Land acquisition sustains culture
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
3 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
Yet another missive with the usual undercurrent of anti-tribal sentiment deserves some comment. The writer complains Montana state land (66 acres) is being placed in trust status for the tribes and added to the reservation (not so—absolute boundaries are defined by the treaty). Furthermore, he claims, a rise in state taxes is required to compensate. Nonsense.
I am unfamiliar with this tiny acreage but the tribes have purchased land off reservation, which could then be used to exchange with the state in an effort to return blocks of reservation state-owned land to tribal control.
Such efforts are fully supported by the state and no tax issue is involved.
But let’s back up and see what’s behind the tribal effort. Gov. Isaac Stevens treated with the three Flathead Lake tribes and enforced a cession of 12 million acres of aboriginal land, from which 1.2 million (10 percent) was reserved (not given).
A second major taking involved a purposeful misinterpretation of the treaty by a devious land speculator named Joseph Dixon who saw dollar signs on a reservation with unused land. He formulated what was called the (1904) Flathead Act to fulfill the General Allotment Act of 1887. During the life of the GAA, Indians lost two thirds of their reservation lands, which had been reserved for their “exclusive use and benefit.”
On the Flathead, some 480,000 acres (40 percent) of “surplus” land was patented to settlers, granted to the state as school sections, or set aside for a Bison Range. Apparently, white power and privilege permitted stealing of land as long as it was Indian land. Justification of such a shameful policy was couched in assimilationist jargon (six decades later the U.S. Court of Claims judged the Flathead allotment an improper taking of reserved lands). Fortunately, the reservation was never “diminished” as a result; it is still Indian Country regardless of land ownership.
Tribal efforts to reacquire their original treasured treaty land base — either by purchase or exchange — are certainly not improper “takings” and should be applauded. The effort is visionary, as it speaks not to individual gain, but the future sustainability of an entire culture.
Bill Bennington
Polson
