MGJR Volume 2 2014 | Page 24

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was a simple idea, a human right that said no people should be subjected to discrimination and that every member of American society should be able to participate in the democratic process. That premise was true for American Indians and Alaska Natives, too, only with added complications.

In many states, especially those with large American Indian populations -- Alaska, Arizona, Montana, South Dakota -- Native Americans faced or still face the same kind of discrimination that characterized the Deep South.

At the time the Civil Rights Act was enacted, South Dakota’s Rep. Ben Reifel, a Lakota, often told stories about the discrimination his parents faced when checking into a motel in Rapid City. His father was of German descent and his mother Lakota. So the only way to rent a room was for dad to make all the arrangements alone. His mother was not welcome – and a mixed-race couple even less so.

Native American activists from the 1960s and 1970s watched and were inspired by the civil rights movement. It was a wakeup call and a demand for rights. Indeed the timing was ideal: As the civil rights movement gained ground, American Indians were dealing with the destructive policy of “termination.” The idea, championed by Utah Sen. Arthur Watkins, a Republican, was to “free the Indian” by removing all legal and political protections. More than 100 tribes were terminated and the members told they were now Americans like everyone else. 

But the way termination unfolded was sneaky. Some tribes were promised huge settlements for claims against the United States. Others, members of resource rich tribes, those with timber or other natural wealth, were tempted to divide their under-valued assets and get a windfall. Either way the price of instant riches was termination. 

The vehicle for termination was House Concurrent Resolution 108, enacted in August 1954. “That it is declared to be the sense of Congress that, at the earliest possible time,” tribes in several states should be “freed from Federal supervision and control and from all disabilities and limitations specially applicable to Indians.” It called on the Secretary of Interior to “examine existing legislation dealing with such Indians, and treaties between the Government of the United States and each such tribe, and report to Congress at the earliest practicable date.”

In other words it was the policy of the United States to examine and then break the promises made by treaty. (Despite the language in the U.S. Constitution that defines treaties as the “supreme law of the land.”) This policy of termination was contrary to every ideal that America said it believed in. In order to accept its

24

As the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was in debate, Rep.Ben Reifel of South Dakota recounted instances of discrimination against his American Indian mother.

Photo courtesy of SDStateconnect.org.