle, a site
believed to have been an ancient Indian burial ground.
To the noise of city buses and the stares of passersby, Lummi elder Joe
Washington began the event with a prayer and a song.
"The god that we pray to is the same god you pray to," he said.
The apology will be controversial, predicted the Rev. Dr. William Cate,
president of the Church Council of Greater Seattle, which drafted the letter.
"Some people will say we're selling out to paganism, that we ought to be
converting them," said Cate. "There's liable to be quite a little fuss."
But, in his view, it will give American Indians hope "that this society will
become less racist and begin to treat them with more justice."
The church leaders' letter said, "We have frequently been unconscious and
insensitive and have not come to your aid when you have been victimized
by unjust federal policies and practices. In many other circumstances, we
reflected the rampant racism and prejudice of the dominant culture with
which we too willingly identified."
The letter called on Christians to respect traditional Indian ways of life,
and pledged to help protect sacred places and support the right to use
ceremonial objects such as feathers, tobacco, sweet grass and bones.
"As the Creator continues to renew the earth, the plants, the animals and
all living things," the letter said, "we call upon the people of our
denominations and fellowships to a commitment of mutual support in your
efforts to reclaim and protect the legacy of your own traditional spiritual
teachings."
It asked for forgiveness and blessing.
In the past, the church council has supported American Indians in matters of
treaty rights, but Cate said this apology is "fundamental and basic."
It is "a first formal step that will probably frame debate and action at the
national level," said Russell Barsh, a non-Indian attorney who has represented
Indian tribes and been an adviser on American Indian issues to the U.S.
Forest Service and the church council.
This is not the first Christian pledge of support in recent months to Indian
peoples. In September, Pope John Paul II declared to tribal leaders of the
Northwest Territories that the Roman Catholic Church "extols the equal
human dignity of all peoples and defends their right to uphold their own
cultural character, with its distinct traditions and customs."
A good-faith gift of $1,000 will be sent by the church council to the
Native American Rights Fund, an advocacy group in Colorado. The money
will be earmarked for litigation and support of American Indian spiritual
traditions in the Northwest.
Signatures on the document represented these denominations in the Pacific
Northwest: Lutheran Church in America, American Baptist, Christian Church,
Episcopal, United Church of Christ, Catholic, Presbyterian, American Lutheran
Church and the United Methodist Church.
Before signing, church leaders revised the document four times, as they
conferred with their own contacts in the Indian community.
"It had to do with a commitment to providing advocacy and mediation," explained
Jon Magnuson, co-chair of the church council's American Indian task force.
"They didn't want to say something they couldn't deliver."
The apology was proposed last March in a letter to the Church Council from
Lummi activist Jewell Praying Wolf James.
Persecutions from the past, and continuing conflicts, plagued him.
"If we're going to have a long-term relationship, we need to start with a
clean slate," James says he told himself. His idea grew after seeing a
1969 report from the Anglican Church of Canada, which acknowledged the
problems of Canadian Indians and the complicity of missionaries, and
called for solutions.
James wrote to the church council:
"As you know, the Lummi tribe, like other tribes in the United States, has
in the past been subject to both persecution and prosecution for practicing
its traditional Indian religion." The potlatch was banned. Indian people --
including religious leaders -- were jailed, the James letter said.
Indeed, according to a 1921 circular from the Office of Indian Affairs:
"The Sun Dance and all other similar dances and so-called religious
ceremonies are considered Indian offenses under existing regulations and
corrective penalties are provided."
"Indian people are still struggling to maintain their traditional beliefs
and practices," James wrote.
Access to sacred sites, required for bathing and spiritual quests, is limited
by logging and development, leaving "us little ground to find the purity,
privacy and isolation we require," he said.
"What is required is a new beginning," wrote James, "...that is a declaration
on the part of the Christian community that mistakes, misunderstandings and
injustices have occurred in the past with respect to Indian religion."
Jewell James said he was shocked that the churches responded, but he greeted
their letter with great pleasure and hope.
"It kind of restores faith in all the possibilities," he said.
-------------===============*****************===============----------------
Excerpted from: The American Indian Religion Act Report P.L. 95-341,
Federal Agencies Task Force; Chairman, Cecil D. Andrus,
Secretary of the Interior, August 1979.
I. _Introduction - Historical overview_
A missionary once undertook to instruct a group of Indians
in the truths of his holy religion. He told them of the
creation of the earth in six days, and of the fall of our
first parents by eating an apple.
The courteous savages listened attentively, and, after thanking
him, one related in his turn a very ancient tradition concerning
the origin of the maize. But the missionary plainly showed his
disgust and disbelief, indignantly saying:
"What I delivered to you were sacred truths, but this that
you tell me is mere fable and falsehood!"
(_The Soul of the Indian_ -- Charles Eastman)
_Historical Treatment of Native American Religions_
The incident involving the exchange of creation stories gives an eloquent
testimony to the manner in which non-Indians have generally received the
Indian religious tradition. While proclaiming their own traditions to be
infallible and literal truths, non-Indians have not accorded other religions
the same courtesy. Indeed, Eastman's story continues with the Indians
reproving the missionary for his lack of manners and his violation of the
rules of civility.
The Spanish, uncertain about the theological status of the Natives, and to
make certain that conquests proceeded according to Christian principles,
adopted the famous "Requirement," which had to be read formally to the
Indians they encountered before any hostilities could commence. The
_Requiremento_ began with a brief history of the world since its creation,
continued with an account of the establishment of the Papacy and described
the donation by Pope Alexander IV of the lands then occupied by the Indians
to the kings of Spain. The Indians, after hearing these sacred words, were
supposed to acknowledge the lordship of the kings of Spain and to allow the
Christian faith to be preached to them. Failure to surrender to the Spanish
by the Indian justified whatever cruelties then followed and made the ensuing
war theologically proper. While harsh in the extreme, this formalization of
religious conflict at least had a theological and doctrinal base that Europeans
understood and which Indians came rapidly to understand and abhor.
The Pilgrim Fathers adopted a similar posture. They lacked the absolute
authority which the Papacy gave to the Spanish but consoled themselves
with sermons by John Cotton, Cotton Mather and Increase Mather, or the strong
opinions of William Bradford. Conflict was not long in coming after the
landing of the Pilgrims. When John Robinson wrote to William Bradford in
1623, he expressed great concern about the killing of several Indians:
"Concerning the killing of those poor Indians, of which we heard first by
report, and since by more certain relation. Oh, how happy thing had it
been, if you had converted some before you killed any!" Later, when the whites
of Massachusetts surrounded the principal village of the Pequots and burned it
with all the Indian inhabitants, Bradford was to remark in his _History of
Plymouth Plantation_:
Those that scaped the fire were slaine with sword; some
hewed to peeces, others rune throw with their rapiers, so
as they were quickly dispatchte, and very few escaped. It
was conceived they thus destroyed about 400, at this time.
It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fryer,
and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible
was the stink and sente there of; but the victory seemed
a sweete sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to
God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them, thus to
inclose their enemise in their hands, and give them so
speedy a victory over so proud and insulting an enimie.
Repulsive as this history must be, it is important that it be understood
in the broader historical perspective. The adoption of the United States
Constitution, with its prohibition of any governmental establishment of
religion and guarantees of religious freedom, signified a new sense of
religious maturity greatly transcending previous views of the relationships
of Christians and Natives.
Post-Revolutionary pressures on the tribes east of the Mississippi presented
great difficulties. During the first three-quarters of American political
existence, Christian missionaries were critically important in providing
educational services to the tribes and interceding for them with government
officials. Indeed, the Rev. Samuel Worcester and some other committed
missionaries, learning of the dilemma presented by the Supreme Court decision
in _Cherokee Nation v. Georgia_, which denied the Cherokees standing to
bring a suit against the state, voluntarily accepted the laws of the Cherokees,
thereby suffering arrest and imprisonment by the state and initiating the
companion case, _Worcester v. Georgia_, which upheld the treaty rights of
the tribe.
Involvement of the missionaries in tribal affairs was not on the basis of
Indian religious freedom, but primarily for the purpose of converting
the natives. Freedom of religion became quickly submerged when missionary
endeavors and government policy became synonymous. Andrew Jackson, in his
second Annual Message, described the progress in removing the Five Civilized
Tribes from their homelands in the South and justified the Removal policy
with the optimistic prediction that:
It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with
settlements of whites; free them from the power of the
States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way
and under their own rude institutions; will retard the
progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and
perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the
Government and through the influence of good counsels, to
cast off their savage habits and become an interesting,
civilized, and Christian community.
The coalescense of government and religious goals, which was achieved before
the Civil War, became the predominant theme of interpretation for both churches
and government agencies. Commissioner Taylor, a member of the Indian Peace
Commission of 1867-68, remarked in 1868 in his annual report as
Commissioner of Indian Affairs:
...Assuming that the government has a right and that it is
its duty to solve the Indian question definitely and
decisively, it becomes necessary that it determine at once
the best and speediest method of its solution, and then,
armed with right, to act in the interest of both races.
If might makes right, we are the strong and they the weak;
and we would do no wrong to proceed by the cheapest and
nearest route to the desired ends and could, therefore
justify ourselves in ignoring the natural as well as the
conventional rights of the Indians, if they stand in the way,
and, as their lawful masters, assign them their status and
their tasks, or put them out of their own way and ours by
extermination with the sword, starvation, or by any other method.
But Taylor, recognizing that such a course of action would be a step backwards
unworthy of the United States, argued:
If, however, they have rights as well as we, then clearly
it is our duty as well as sound policy to so solve the
question of their future relations with us and each other,
as to secure their rights and promote their highest interest,
in the simplest, easiest, and most economical way possible.
But to assume they have no rights is to deny the fundamental
principles of Christianity, as well as to contradict the
whole theory upon which the government has uniformly acted
towards them; we are therefore bound to respect their rights,
and, if possible, make our interests harmonize with them.
That Christianity and federal interests were often identical became an article
of faith in every branch of the government and this pervasive attitude
initiated the contemporary period of religious persecution of the Indian
religions. It was not, to be certain, a direct attack on Indian tribal
religions because of their conflict with Christianity, but an oblique attack
on the Indian way of life that had as its by-product the transformation of
Indians into American citizens. Had a Christian denomination or sect, or
Jewish community been subjected to the same requirements prior to receiving
affirmation of their legal and political rights, the outcry would have been
tremendous. But Indians, forming an exotic community which few understood,
were thought to be the proper object of this concern. Thus the Supreme Court,
in deciding an important law suit involving a conflict between the Missouri,
Kansas, and Texas Railroad Company and the Osage Indians, justified its
decision as follows:
Though the law as stated with reference to the power of the
government to determine the right of occupancy of the
Indians to their lands has always been recognized, it is
to be presumed, as stated by this court in the _Buttz_ case,
that in its exercise the United States will be governed by
_such_considerations_of_justice_as_will_control_a_Christian_
_people _in_their_treatment_of_an_ignorant_and_dependent_race_.
( Emphasis added )
Legislation also bore the imprint of this attitude. Mr. Perkins,
Representative from Kansas, warmly endorsed the Dawes Severalty Act on
the floor of the House of Representatives, proclaiming:
This bill is in keeping with the sentiment of the country,
as it is, in my judgment, responsive to the best interests
of the Indians, the best interests of the whites, and the
best interests of the country generally. It has the warm
indorsement and approval of the Secretary of the Interior,
of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and of all those
who have given attention to the subject of the education,
the Christianization, and the development of the Indian race.
Church groups enthusiastically endorsed the Dawes Act and pushed for its
passage. Bishop Hare of the Episcopal Church, when informed of its enactment,
was heard to remark that "time will show whether the world or the Church will
be more alert to take advantage of the occasion." The Church came in a distant
second.
The executive branch, charged with administering the Indian agencies,
represented the government's most persistent presence in suppressing the
tribal religions. Most agents were political appointees, chosen for a long
time with the consent of Church groups, and their religious bias was enhanced
and strengthened by a dreadful ignorance of the parameters of tribal religions.
Interpreting religion as primarily a belief system according to the familiar
outlines of institutional religion with which they were familiar, many of the
agents were horrified with the Indian ceremonial life and sought ways to
suppress it. Very few non-Indians could distinguish between a war dance and
any other kind of dance. Since the war dance in popular fiction, from James
Fenimore Cooper to dime novels, was characterized as a prelude to savagery,
dancing was particularly distasteful to non-Indians who were charged with
performing various functions dealing with the tribes.
Examples of the sustained campaign conducted by federal employees against
Indian dancing are numerous and in almost every instance the dances are
characterized as representing barriers to government objectives in an
unrelated field such as economic development, education, and reservation
government. The prohibition against dancing was, in a larger context, the
effort to transform Indian social life into a replica of the non-Indian social
life since dancing was only the external and most obvious expression of a
deeper, more sublime, and more sophisticated social manifestation of the
Indian personality. In 1877, the Indian Agent for the Yankton Sioux reported
his attempt to educate the Sioux to a different form of economic activity.
He identified their social functions as a handicap in their progress toward
this goal:
As long as Indians live in villages they will retain many
of their old and injurious habits. Frequent feasts,
community in food, heathen ceremonies and dances, constant
visiting -- these will continue as long a the people live
together in close neighborhoods and villages ... I trust
that before another year is ended they will generally be
located upon individual lands of farms. From that date will
begin their real and permanent progress.
This then was taken up by officials in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. When the
regulations under which the Indian courts were to be operated were revised by
Commissioner Thomas Morgan in 1892, the first offense specified in the new
regulations read:
(a) Dances, etc. - Any Indian who shall engage in the
sun dance, scalp dance, or war dance, or any other similar
feast, so called, shall be deemed guilty of an offense,
and upon conviction thereof shall be punished for the
first offense by the withholding of his rations for not
exceeding ten days; and for any subsequent offense under
this clause he shall be punished by withholding his rations
for not less than ten nor more than thirty days, or by
imprisonmnet for not less than ten nor more than thirty days.
Suppression of religious practices by the reservation agents was a major factor
in the reluctance of the Indians to adopt the white man's ways and, since it
alienated the people unnecessarily, inhibited government programs during the
time it was enforced. Indians quickly found ways to subvert the Bureau of
Indian Affairs regulations. The Lummi and Nooksack peoples of Washington State
performed their most important ceremonies on national holidays deliberately
informing their agent that they were performing these rituals to honor the
United States. The suppression of Indian dancing continued until the Indian
Reorganization Act of 1934 and Indian religious freedom was one of the most
important reforms initiated by John Collier as Indian Commissioner. A scant
twelve years before Collier's reform, however, the Office of Indian Affairs
released Circular No. 1665 (April 26, 1921) which read:
The sun-dance, and all other similar dances and so-called
religious ceremonies are considered "Indian Offenses" under
existing regulations, and corrective penalties are provided.
I regard such restriction as applicable to any dance which
involves ... the reckless giving away of property ...
frequent or prolonged periods of celebration ... in fact any
disorderly or plainly excessive performance that promotes
superstitious cruelty, licentiousness, idleness, danger to
health, and shiftless indifference to family welfare.
In reviewing the history of federal treatment of Indian religions, it is
important to note that little deliberate effort was made to eliminate
religious practices because of their theological content. In this respect,
the American treatment has been significantly more intelligent and
responsive than previous treatment of Indian religions by both the Spanish
and English colonial officials. There is one significant exception to this
rule, however, and that consists of the violation of the sacred Pipestone
Quarry in Minnesota. The quarry was a religious site of great importance to
tribes for nearly a thousand mile radius. The quarry was under the protection
of the Yankton Sioux people and in their treaties they took particular pains
to ensure its sanctity. According to research done by their attorney,
Jennings C. Wise (at one time an Assistant Attorney General of the United
States), this quarry was deliberately damaged by the construction of a railroad
through it in 1891 at the instigation of federal officials and missionaries
who wished to destroy its value as a religious site. According to Wise, the
sacred ledges which created the falls were deliberately blasted to erase all
traces of their former outlines and to render them useless for ceremonial
purposes.
In recent decades, there has been considerable interest in restoring both
sacred lands and access to sacred places within the various federal lands to
the religious leaders of the respective tribes. A major positive step in this
respect was the return of the Blue Lake area to Taos Pueblo in 1973 and
Mount Adams to the Yakima Nation in 1974. Although these land restorations
were controversial at the time, they have been accepted as a tangible
expression of the desire by the federal government and non-Indians to make
amends for the previous suppression of Indian ceremonial life. Neither sacred
site was diverted to other uses because of its religious significance, however,
and so the solution of these specific problems is more in line with the types
of continuing problems suffered by practitioners of Indian religions than
the Pipestone Quarry situation.
The most critical aspect of past federal treatment of Indian religious
activities, practices, and sacred locations is that abuses have for the most
part arisen because of ignorance or misunderstanding on the part of the
non-Indian. The treatment exemplifies what can happen to a religious
minority when its tradition is radically divergent from that of a majority
in a society. Fortunately, there are no major theological barriers to
confront but only the lack of precise knowledge, coupled with a lack of
respect which such ignorance brings. In order that the progress already
made be used as a cornerstone for enduring and fundamental changes, it is
necessary to probe deeper in to the theoretical gulf which presently
separates the Indian religious tradition from that tradition which is
commonly accepted by the non-Indian majority. Only when some of the
assumptions and presuppositions are clarified and each side can understand
and communicate with the other can true understanding occur to prevent
future conflicts in this delicate area of religious practice and freedom.
One of the present difficulties plaguing non-Indians is the question of
when protection of religion becomes its establishment. The next section
deals specifically with this question.
_Religion and Culture_
A vast difference exists between the major or "world" religions and the
religions of smaller tribal groups. This difference can be seen in every
instance of contact, whether between the western religious traditions and
the tribal peoples they have encountered or the established eastern religions
and the corresponding tribal people they have encountered. The larger
religions can best be described as "commemorative" religions. That is to say,
these religions trace their origins back to a specific person or event
(The Exodus, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc.) and the major portion of the
religion deals with commemorating these sacred events in the proper ceremonies
and rituals (Holy Communion, Passover, etc.).
The larger religions have as the mainstay of their beliefs the doctrine that
their particular interpretation of reality is the most accurate expression of
ultimate truth. In most instances this truth is revealed by the founder of
the religion to a specific group of disciples with instructions to preach and
teach others to accept the body of truths which has been set down. From this
orientation, doctrines, dogmas, creeds, and catechisms have been derived which
are said to express the truth of the religion in more expanded and intelligible
form. Doctrines concerning the person of Jesus and Buddha each took nearly
half a millenium to formulate. In each generation, the theological enterprise
of most major religions -- but these two in particular -- has been to restate
the sacred truths for the society of its time.
Because of the extreme complexity of this enterprise and the absolute nature
of the claims made by the major religions, in each instance religious
institutions have been necessary so that the beliefs and formulas of the
religion are not diluted by succeeding generations. Religion in many
traditions, but particularly in the tradition of the west, has become an
institutional activity and whenever this institution has too closely aligned
itself with the political, social, economic, or educational structures,
dissident groups seeking to return to the tradition have been produced. The
religious tradition thus grows and expands through the production of beliefs
and interpretations, heretical in one generation, the accepted interpretation
in later generations.
Since these religions are commemorative and depend upon a reenactment of the
original revelation, the location of rituals and ceremonies is not nearly as
important as the continuing tradition in which the original truth is
manifested. History and cosmic process thus become critical to these
religions and eventually the claim is advanced that their conception of
deity includes dominance over the historical process. Whether this process
is conceived as an inexorable motion of a series of events, chronology of the
religion is critically important and appeals are continually made to the
"Faith of Our Fathers" with efforts in worship devoted to as close a recapture
of original events as possible. The "laws" of God, as expressed in doctrine,
dogmas, creeds and catechisms, are infallible guidelines for relating to the
march of history or the cosmic process.
Western peoples, particularly those presently inhabiting the United States,
originate from this tradition. Many of the first people to arrive on
these shores came because of the oppression they experienced when a select
group of individuals dominated their religious institutions and forced them
to accept beliefs and practices which they considered foreign, heretical,
or unfaithful to the tradition. From these bitter experiences came the
demand, upon the adoption of the Constitution, but first incorporated in
Virginia's Bill of Rights, that no religious institution could be established
by or become the official religion of the political institutions. Thus
religious controversy which has plagued Europe and Christendom and which had
flourished briefly in established denominational expressions in the colonies,
had to be laid to rest permanently.
The smaller or tribal religions represent the opposite pole of human
experience. Instead of commemorating events, these religions are what
could best be described as "continuing" religions in that they are not traced
to a founding or founder. Their origin is clouded beyond recovery and almost
all of them can be said to be older, in a chronological sense, than the founded
religions wince we must assume that they existed in one form or another before
the founding of any of the major religions, almost all of which can be dated
with a fair degree of accuracy.
The tribal religions do not incorporate a set of established truths but serve
to perpetuate a set of rituals and ceremonies which must be conducted in
accordance with the instructions given in the original revelation of each
particular ceremony or ritual. Of critical importance in this respect is
the manner in which ceremonies arise. These religions have the ability and
propensity to experience new revelations and each new ceremony which is
received by the religious community is given for a specific purpose and must
be performed at the place and in the manner, and wherever the original
revelation demands, at the time designated. American Indian tribal religions,
in many instances, have acknowledged that the present ceremonies, given to
them at the beginning of this world, must be performed continuously or great
harm and destruction will come to the people.
No doctrines, dogmas, creeds, or catechisms are premitted in these religions
since these statements are secondary to the ceremonies and basically
commentaries on them or interpretations of the original revelations and this
kind of speculation is an absolute violation of the ceremony itself.
Instructions are passed from individual to individual as tribal elders
perceive the personalities, capabilities, and temperments of younger tribal
members. Since the instructions generally pass from individual to individual,
and since the test is the successful transmission of the task, no institutions
can arise in these religions. Only one interpretation is possible in each
generation.
Religious growth is possible when a tribal individual receives a particular
ceremony and instructions respecting it. Heretical and dissident groups,
until very recently, did not exist because there was no central set of beliefs
against which such contentions could have been measured. Either the ceremonies
helped to fulfill tribal existence or they didn't and the test was in their
efficacy, not their logic or rationality. Divergent traditions within a tribe,
because they were all acceptable ceremonies, came to share the ceremonial year
and were recognized as dealing with specific situations. Unlike the larger
religions, there ceremonial year did not commemorate specific chronological
historical events, and some ceremonies were reserved for occasions that
warranted them. Not all ceremonies needed to be performed each year in the
manner that the Christian year follows the life and passion of Jesus, for
example. Some tribes in the Pacific Northwest had a "rain dance" in a region
where it rains continually. The purpose of this dance was severely restricted,
however, and was used only one or twice in each generation on those occasions
when an unusual snow had made travel impossible. The dance brought rain
which melted the snow and restored conditions to normal.
The most distinctive difference between the tribal religions and the larger
religions in theological terms must certainly revolve about the idea of
creation. For the larger religions the diety is the Creator who institutes
natural laws which then govern the operation of physical nature, in most
instances placing within our species an ability to recognize although not
always fulfill the requirements of the moral dimension of the natural law.
This natural law is the basis of the Declaration of Independence and it is
to the free exercise of human conscience recognized in this law that the
signers of the Constitution appeal. The ethics of other large religions have
similar versions whereby they incorporate cosmic process and human conscience.
But in this understanding a critical distinction is made between the world as
created and the actual processes by which it operates.
The tribal religions regard the world as a continual process of creation and
their concept of creator is simply on of identity, not one of function. With
the world in a continual state of growth, creation being continuous, the
requirement laid upon the human species is to move with cosmic growth and
participate in it since we are part of it and do not stand outside it. The
primary essence of the tribal religions is to remain in a constant and
consistent relationship with nature and moral and ethical responsibility.
Customs which adjust to the natural world and its inhabitants thus dominate
the tribal religions where laws and institutions are the dominant factors in
the larger religions.
When the freedom of religion is discussed in the context of the tribal
traditions, it is the right to adjust to and maintain relationships with the
natural world and its inhabitants that is addressed. Since each living entity
is unique no authority can determine in advance what the specific occasion will
require apart from the tradition which is being passed down. The ceremonies
and rites themselves set fairly precise rituals and reveal in the performance
of the acts their continuing efficacy. While no future revelations can be
ruled out, it would be the rarest of events for a new ceremony to be
introduced. Except in the most remote areas of Indian country, the
urbanization of North America has precluded both Indian and non-Indian from
the constant relationship with the natural world that would be conducive to
the revelation of further ceremonies.
The establishment of a religion is not a problem when viewed from with the
tribal context although tribes today live within the larger society.
Establishment is fundamentally the imposition by the political institution of
forms of belief and practice which are in conflict with or are distasteful to
people of a different tradition. Protecting Indian religious practices from
curiosity seekers, casual observers, and administrative rules and regulations
is the only practical way that religious freedom can be assured to Indian
tribes and Native groups. It is not the establishment of their religion
because their religions, not being proselytizing religions, seek to preserve
the ceremonies, rituals and beliefs, not to spread them.
Complaints occasionally arise that Native American religions have an
exclusivity which, if protected, would mean the establishment of a tribal
religion, in contrast to the separation of church and state which forms the
basis of American civil freedoms. But this complaint is based upon the
transfer of cultural attitudes and beliefs, most of which reveal the lack of
understanding of Indian tribal religions, to the actual practices of the
religions themselves. Not only are non-Indians excluded from some tribal
religious ceremonies, but the unpurified Indians from outside the particular
tribal traditions are excluded also. Unlike institutional religion, the
tribal religions do not depend upon community participation, but upon the
proper performance of the ceremonies. Exclusion is central to many
ceremonies because participation is restricted to designated religious
figures within the community according to the nature of the ceremony. Just
as certain figures are the only ones ordained or designated to perform
certain functions in the institutional religions, so in the tribal religions,
there can be no ceremonies unless the proper person performs them.
_Native American Religious Freedom_
The American Constitution represented a milestone in human thought. Separation
of church and state and the guarantee of the sanctity of individual religious
belief were radically new concepts in human government uniquely American in
operation if not origin. The American experience has been one of building
upon the foundations established by the Constitutional fathers and each
generation has improved upon and sharpened the understanding of religious
freedom in this country.
The Indian Reorganization Act recognized the difference in the cultural
base of American Indian communities and established a principle of
non-interference in Indian religious activities. Lifting the treat of
intervention did not, however, guarantee religious freedom for American Indians
because the nature of religious differences precluded proper understanding of
the elements involved in tribal religions. During the 1970s with the
restoration of the sacred lands of Taos Pueblo and Yakima Nation, additional
recognition was given to the Indian religious traditions and its sometimes
special needs for preserving intact those places sacred to particular
Indian religions and communities.
House and Senate religious freedom resolutions enacted in the 95th Congress
made explicit sentiments and understandings which had been implicit and
growing during the preceding half century. It marked a formal recognition
that interpretation of the freedom of religion and establishment clauses in
the American Constitution were sufficiently broad to include religions of
historically and culturally different peoples. This resolution recognized
also that past treatment of American Indian religious ceremonies and practices
had been uneven and has been conducted in an atmosphere of misunderstanding
and lack of information which had at times produced hardships unnecessarily.
In recent decades, American society has become more sophisticated about the
nature of religious conscience and more concerned about establishing
guidelines for institutional activities so as to preclude them from
unnecessarily creating hardships for individuals who sincerely attempt to
live full and constructive lives based on a mature understanding of human
existence. The modern period can be said to have originated with the
dissenting opinions in the _Macintosh_ case in 1931. That case dealt with
the question of whether the statutory requirements for naturalization were
satisfied by an applicant who testified that he was not willing to commit
himself beforehand to bear arms in defense of the United States since he
wished to reserve the right of moral judgment until confronted with a specific
factual situation that demanded solution. Thereafter a line of cases leading
directly to _U.S. v Seeger_, which affirmed the exemption from the Universal
Military Training and Service Act of 1948 for conscientious objectors,
served to expand public awareness of the social value of informed individual
conscience. Today there is considerable concern with protecting the right
of individual choice and personal growth in all areas of law.
The western tradition is based largely upon the principle of individual
choice with the assumption that individuals honestly searching for solutions
will arrive at understanding not radically variant from the teachings of the
major religions as they have been traditionally experienced. The case of the
American Indian has strong parallels to this principle, its only caveat
being that the choice has already been made, by a community, prior to
contact with other societies, and that communal conscience requires that
the ceremonies be continued as they have traditionally been constituted
and practiced. Once this parallel is understood, the problem of religious
freedom of tribal peoples should present little difficulty. A few examples
of misconception of the situation should illustrate the manner in which
shortsighted or misguided interpretation of the behavior and beliefs of
Indian communities hs precluded Indian religions from assuming their
rightful place in the mosaic which constitutes the American religious
freedom tradition.
In 1882 the Sioux medicine man Crow Dog killed a leading chief of his tribe,
Spotted Tail. Under the tribal traditions Crow Dog and his family made
adequate compensation for the killing and the matter was considered closed
by the Sioux. Since Spotted Tail was a well-known chief who had consistently
sided with the United States, his murder set off a wave of public concern and
Crow Dog was tried by a federal court in Deadwood, South Dakota and found
guilty of first degree murder. His case was taken to the Supreme Court on
a question of jurisdiction over the subject matter and the Court found for
Crow Dog's position. Noteworthy is the comment by the Court in its opinion
that imposition of an external federal law upon the Sioux:
... tries them, not by their pers, nor by the customs
of their people, nor the law of their land, but by
superiors of a different race, according to the law
of a social state of which they have an imperfect
conception, and which is opposed to the traditions
of their history, to the habits of their lives, to
the strongest prejudices of their savage nature;
_one_which_measures_the_red_man's_revenge_by_the_
_maxims_of_the_white_man's_morality_.
( Emphasis added )
Viewing the Indian religious tradition through culturally-biased glasses, the
Court characterized the Sioux penalty for murder as the "red man's revenge,"
describing the federal law as the "white man's morality." In point of fact,
the Sioux tradition required that compensation be made to the family of the
victim and did not require retribution except in the most severe circumstances.
The "white man's morality," however, demanded retribution in the form of
capital punishment. The descriptions of each way of dealing with the crime
derive not from an understanding in the jurisprudential sense but from
popular misconceptions about who the people are. Today, the two different
approaches to the crime might be characterized in reverse order, describing
the white man's morality as savage and barbaric and the Indian approach
humane and sophisticated. Indeed, several states have adopted compensation
to victims of crimes as a principle of their criminal and civil codes.
In 1884, Senator Henry Dawes of Massachusetts visited the Five Civilized
Tribes of Indian Territory (now the state of Oklahoma) to examine their
method of land tenure, a practice which derived directly from their
religious understanding of human relationships to the earth. Reporting
the next year to the 1885 Lake Mohonk Conference which concerned itself
with the formulation of Indian policy, Dawes remarked:
The head chief told us that there was not a family
in that whole Nation that had not a home of its own.
There was not a pauper in that Nation, and the Nation
did not owe a dollar. It built its own capitol ... and
it bild its schools and its hospitals. Yet the defect
of the system was apparent. They have not got as far
as they can go, because they own their land in common.
It is Henry George's system, and under that there is
no enterprise to make your home any better than that
of your neighbors. There is no selfishness, which
is at the bottom of civilization. Till this people
will consent to give up their lands, and divide them
among their citizens so that each can own the land
he cultivates, they will not make much more progress.
Discovering a political system with complex institutions which did not owe a
cent and experienced no poverty within its society should have made Senator
Dawes take notice and learn. With his predetermined idea of civilization,
however, he could only describe the state of well-being of the Indians in a
negative situation. Today as we strive to create Great Societies and resolve
the problems of poverty, education, health care and the like, most Americans
wish they could achieve the standard of civilized existence enjoyed by the
Five Civilized Tribes in the 1880s.
These examples should forewarn us that application of a rigid set of criteria
to human behavior without considering alternatives is dangerous at best
and generally hazardous in its contemplation. The dreadful poverty and
crime statistics which plague American Indian communities today are the result
of misinformed neglect of the Indian religious tradition and the imposition
of a set of external institutions and criteria on Indian communities. No
deliberate effort was made to destroy the Indian institutions because of their
divergent religious beliefs and practices. Yet few people in the previous
century understood the larger parameters of social reality and tended to
prejudge the Indian tradition according to the principles of their own cultural
tradition.
With the enactment of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, our Nation
is being afforded the opportunity to correct past injustices and to begin anew
with regard to treatment of those who adhere to the tenets of traditional
Native religious. In countless ways in the past and present, both our
government and our people have proved themselves equal to challenges
inherent in new beginnings. This will be no exception.
-------------===============***************================--------------
_BIBLIOGRAPHY_
1. _THE SOUL OF THE INDIAN_, Charles Eastmen, Houghton Mifflin Co.
Cambridge, Massachusetts
2. _ARISTOTLE AND THE AMERICAN INDIANS_, Lewis Hanke, Indian University
Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 1959
3. _THE INDIAN AND THE WHITE MAN_, Wilcomb Washburn, Anchor-Doubleday,
New York, 1964
4. _THIS COUNTRY WAS OURS_, Virgil J. Vogel, Harper & Row, New York, 1972
5. Richardson, J.D. ed _A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the
Presidents_, II
6. _Report of the Commission of Indian Affairs_, 1869
7. _Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Roberts_, 152 U.S. 114, (1894)
8. _Congressional Record_, 49th Congress, 2nd Session, December 15, 1886.
9. _Reports of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs_, (1877)
10. _Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, (1892)
11. 283 U.S. 605 (1931)
12. 380 U.S. 163 (1965)
13. _Ex Parte Crow Dog_, 19 U.S. 556 (1883)
14. _Lake Mohonk Conference Proceedings_, 1885
------------------------------------------------------------------- fin.
Gary S. Trujillo
Jeff's article concerning the suppression of Native American religious
and cultural practices can send me a note in order to have your name
added to the "NativeNet" mailing-list. Our purpose is to promote an
understanding of issues relating to the indigenous peoples of the earth,
their cultures and problems. The conference is particularly designed to
examine the nature and causes of the harm which has come to these people
as a result of European colonial expansion and resource exploitation.
The mailing-list has been in existence for several months, and currently
has over fifty members. It is operated in conjunction with parallel BBS-
based conferences in the U.S. and Canada (PeaceNet/EcoNet and the Web).
--
Gary S. Trujillo g...@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts {wjh12,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
Gerald Bryan (Denver)
>The letter called on Christians to respect traditional Indian ways of life,
>and pledged to help protect sacred places and support the right to use
>ceremonial objects such as feathers, tobacco, sweet grass and bones.
Hmm, no mention of peyote as a ceremonial object. Could that be related
to the white man's making it a schedule I substance ? Could that be
related to the white man's much vaunted War on Drugs (and Drug Users ?)
Sure am glad tobacco's OK -- no one's ever died from or been addicted to
THAT drug. In fact, we subsidize tobacco farmers and actively export it
around the world.
Does anybody know what happened to the Native American Church
member who lost his job as a drug and alcohol counselor because drug
tests revealed the presence of peyote that he'd ingested during a
sacred Native American Church ceremony ? Last I heard, it was being
tried in the U.S. Supreme Court (November, I think)... Happened in
Oregon, I believe.
--
| Gerald Bryan, Secretary | "Seeking to bring peace to the War on |
| No More Drug War Foundation | Drugs via controlled legalization & |
| 2045 Kearney Street | rational, balanced drug education." |
| Denver, CO 80207-3919 | 303/388-5495 days, 394-3930 evenings. |