Over the past 200 years, the dealings of the United States government with the American Indian nations have been less than honorable. In fact, there are some who feel that U.S. actions are clear evidence of genocide.
In managing Indian resources as a trust agentfor Indians, the U.S. government has frequently acted contrary to the best interest of the Indians and in the best interest of corporations. Indian leaders and others have noted that had this happened in a non-Indian trust situation, someone would have been jailed.
Over the past century, a number of American Indian leaders and others have suggested that the United States apologize for its actions against Indian people and their governments. In late 2009, the American government may have quietly apologized without letting anyone know.
American Indian legal policies are based on the Discovery Doctrine which simply states that Christian nations have an obligation to rule non-Christian nations. The United States has consistently justified its actions against American Indians on the premise that, as a Christian nation, it has a right to take their lands, imprison their people, and restrict their religious practices. Some Indian people wonder if the hesitation in making a simple apology for past actions is based on the ideas that, as a Christian nation, the United States does not have to apologize for its actions.
It should be pointed out that the United States government has apologized for its actions against other minority groups. This includes apologies by President Ronald Reagan for the Japanese internment during World War II and by President Bill Clinton for the government’s role in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment on African-Americans.
The documentation about governmental misdeeds against Indians is fairly massive. For example, in United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians Supreme Court Justice Blackmun wrote:
"A more ripe and rank case of illegal dealing will never, in all probability, be found in our history."
This is a case which involved the acquisition of the Black Hills, an area sacred to Indian people, so that it could be opened up for gold mining.
The government edged closer to an apology in 2000 when Kevin Gover (Pawnee), the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) apologized for the atrocities of the past. On the occasion of the 175th anniversary of the BIA, he apologized on behalf of the BIA, not the federal government. He talked of the legacy of BIA misdeeds:
"The trauma of shame, fear and anger has passed from one generation to the next, and manifests itself in the rampant alcoholism, drug abuse, and domestic violence that plague Indian country" (full text of the speech reported in Indian Country Today, September 20, 2000, p. A2).
In addressing a new commitment to the people, he said:
"Never again will this agency stand silent when hate and violence are committed against Indians. Never again will we allow policy to proceed from the assumption that Indians possess less human genius than the other races. Never again will we be complicit in the theft of Indian property. Never again will we appoint false leaders who serve purposes other than those of the tribes. Never again will we allow unflattering and stereotypical images of Indian people to deface the halls of government or lead the American people to shallow and ignorant beliefs about Indians. Never again will we attack your religions, your languages, your rituals, or any of your tribal ways. Never again will we seize your children, nor teach them to be ashamed of who they are. Never again."
In 2007, the United Nations General Assembly voted to adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Declaration is a nonbinding agreement that formally establishes the individual and collective rights of indigenous people. The United States and Canada were among the four nations that voted against the Declaration. The United States does not recognize this convention.
In 2008, the Canadian Prime Minister gave a speech to Parliament and to First Nations leaders in which he formally apologized to the survivors of the country’s residential schools. This apology helped bring about a sense of healing.
Over the years, a number of resolutions have been presented to Congress which would officially apologize for the past ill-conceived policies by the U.S. government toward American Indians. Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas) introduced such bills in 2008 and 2009. Senator Brownback introduced this legislation not because it had popular support, but because he was personally remorseful for the government’s past treatment of Native Americans.
In 2009, President Barack Obama toldthe leaders of the federally recognized Indian nations:
We also know our more recent history; one in which too often, Washington thought it knew what was best for you. There was too little consultation between governments.
While President Obama noted injustices toward Indians, he did not explicitly apologize.
On December 19, 2009 President Barack Obama signed the Native American Apology Resolution as part of a defense appropriations spending bill. The resolution:
Urges the President to acknowledge the wrongs of the United States against Indian tribes in the history of the United States in order to bring healing to this land.
Now comes the important question: Did President Obama fulfill the resolution simply by signing it, or does he need to state the apology and to let the tribes know he signed the resolution? Since the signing there has been no formal announcement of the resolution, nor has the mainstream media mentioned it.
The push by American Indians and others for the formal, public apology is about healing. The experience in other nations, such as South Africa, has shown that an apology can be the first step in beginning a healing process. There is a feeling that we owe it to both past and future generations to begin the healing of the wounds caused by government actions against both Indian Nations and individual Indians.