Main Edition
US
FR
He just wants to be left alone (Bettmann / Contributor via Getty)
If voting is sacred, nobody told Ross John. “I’m not a voter in state and federal elections,” the 68-year-old businessman and Seneca nation citizen tells me, “because I’m not a US citizen.” Technically, John is an American. But his reaction to the Native American “Voting is Sacred” campaign is telling. For if American politics has become thoroughly national — 70% claim to have thought “a lot” about Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, even as a third can’t identify their own state governor — the issues, especially for indigenous Americans like John, remain defiantly local.
The 2024 presidential race is one that will be decided at the margins. Democrats hope the Voting is Sacred mantra will produce a reprise of the 2020 Native American vote. Four years ago, a surge in Navajo and Hopi turnout proved the difference in Biden’s 10,000 vote victory in Arizona. In the Midwest, Menominee and Ojibwe voters proved decisive in Wisconsin, a contest ultimately decided by just 20,000 ballots.
Yet if Voting is Sacred is a national effort aimed at the broad indigenous public, they in fact represent a kaleidoscope of lifestyles. All told, there are some 9.7 million Native Americans and Alaskans, scattered across some 573 federally recognised groups. Like John, some have built their homes in the country. Yet from Anchorage to Phoenix, 70% live in cities. Like John, meanwhile, about a quarter live on reservations or tribal trust lands, while the rest make their way independently.
Given this spread, at any rate, native priorities are as varied as anywhere else in America, from casinos in New York to buffalo rights in Montana. Beyond that, Native Americans differ in one more vital respect: their power. A century on from the law that finally gave them citizenship, they’re now of course equal before the law. But if the Navajo can leverage their swing-state location, and tribes elsewhere have grown adept at encouraging strategic voting to achieve their goals, men like Ross John seem condemned by geography.
Native Americans, after all, are not just any other interest group. Expelled from much of their ancestral lands, tribal groups possess sovereignty and rights guaranteed by federal treaties. Yet as a dispersed people, they lack concentrated electoral power. And if Voting is Sacred is a strategy to give the indigenous vote some heft, in presidential politics at least, centuries of broken promises mean many aren’t sure politics can help.
Ross John has lived his whole life in far southwestern New York. Amid the Alleghenies’ towering sugar maples, and the crumbling barns with their flecks of red paint, he’s one of 8,000 Seneca here, scattered across a pair of non-contiguous communities. In John’s Cattaraugus Reservation, the poverty rate is 65%. At the neighbouring Allegany Reservation, it’s 33%, but that’s still markedly higher than many nearby towns.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIn other words, they’re just like any other American, just with slight differences do to their history. They know for a fact that politics is basically one big grift and nothing ever really changes regardless of who’s in charge, and that applies to both parties. That the government doesn’t really care about them despite the fact that it’s supposed to exist for their benefit, and it’s largely unresponsive towards them only in the best of times it’s just pandering to them out of self-interest. They at least have the benefit of having some autonomy that could allow them to throw off the excesses of an uncaring government and achieve meaningful progress for their people, but unfortunately they’re too overly dependent upon the government to really genuinely assert it in any way hugely meaningful, and their politicians and other elites having co-opted by the system, Just like what’s happening in the rest of America. They at least have excellent reasons to understand all this do to their history. Race in America is nothing more than a distraction and used by those in power to divide us against one another who have more in common than they want us to think.
Interesting article. I don’t know much about the American Indians in the East and Midwest. But decades ago just out of law school I was a law clerk for a year for a federal district court judge in Utah. The name Utah comes from the Ute Indian tribes, who mainly live on reservations in the eastern part of the state by the Uintah Mountains (the only east-west mountain chain in the Rocky Mountains, which otherwise go north-south from Canada all the way through the US almost to Mexico). Some Navajo and other Indians also live in the Four Corners area in the southeastern part of the state where Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona all meet.
Very few Indians lived in Salt Lake City where the federal court sat. But the more serious crimes on reservations were tried in federal court: murder, rape, assault. (Other crimes were tried in state or tribal courts.) The federal courts also decided disputes between the tribes and the federal government, of which there were many.
So the judge I worked for heard quite a few Indian cases, and working on them for him opened my eyes to a world I didn’t know existed. One thing that still stands out to me was the problem with Indians and alcohol.
One young man in his 20s was charged with murder for killing his uncle with a shovel. The young man had gotten drunk and was passed out in a shed. His aunt sent his uncle to bring him in to get some lunch. The young man was angry at being disturbed so he smashed his uncle’s head in, then just laid down and slept again.
The young man had brain damage from drinking poor-quality booze. At that time at least, alcohol was banned from the reservation and could not be sold in nearby towns. So stores would stock cleaning products that had alcohol in them, all lined up on the shelves like liquor bottles. Some Indians would buy those, and drinking that stuff would do a number on them.
Another case that I remember was a dispute between a tribe and the Bureau of Indian Affairs over who was considered a member of the tribe — the so-called blood quantum requirement. The tribe wanted a loose requirement, to increase its numbers and strengthen its communities. The BIA wanted tighter requirements to limit tribal membership and resources.
The judge I worked for ruled for the tribe. He said the tribe can decide its own membership, as a sovereign nation. The BIA arguments were not outrageous; there was some reason to them. But the judge did not like the paternalistic attitude of the federal government, and his decision was adamant.
Things have gotten better since then. The US Department of the Interior is now run by Deb Haaland, a Laguna Pueblo Indian, and the BIA (a bureau within Interior) is run by a Grand Ronde Indian, Bryan Mercier. With American Indians at the helm, it’s hard to argue that these agencies are as paternalistic to Indians as they were.
Since that time I’ve had occasional contact with Indian tribes. One thing that I noticed with the Utah Indians I have talked to is that they didn’t like the term Native Americans. They preferred to be called Ute Indians, or a more specific tribe like Northern Ute Indian. The University of Utah mascot remains a Ute Indian, with tribal permission and even encouragement. Not like the Washington Redskins, err, Commanders (thanks, grifters).
My impression is that things have improved for Utah’s Indians, though troubles still remain. At least there seem to be fewer disputes in the federal courts over tribal rights. Just don’t try to celebrate Columbus Day, and Indians and non-Indians seem on the same page.
Sadly, elsewhere I have seen some grifters are spoiling things. Like US senator Elizabeth Warren, who apparently to this day falsely thinks she is a Cherokee Indian. And all the other people in Oklahoma who make dubious claims of Indian ancestry (usually Cherokee) to get an “Indian card” and access to healthcare and other tribal benefits.
And I now live just south of San Francisco on the peninsula where an Indian tribe who lived here went extinct more than 100 years ago. Two grifters with some Indian ancestry in other tribes now play on the liberals here to get rights to some park and other land that they patently don’t deserve. With some success. Even the small city I live in now opens its City Council meetings with a lengthy “Land Acknowledgment” paean to long-dead people they really don’t care a whit about. It’s just silly.
The Cherokee and Choctow in Oklahoma you do not need to show a percentage but you must prove lineage. Which is how I obtained my “dubious claim” My Grandmother was half Cherokee, my Grandfather was Snohomish.
Yes, I should have noted that there are many valid claims to American Indian ancestry. But there are also quite a few like Elizabeth Warren from Oklahoma who pretend such a claim, without evidence, in order to gain benefits. At least so I have heard from relatives in Broken Arrow.
I think one mistake people outside of Indian Country make is to assume that tribes are one homogenous group, instead of a diverse mix of peoples with different cultures and languages, and often with different economic priorities. They can have as little or as much in common as, say, France and Germany. Some tribes have hundreds of thousands of members, others one or two hundred. Casino tribes in California have immense political power at state level, which they use extremely effectively, sometimes in coalition, sometimes in opposition to one another. In other states, not so much.
Very interesting, thanks. I was born and raised in Cleveland, and when the Indians became the Guardians, it was a sad day. Even worse, after the fact, I heard from many American Indians that they actually liked the “Indians” name, and felt it was disrespectful to change it to Guardians. Just another example of white people co-opting someone else’s “pain”, without actually checking WITH THE GROUP, to see how the majority feel about it.
Very interesting comment. Thanks.
The issues involving modern Indians are permanently wrapped up in the history of hundreds of years ago and modern attempts at putting old things behind us and getting on with life. It’s very hard to get a straight story that’s not being pushed by activists of one sort or another. So I really appreciate your comment.
And Bloodworth’s article, too.
The Siletz tribe has a rez about 20 miles my farm. They also have a casino on the Coast which gives $10,000 a year to every member. To work the casino they fly in somalis to clean toilets and such. The Siletz do not fly them back but let them loose in America.
They have their own police force, but often have to rely on outside help as they seem to have a lot of murders on the rez. Any vehicle abandoned on the highway overnight is burned. They don’t mix much with whites and vice versa.
Not sure this is the gotcha that the author thinks. I’ll bet if you surveyed any Local Authority area in the UK, at least a third wouldn’t be able to name the elected Leader of the Council and probably not their MP either.
Most MPs are party political non-entities. They are parachuted into a constituency and have few if any personal achievements that might raise their profile or make them interesting. They typically don’t even live in their constituency and do the bare minimum constituency work. I’m sure US state governors are not dissimilar.
The problem isn’t why voters don’t know their elected representatives in the same way it isn’t the public’s fault for not knowing about brand X. The problem is some of the least engaging, most vacuous, talent-free, achievement-free, uninspiring people now end up on party ballots for public election.
So empty they’re forgettable and so useless we’d rather forget…
I’m not sure it’s meant as a “gotcha” as much as it reveals how disconnected people are from the govt that allegedly works for them. I have little doubt that your claim about MPs is also true.
Sitting in a truck in Iraq, waiting for something to happen, my friend Pete and I were talking and the subject was a black man on our compound who had a run-in with a local who apparently didn’t like Africans. While musing on this subject I said “You know, the black man has a legit beef with America but, man, the Indians really got screwed.” Unknown to me, Pete was a native and I suppose that bit of conversation indicated I wasn’t a complete idiot. We became good friends and through him I learned a lot about tribal politics and cultural problems. It really is an unknown subject in this country. This was an interesting article, thanks to UnHerd for its publication. On an aside, if you have not watched the film “Wind River” give it a look. Worth your time.
… Or read Tony Hillerman 🙂
Fine recommendation, kimosabe.
So in the end, one more example of politics as a tribal endeavor, no pun intended.
It should be understood that Indians were not American citizens in the Constitution, but sovereign nations. This was not a polite fiction — they were sovereign, and the new United States didn’t even pretend to govern them. This remained relevant as the new nation expanded westward and encountered more tribes. It was a reality as late as 1863, when President Lincoln presented ceremonial walking sticks to the nineteen Governors (chiefs) of the New Mexico Pueblos. It faded as Indians were herded on to reservations and lost their independence. Acknowledging them as citizens in 1924 was way overdue.
Surprised Mr. Bloodworth did not discuss the SCOTUS McGirt decision. This was a huge voting factor for the 39 recognized tribes in Oklahoma.
“In John’s Cattaraugus Reservation, the poverty rate is 65%.”
I have lived my entire life in Oklahoma, where just under 50 Native American tribes are located. That experience has taught me many things, not least of which is deep respect for their varied histories and traditions and their right to define them without my help. The high “poverty rates” of tribes is often cited; however, I submit that the very concept of poverty rate is at its core fundamentally a materialistic European ideological construct that should be used cautiously when applied to cultures that cherish a distinctly different value system. My impression is that the predominant view among Native Americans is that it is the European culture itself that suffers from poverty more than their own. Citing “poverty rates” for them implies that, unless Native Americans possess an equivalent amount of material stuff like automobiles, RV’s, and junk from Amazon, they are incapable of realizing their human potential, as defined by people unlike them using metrics not of their design. Too many of the current interventions by government and NGOs vis a vis Native Americans are revised versions of the old cultural condescension that spawned the notion of Anglicizing them as a means of solving their “problems”. Can we be sure that a definition of poverty that derives from a history weighted by Adam Smith and Karl Marx is appropriate when applied to peoples whose culture has a very different sense of what constitutes wealth?
I’m happy for those Indians who strive to emulate the culture of their ancestors. If in so doing rape, robbery, and homicide are rampant in the areas (reservations) where they are sovereign, I don’t see that the majority culture surrounding them bears any responsibility. Arguing otherwise is to treat Indians as not-so-bright children, not as adults with agency.
I completely agree. There are many ironies and paradoxes in the modern relationship between “the majority culture” in the U.S. and Native culture and many unintended consequences of well-meant policies. An example is in granting favored status to Native peoples in hiring, scholarship money, and competitive school admission, etc. The unintended result of that has been an explosion over the last two decades in the number of people who self-designate as “Native American” in the U.S. census, many of whom live entirely as and among whites, have only a very distant and thin ancestral connection and no meaningful understanding of or participation in the heritage they claim. Many, like Senator Elizabeth Warren, make the claims of Native ancestry falsely and profit by the deception. Unfortunately, such deceit has the net effect of diluting the opportunities intended for true Native Americans.
Excellent point. American Indian tribes have their problems, and I don’t mean to idealize them. But I sense that most American Indian tribes (like the Amish) maintain strong, close-knit communities, preserving traditions and values that have diminished in broader society. Their sense of kinship, cultural heritage, and communal support structures stand out in stark contrast to the more individualistic nature of modern life. The emphasis on individual wealth weakens. We could take a lesson from that.
Shouldn’t we know what “poverty level” means in practice, in RL, before we criticize it? Does it mean optional purchases, as you assume, or does it mean not enough food? Adequate nutrition? Heat and warmth? If “poverty level” means those kinds of basic qualities necessary to life, then the metric represents universal values, not something imposed by another culture, and the criticism is a straw man.
“Poverty Level” as defined by any western country is not a metric connected to assessment of shelter or nutrition. It is an arbitrary number based upon a percentage of income and is the product of a way of thinking that derives from academic, economic, and political systems that are thoroughly Western. My reference to the types of consumer spending you challenge are both a rhetorical device that illustrates Western materialism and a recognition that the transfer of financial resources to the “poor” often ends up being diverted to non-essentials. I’ve spend a career dealing with the real life needs of the disadvantaged and they too often squander what little they are given on cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, tattoos, piercings, fashion accessories, and pre-prepared foods. The most obese demographic in the U.S. are the poor. Spare me the virtue signaling over “adequate nutrition, heat, and warmth.” If you pry the lid off your closed mind you might consider that my point about the cultural basis of defining poverty is why Western countries never conquer it. We assess and address it in ways that are bound up in our sense of reality. Perhaps, instead of persisting in imposing those values on other cultures in our midst we might allow them to inform us for a change.
Whoa whoa whoa. You’re reading into my comment and question what is not actually there. It’s okay to suspect that it’s there, but all you have to do is ask for clarification of intent.
The same thing happened in a previous exchange, when you claimed that “your anti-capitalist stance clearly underpins your arguments” when I’d not stated or even implied anything like it.
This was, and is, my intent: I am trying to understand something. What I wrote was an attempt to better understand what the poverty rate really means. If person can’t ask a question, maybe even a naive question, then what’s the point?
I’m not trying to signal my virtue here — I don’t think I have virtue to signal in this regard. And my mind isn’t closed, which is why I sought to learn more by asking the question.
You said “Citing ‘poverty rates’ for them implies that, unless Native Americans possess an equivalent amount of material stuff… they are incapable of realizing their human potential, as defined by people unlike them using metrics not of their design.”
What I wanted to clarify was whether those rates really imply what you say.
Many times I’ve read and heard Indigenous people speak of the terrible poverty on reserves, and referencing their level of poverty compared to the rest of the country. They speak about food insecurity, unmet health needs — the basics.
Does the poverty level really mean possessing a bunch of stuff from Amazon? Why do you think that? Maybe it’s worth looking at a few sources to see what’s behind the numbers. Is asking these things a trigger?
You are missing the point, equivocating terms, refusing to accept that “poverty” is itself a relative term that is culturally dependent, using moralistic snark and then pretending to only want clarification. I am sharing a viewpoint based upon a unique “hands on” personal experience of Native American culture. I’ve looked at more than “a few sources” and know what’s “behind the numbers”. All of the liberal humanist projects to ameliorate the plight of indigenous peoples over the last century have failed miserably both by Western and Native standards, which implies to me that there is room for new fundamentally different ways to look at the situation. To me, that should include granting their distinct cultures the autonomy to define wealth and poverty ON THEIR OWN TERMS. If you don’t approve, feel free to go out and find your own experience to share.
I may be channeling the Great Manitou myself because I also have stopped voting in anything but city elections and propositions. The rest is billionaires’ playground, running the gamut from Musk to Soros. Why waste even a microgram of ink on them.
There is only one thing I’m sure of. If Natives voted D, there would voting booths under every teepee on every reservation.
That would only apply (historically) to the Great Plains horse tribes between the Mississippi and the Rocky Mountains. Most tribes never made teepees. Longhouses, wigwams, lodges, chickees, plank houses, igloos, hogans, and pueblos housed more Native Americans than teepees.