Why do Natives Vote Democrat?
Let’s assume for a minute that you know a lot about Native Americans. Maybe you are a Native American, maybe you have friends or loved ones who are, or maybe you’re just an admirer of first American culture.
Let’s also assume that, somehow, you are completely and totally ignorant of both American history and, particularly, politics. In that case, let’s remedy your ignorance one step at a time, starting with politics…
The United States of America has gone through a number of different political phases since its inception, but ultimately, those phases ended in a fixed tug-of-war between two political parties, both vying for votes from the common folk to elect them to positions of power or influence.
Those two parties are the Republicans and Democrats.
Each party has a “platform”, or a collection of ideals, goals and philosophies which members of the party subscribe to.
The Republican party’s platform can be summed up as follows: less government control over citizens, traditional values, and support of a strong military. In todays’ world, Republicans are generally thought of as the “conservative” party.
The Democratic party’s platform is almost the polar opposite: more government control, “progressive” values, and less military funding.
Now that we’ve covered a basic—if somewhat simplified—understanding of American politics, based on what you’ve learned, which party would you think Native Americans are most likely to support?
Our guess is that you answered the Republican Party. Most might even say that Republicans had the native vote right at the beginning with “less government control”. Compounding that is the commitment to preserving traditional values, such as respect for the elderly, the sanctity of marriage, and senses of community, all of which are well represented in the native catalogue of ideals, as well as the fact that American Indians were (and still are) warrior cultures, where every able bodied man is expected to know how to protect his own family or fight for his people.
Yes, it does seem like the logical choice…but you’re wrong.
Native Americans have been a solidly democratic voting block for almost as long as they have been citizens of this country. The same party which advocates for government ownership of their lands and tends to spit at most notions of sovereignty, encourages others to abandon the teachings of their parents, cultures and religious leaders, and promotes pacifism …at least as far as citizens are concerned.
How can this be, you ask?
To fully understand, we must start at the beginning. Now is the time to fill you in a bit on American history, and just why it is the party who once gleefully disenfranchised (and destroyed) thousands of natives and fought for the right to claim ownership of human beings is now celebrated as the champions of human rights…
First, let us begin by acknowledging that, while the Democratic platform (and the actions of democrats) are far less in line with Native American values and history than the Republican one, the Republican record of dealing with the first Americans is far from spotless.
Being the first Americans, predating anything resembling the modern United States as we now know it, the first Europeans who arrived on this continent with the intent of establishing a lasting civilization came with the mindset that their ways were “right”, and that the ways of the native people were wrong, “savage”, immoral, and even evil, and during the formative and sophomore years of the nation we now know, this would be a prevailing attitude of many democrats and republicans alike.
However, unlike having to wait until the early-twentieth century for the world to see its first native-friendly democrat in Woodrow Wilson (despite clinging to traditional Democrat notions of racial superiority), the republicans already had a president which had at least tried to befriend and respect native peoples with Ulysses S. Grant.
Though most remember Grant having forcibly taken lands away from Native Americans, few remember (perhaps due to deliberate reasons) that Grant’s administration, in its early years, was characterized by a benevolence toward native peoples, with Grant appointing Ely S. Parker, his old civil war adjutant, as the first Native American head of the BIA (which many know as “Bossing Indians Around”, but we’re getting ahead of ourselves).
Though Grant’s benevolent approach ultimately failed, such an attitude toward the nation’s indigenous peoples was unheard of in his nineteenth century. Grant believed, for instance, that the Lakota deserved the opportunity to exist unmolested on their ancestral homelands, and dreamt of giving Indians citizenship. A bankruptcy in the country led him to follow in the footsteps of so many presidents before him and break the treaties he had made with tribal nations, as well as have a fall out with his friend Parker. Still, this was perhaps the first true attempt at some form of tolerance, if not solidarity, from white Americans toward Native Americans, and it did not come from any “tolerant” democrat.
Indeed, by contrast, democrats had only ever fervently supported the usual policy of seizing lands from “savages” at all costs. Perhaps the most notorious and most infamous example of democrat behavior toward Native Americans is that of the author of what would become known in the twentieth century as “The Trail of Tears”, himself: Andrew Jackson.
Considered both the archetypal and first democrat, this son of Scots-Irish immigrants was a staunch colonialist and expansionist, unable to draw any comparison between what went on in his parents’ home countries with the English to what was happening in his new country, and, in 1830, signed the Indian Removal Act, which targeted the five “civilized” tribes (those who had embraced the burgeoning white culture, and were largely supportive of their white neighbors) The Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muscogee, Seminole, and Cherokee, forcing them to abandon their ancestral homelands and move to reservations.
For the next fifty years, following both the end of Jackson’s term and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, it was democrats who facilitated the long, painful, and often deadly journey of these peaceful people to their new “homes”.
It was also Democrats, the followers of “Ol’Hickory”(the name given to Jackson by his most loyal supporters) who rose to prominence as the party of “the white man”, and attempted to break the country up over its decision to emancipate the black slaves. Today, there are many people who, because of leftist programming and faulty assumptions regarding Republicans, believe it was Republicans, not Democrats, who defended slavery, when in fact, Democrats were not only the original proponents of slavery in a changing political climate, but they who created the Ku Klux Klan, which, under “Jim Crow” laws, put in place to compensate for the new illegality of slavery, terrorized black America and acted as a stumbling block for their full recognition as not only fellow Americans, but human beings, right until the 1960’s.
The rallying cry and prevailing mentality of many a modern democrat when dealing with “minorities” could, fittingly, be traced to Jackson’s own reason—or, rather, justification—for such an unprecedented and vulgar display of power as the Trail of Tears:
“…Surrounded by the whites with their arts of civilization, which by destroying the resources of the savage doom him to weakness and decay, the fate of the Mohegan, the Narragansett, and the Delaware is fast overtaking the Choctaw, the Cherokee, and the Creek. That this fate surely awaits them if they remain within the limits of the states does not admit of a doubt. Humanity and national honor demand that every effort should be made to avert so great a calamity.”
In other words, “Its for their own good”.
Some might actually go so far as to say that Grant was not the first pro-native republican president. While Lincoln (a man none too fond of, nor terribly interested in, Native Americans) would become the first Republican president, many consider the archetypal Republican to have been none other than founding father, Benjamin Franklin, himself.
While Franklin bore many of the preconceived notions of the first Americans shared by his compatriots, it was he who represented a more liberal and open-minded approach to understanding them, believing that there was much in the civilization of the “red man” that the white man could learn from and be the better for it.
During his lifetime, Franklin was vocal on the subject of the inherent human dignity of Native Americans, even going so far as to call the perpetrators of the infamous “Paxton Boys” massacre, in which a number of new immigrants to the colonies viciously slew families of Christianized native refugees in the care of a budding New England township, “savages”, contrasting their nature with those of their victims.
“Savages we call them, because their manners differ from ours, which we think the perfection of civility; they think the same of theirs. Perhaps, if we could examine the manners of different nations with impartiality, we should find no people so rude, as to be without any rules of politeness; nor any so polite, as not to have some remains of rudeness.”
Based on all of this, it is not so far-fetched to believe that it was old Ben who, though leaving those sources largely or entirely uncredited, contributed to the inclusion of indigenous elements in the constitution of the United States that we all know from the Iroquois with whom he had spent much time observing, and whose confederation’s laws are almost unanimously agreed upon as being foundational to this nation’s infrastructure.
By the early twentieth century, a new and marked concern for the well-being and equal treatment of Native Americans had begun, originating, of course, on the Republican side of things.
It was Warren G. Harding who first set forth the idea of making all native peoples in the borders of the United States citizens. He was not able to see this through before his death, which some believe to have been caused by assassination, possibly at the hands of a Democrat (by then, Democratic assassination of Republican presidents had become a common occurrence).
His predecessor, Calvin Coolidge, however, accomplished just that during his term, and was adopted by the Lakota in gratitude.
Next in line was yet another Republican, Herbert Hoover, who was the only American president to have lived on an Indian reservation as a child, and whose presidency marked, in the words of archivist Matt Schaefer, “a pivot away from segregating Indians on reservations and ignoring them as part of American citizenry.
Hoover’s term was followed by a democrat’s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who, perhaps in an effort to both show up his Republican rivals, as well adapt to yet another changing political world, adopted a similar stance on Native Americans, modifying his basic “new deal” idea to a sort of “native new deal” marketed at his Native American population. The “Indian Reorganization Act” was an Act passed by Congress under FDR which saw new rights for Native Americans living on reservations to seize a measure of the modernity enjoyed by other Americans, with limited sovereignty over their own tribal citizens as well as a modicum of free enterprise and management of their resources…all under the strict “guidance” of the US government.
Thus, the era of sovereignty vs. state vs. country had begun, with the latter two almost always taking precedence over the former.
Though tiny and certainly not without its quid pro quos, this was nonetheless a monumental step toward self determination for Native Americans. It would not, however, endure. Not without some Republican assistance…
After Roosevelt, almost as if to reverse any potential gains for native rights which might have been gotten through FDR, yet another Democrat, this time one who apparently hadn’t gotten the memo, took office. Harry S. Truman, Roosevelt’s successor, is best remembered in the field of civil rights for supporting Israel and desegregating the military.
However, while his actions said one thing, his private thoughts proclaimed the polar opposite: Truman has been documented as commenting on the loathsome characteristics of Jews and referring to them by slurs, as well as blacks, of whom he once remarked to his wife, Bess Truman:
“I think one man’s as good as the next man, as long as he’s not a Chinaman or a nigger”
Apparently, not only did Truman secretly hold blacks in less esteem than his anti-segregationist tendencies would have constituents believe, but also people of Oriental descent got on his nerves just as much. Such a display of bigotry from one who seemed to be the enemy of all things racist in public begs the question of what other sorts of faces are positioned alongside the public ones of Democrats, even today…
Regardless of not having made the list, it would seem that native peoples, also, were not quite up-to-snuff according to Truman’s worldview, as Truman did everything in his power to destroy the progress of any president before him (Republican OR Democrat) regarding them. Truman either slashed or outright ignored much of what his predecessor, Roosevelt, set into motion, and resumed a much older, more familiar US policy of “termination”, which sought complete and utter assimilation of Native Americans through dismembering any notion of sovereignty, thus enabling the government to seize their land “legally”.
After that, a Republican by the name of Dwight D. Eisenhower took office, but did little to affect the already turning wheels of the newly revived termination. Eisenhower, however, was not overly concerned with his Native American citizens, and was, on the whole, an unremarkable president. Still, liberals who care enough to quell any anti-indigenous sentiment leveled against their chosen party are quick to point out that Eisenhower nonetheless presided over yet another time of broken promises to the first Americans, omitting—intentionally or otherwise—the fact that it was a Democrat who revived it in the first place.
And then came the era of JFK…
This is where our story reaches a turning point: this is where the country receives not only its first “idealistic” Democrat, but first idealistic president. There may very well be no more lionized a leader than John F. Kennedy, and, though it took time for him to be accepted not only by his own party, but the greater public, eventually Democrats seized upon the “legend” that was JFK in the years to follow, and currently expect everyone to believe that the history of their party began with him. Indeed, one is often hard pressed to find a circle in which they could possibly question Kennedy’s presidency without being treated as though they had mocked the divinity of Jesus Christ…
In his time, Kennedy was considered something of a “minority” himself; the American presidency had never seen a Catholic in its office, nor an Irish-American one, for that matter. He was also the youngest person to ever be elected president at 43 years of age. These things alone ensured that the spotlight was never off Kennedy for more than the time it took to grab a quick lunch.
Kennedy is best remembered for his poignant speeches and contributions to the nation’s budding space program.
And…that’s pretty much it, when you get right down to it.
We hate to be the ones to tell you this, but, while JFK may not have been the worst president ever, he was equally far from being the best president either.
Kennedy’s presidency was indeed a first for the democratic party, but not how they would like you to believe: his term, right up until his assassination (for whatever reason), would characterize most democratic presidents from that point onward. Plenty of wars and armed conflicts, from Vietnam to the Bay of Pigs, in which American lives (including native ones) were sent to die for mostly a show of power or even “compassion”, and plenty of pretty words to cover things up. He hob-knobbed with civil rights giants like Martin Luther King, and had his picture taken with more people than can be guessed at, but did little to nothing to actually support their cause.
When confronted with the evidence, between the civil war, as well as both world wars, it would seem that, despite whatever he appeared as to the public, Kennedy nonetheless shared one of the binding proclivities of his chosen party: a penchant for warmongering.
On the indigenous side of things, this also marked the beginning of a brand new—but no less ineffectual—democratic policy regarding Native Americans, in which the Democrats would essentially pat the Indian on the head and talk about how much they sympathize with their plight and promise to change things…and never do.
As one might expect, Kennedy spoke his honeyed words to the downtrodden natives who had once again lived through a seizing of their rights as people of this continent, speaking of “self determination” and using words like “responsibility” in the context of the United States’ relationship with their indigenous population to further “support” them and “look out for their needs”.
This effectively translated to “let us have absolute control over you, and we’ll let you have a bit of control here and there”. From this point on, phrased in such a way that looks so eloquent and merciful on paper and in mass media, Native Americans would come to depend on the very government they had once despised for a degree of “freedom” to do what they felt was right for their own lives.
With Kennedy’s orders, life in Indian country went back to what it had been before Truman, with natives running their own governments within limits of what the federal government–who essentially sustained them—allowed, and attaining a faint simulacrum of independence from a watchful government eye, which was on them constantly.
With Kennedy’s assassination next in line for the oval office was yet another Democrat by the name of Lyndon Johnson. Quite possibly the last President who reflected the “dixiecrat” (racist southern democrat) mentality, Johnson perfunctorily continued the Democrat policy toward natives, allowing them their limited sovereignty and relative undisturbed freedom which had once been granted them by FDR, and revived by JFK. He also demonstrated marked concern for other minorities, specifically African Americans.
But, as one might expect, this was merely a mask for his true feelings, and true intentions…
Though it has never been “officially” corroborated, it was once common knowledge that, in an unintentionally recorded conversation which had allegedly leaked out to certain parties, Johnson had said:
“I’ll have these niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years”
And so his apparent concern was merely pandering by any other name.
Furthermore, his “Indian Civil Rights Act”, which, though restoring a degree of autonomy and cultural freedom to Native citizens, included a special caveat, which allowed the federal government to intervene in matters of tribal governments, ostensibly to “protect them from corrupt tribal decisions”, something no state was subject to. So how much “civil rights” were actually secured by this “Act”?
But when Johnson’s time was up, a new and even more radical version of a Republican took his place. His name was Richard Nixon.
Whatever his faults, Nixon would be remembered (where Democrats would permit it) as a champion for American Indigenous peoples.
Nixon had been close friends with his college football coach, who was an enrolled member of the La Jolla band of Luiseno Indians in California. Nixon believed his mentor had been the victim of racial discrimination in his time coaching, and took it very personally. Thus the seeds of seeking justice for American Indians had been sown in him at a fairly young age.
During his time as president, Nixon signed a number of orders that not only benefited Native Americans, but encouraged them to embrace their cultures. He got rid of any remaining termination policies, stressing individual Native identity and eschewing any attempt at cultural assimilation, as well as granting them an unprecedented level of freedom and control over their own government policies, as well as federal ones which might affect them, similar to how states work, and even repatriated a good number of acres to tribes, returning what had been lost to their ancestral owners.
His admiration for the American indigenous was expressed fully in his own statements a number of times, but, unlike his democratic counterparts, Nixon seemed to understand that actions speak louder than words. Many of the freedoms experienced by Native Americans in their own tribal lands can actually be traced to the Nixon administration.
Nixon was also a great advocate of peace, bringing troops home from Vietnam, and stating:
“I don’t want to blow anyone up if I don’t have to”
After Nixon’s resignation in 1974, his replacement, Gerald Ford, who had served as Nixon’s vice president, continued to establish the newly affirmed commitment to true self-determination for Native Americans, tying up and loose ends that remained.
After Ford, it was once more a Democrat’s turn to sit in the president’s chair, and in came Jimmy Carter.
Carter was, in many ways, the last real native-friendly democrat. Which, by this point in the article, we hope you realize has come to simply mean that he sought neither death nor assimilation for them.
Carter was much more pro-native than many of his predecessors, whose commitment seldom, of ever, extended beyond making sure Indigenous Americans were not dying faster than the government could issue death certificates. Native Americans went unnoticed in the first three years of his short term as president, but near the end, Carter signed two orders designed to preserve the cultural identity of Native Americans: the “American Indian Religious Freedom Act”, and the “Indian Child Welfare Act”.
The first was designed to formally extend the entirety of the first amendment to Native Americans, allowing them to practice their ancestral spiritual traditions which had technically been illegal for a very long time up until that point. The second was to ensure that an excess of indigenous orphaned children were not adopted either out of their tribe or out of Indian families (and, therefore, culture) without being necessary.
Though the religious freedom act was something of a “tolerance” milestone, at least on paper, Natives had already been practicing the traditions of their ancestors both in private and in public since Europeans arrived on this continent, whether “legal” or not, including up to that point, as not many local authorities cared to prosecute natives for believing or practicing how they wanted, particularly if it was private. This makes the first Act seem trivial at best, and condescending at worst.
The Indian Child Welfare Act, or ICWA (often just called “ickwah”) continues to this day, and it has been seen as mostly positive by natives, both as a symbol of tribal sovereignty in action (as, like states, tribes can exercise authority over what child is adopted from where), and as a lifeline for preserving their way of life for generations to come, though a few have found fault with it, claiming it causes more problems than its worth, or that it hurts more children than it helps.
Enter Ronald Raegan, the prototypal “racist Republican” who would come to be known by millions upon millions of casual tv-watching Americans. But does he really deserve such a memory?
Raegan’s administration was all about self-determination, not just for natives, but all Americans. His “Raeganomics” approach to the American economy cut many federally funded programs which tended to benefit minorities the most, natives included, and this is what largely colors the “Raegan was a racist” picture, which was painted chiefly by the left.
When it came to Native Americans, Raegan is best remembered for a somewhat ignorant comment he made during a visit to Moscow, where he stated the following:
“We’ve done everything we can to meet their demands as to how they want to live,” he said. “Maybe we made a mistake. Maybe we should not have humored them in that wanting to stay in that kind of primitive lifestyle. Maybe we should have said, no, come join us; be citizens along with the rest of us.”
Unfortunately, the former Hollywood actor went into the presidency largely unaware of not only how Native Americans thought, but of how American Indian policy worked. In his mind, a reservation was a sort of playground where Native Americans could do as they pleased. This much was evident in another statement he made about how Native Americans could get rich from pumping oil on their land, not knowing that they could not legally do any such thing.
However, once Raegan had looked deeper into the situation, not only did he apologize for his uninformed statement, but seemed to do everything in his power to make up for it.
As we said before, Raegan’s administration was about an aggressively “American” spirit that emphasized both industriousness and personal responsibility. To that end, he did all he could to ensure that Native Americans were truly both native and “Americans”.
He went out of his way to ensure that natives had as much access and control over their resources as the other government agencies would allow them and fought for more. It was also his secretary of the interior who observed the very real problem of corrupt tribal leadership, how chiefs seemed to be overly reliant on the government for financial security, and likened this relationship to the communistic one of Soviet Russia, where a few important people get rich while everyone else remains dirt poor, all while having to rely on government for their livelihood.
This continues to be one of the biggest problems in the nationwide native community today, and it is one we relentlessly fight against.
Indeed, Raegan’s policies supported not only “self-determination” for native peoples, but laid precedent for a day when they were truly self-sufficient in their sovereignty, and on par with states themselves.
This is why his main plan for lending money to tribes made provision for the government denying financial support to tribes if there is no need, for it anticipated a day when they would no longer be asking for anything. His (mainly liberal) critics, of course tried to paint him as an Indian-hater for this, just like, according to rumors, they painted him as a racist for attempting to disband the BIA and reservation system itself…
So did Raegan really deserve the reputation for native-hating that he ended up being remembered for? We don’t think so.
After Raegan, natives faded back into American periphery for a very long time. The subsequent presidents, George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, George Bush (dubya) Jr., and Barack Obama, while never persecuting American indigenous, nonetheless only occasionally referenced them—let alone did anything for them—and when they did, they were simply continuations of the things the likes of Nixon, his protégé Ford, and Raegan had already done, with imperceptible additions made to those policies in effort to pace their own mark on the product, ignoring native issues which had not quite been addressed yet, whether new or old.
It was also during this time that leftist control of the media solidified to an absolute, and, with the astonishing incompetence and debatably racist tendencies of presidents like Bush Jr. (who was and is good friends with the Clintons and other Democrats, just like his father before him had been), the so called “liberals” had more to work with than ever in making their “opposition” look like the ignorant, racist bad guys and themselves like bastions of hope and reason, and saviors of humanity.
Then, in 2016, something happened…
The game which Democrats and “neo-conservative” Republicans thought they had completely and totally rigged for themselves encountered a glitch in its programming.
That glitch was Donald Trump.
Ever since his historic election which shocked the word, liberals and Democrats everywhere have not rested in trying their best to oust him from office.
And how fitting that is, seeing as how this is the party that did the Trail of Tears, fought for the right to keep slaves, founded the KKK, and revived termination…meanwhile President Trump is slashing old racist laws that were—through ignorance, apathy, or something more sinister—still on the books, having to do with things like land rights, membership and other important issues, and the only…the ONLY…US president to start a taskforce for murdered and missing indigenous women, saying “this should have been decades ago”.
Those things got approximately zero mainstream media coverage.
Instead, they want you to focus on his locker room talk, his supposedly past racist behavior (nothing could be further from the truth) toward non-whites, attempt to tie him to projects they believe to be anti-indigenous, such as the Keystone pipeline, of which only complaints were lodged against by tribal communities, and did not violate any laws or treaties, and read into comments like “Pocahontas”(leveled at the democratic senator Elizabeth Warren, known for using her distant, unverified Cherokee ancestry for attention, having gone so far as to mark “other” on a college entry form for her race) levels of prejudice and racism which simply aren’t there.
This is where we are now. Why do natives vote Democrat? Because not only have they come to believe that democrats are the party that “tolerates” them, but that supports them. Natives mistakenly believe that the only way they can be Native Americans in this country by supporting big government, which they believe is their lifeline to maintaining sovereignty and national identity among their respective tribes.
With regard to the first reason, the reason for this, as mentioned earlier, has to do with the mass media makeover that the Democrats gave themselves between the late sixties and early to late nineties. Since liberals are largely in control of both film—an immensely powerful medium in our time—and education in this country, they exert such power over the minds of not just natives, but everyone who views or experiences these things (pretty much everyone).
And what do these things tell you? That Native Americans used to be here. That they are helpless, that they are segregated, and wish to remain so. That they dislike anyone who is not native. That non-natives, especially whites, must do all they can to atone for the sin of driving them off their lands and destroying their ways of life…by occasionally watching a depressing movie or selectively put together documentary and commenting on how bad they are for possibly being related to the people responsible, for living in this country at all, bonus points for doing it in a public forum, and then laugh it all off later.
All the left need do to keep the majority from questioning this line of reasoning is to chant whatever supposedly tolerant mantra they’ve popularized at the moment (such as “black lives matter) and the programming proves effective.
So effective is the programming, and so complete is their control over the media, that many natives, during the last presidential election, seriously considered voting—or actually voted—for Hillary Clinton, a woman who once said of her opponent, Donald Trump:
“I have a long history of men who try to get off the reservation when speaking to me”.
Need we say more?
With regard to the other reason natives support the left in droves, we have laid out the truth regarding American politics in this article. We have shown that, while doing a few “nice things” for natives once in a while, only one party has truly led the way in achieving for first Americans all the liberties of other Americans, of securing their rights as peoples to exist, and expressed any real concern for their wellbeing. And it is NOT the Democrats.
America is about freedom. About creativity. About respect for another’s point of view without necessarily agreeing. All things the American Indian stood for long before a European had ever tasted corn.
The Democrat party is about conformity. Control. And censorship.
Today, many conservatives admire and even love Native Americans for these very reasons, in spite of the left trying to label them “racist” for it. Today, there are scores of non-native people of all skin tones who have native spouses, adopted native children, or have been adopted by native parents. These people often love native culture as much as their native loved ones. Today, more than ever, non-native Americans are interested in American indigenous spirituality, philosophy, and ways of living, not to “appropriate”, but to appreciate.
The time has come to complete the medicine wheel.
Not long ago, a certain parody of the well-known Trump slogan “Make America Great Again”, appeared on a hat by a native artist which stated “Make America Native Again”.
We do not think this is a bad idea.
Here at the American Indigenous Movement, we look to the future, not the past. Our goal is to expand the common understanding of the term “indigenous” in the United States under a solidly and uniquely “American” approach, using traditional native modes of thought.
We believe that the general idea of the United States, whether it was always so or not, is representative of the Native American spirit, which can be disseminated through teaching, activism, and above all, political involvement with our brothers and sisters of all colors and of all backgrounds.
This cannot be done if Native Americans are destined to live off the American government for as long as the earth stands. Native Americans must be free to own their own land as much as other Americans. To assert tribal and personal authority over the territories of their ancestors. And to be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with other Americans fiscally, culturally, and spiritually.
At this point, with Democrats pushing the same communist, globalist agenda that has wreaked havoc upon native reservations since day one, our path seems clear.
Please share this article, as well as others, from this site with your friends, family and tribal members, and with the Creator’s help, may we see a day whose light astounds even those of us who dared to dream of it.