¹ New York Times, Jan. 25 1983, p. 16; see also Jan. 19, 1983, p. 19, and Jan. 26, 1983, p. 13.Google Scholar

² In 1980, 29 percent of all employed Indians worked in the public sector, as opposed to 27 percent of blacks, 18 percent of Asian-Americans, and 16 percent of whites; U.S. Bureau of the Census, General Social and Economic Characteristics of the 1980 Census of Population, vol. 1, part 1 (Washington, DC, 1983), pp. 99–100.Google Scholar

³ Recent efforts to explain the poverty of domestic minorities have employed a colonialism model in which the colonizers first rob the subject peoples of their resources and then keep them dependent by starngling them with bureaucracy and appeasement benefits such as welfare, jobs, and schools. For example, Gary Anders likened American Indians who participated in BIA programs to the compradors of the Spanish Empire whose alliance with the conquerors promoted “the interests of the white economy at the expense of the tribe,” see Anders, Gray C., “Theories of Underdevelopment and the American Indian,” Journal of Economic Issues, 14 (09 1980), p. 694CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Brown, Michael K. and Erie, Steven P., “Blacks and the Legacy of the Great Society: The Economic and Political Impact of Federal Social Policy,” Public Policy, 29 (Summer 1981), pp. 299–329.Google Scholar There are two main problems with using the colonialism model to explain Indian employment in the BIA. First, North American whites had little interest in exploiting Indian labor. Cardell Jacobsen, Matthew Snipp, and Stephen Cornell have pointed out that the U.S. government sought to expropriate the Indian lands but not their labor. The government hoped to handle the Indian peoples as quickly and cheaply as possible; see Jacobsen, Cardell K., “Internal Colonialism and Native Americans: Indian Labor in the United States From 1871 to World War II,” Social Science Quarterly, 65 (03 1984), pp. 167–68;Google ScholarSnipp, Matthew, “The Changing Political and Economic States of the American Indians: From Captive Nations to Internal Colonies,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 45 (04 1986), p. 151CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Cornell, Stephen, The Return of the Native: American Indian Political Resurgence (New York, 1988), pp. 28, 30, 54. Second, the colonialism model stresses the power of the colonizer and minimizes the strength of the colonized, when in some instances colonizers are not omnipotent or colonized totally impotent.Google Scholar

⁴ On Indian policy, see Prucha, Francis Paul, The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indian, 2 vols. (Lincoln, NE, 1984)Google Scholar; Dipple, Brian W., The Vanishing Americans: White Attitudes and U.S. Indian Policy (Middletown, CT, 1982)Google Scholar; and JrBerkhofer, Robert F., The White Man's Indian: From Columbus to the Present (New York, 1977).Google Scholar

⁵ Quoted in Holcomb, Return I., ed., “A Sioux Story of the War,” Minnesota Historical Collections, 6 (1894), p. 384Google Scholar; and Sweezy, Carl, The Arapaho Way: A Memoir of an Indian Boyhood, edited by Bass, Althea (New York, 1966), p. 38.Google Scholar

⁶ Sweezy, The Arapaho Way, p. 17–19, 27–29;Google ScholarBear, Luther Standing wrote that “because the Indian was unable, and in some cases refused, to accept completely the white man's ways which were so contrary to his heritage and tradition, he earned for himself the reputation of being lazy,” Land of the Spotted Eagle (Lincoln, NE, 1978; 1st edn., 1933), pp. 166, 168, and Annual Report for the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for 1853 [hereafter cited as Annual Report] (Washington, DC, 1853), p. 324.Google ScholarFurther examples of Indian resistance to the civilization program are in Annual Report 1841, pp. 401, 336;Google Scholar and Davenport, T. W., “Recollections of an Indian Agent,” Oregon Historical Quarterly, 8 (03 1907), p. 5.Google Scholar

⁷ Satz, Ronald N., American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era (Lincoln, NE, 1975), pp. 258–78. Federal records are full of complaints such as that of the Quapaw agent in 1852 that “all who have been educated at this shool, except the present United States interpreter, have resumed all their original habits,” Annual Report 1852, p. 395.Google Scholar

⁸ Riggs quoted in Annual Report 1858, p. 537. For added remarks on the need for employment assistance, see the following Annual Reports: 1842, p. 521; 1846, p. 264, 334; 1851, p. 381; 1852, p. 395; 1855, p. 497; and 1858, p. 491.Google Scholar

⁹ Prucha, Francis Paul, ed., Documents of United States Indian Policy (Lincoln, NE, 1975), pp. 70, 72. On the hopes raised by Section 9, see Annual Report 1833, pp. 169–70; 1834, pp. 241, 262–63; and 1835, p. 283.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Besides the Annual Reports of the commissioner of Indian Affairs, after 1834 the secretary of War published a somewhat less useful list of “Persons Employed in the Indian Department.” To my knowledge the BIA never published a memorandum on the effects of Section 9 preferential hiring. My compilation required judgments about the ethnicity of the employees. Sometimes their Indian name is obvious (Wah-pe-ka-no-sho-may, a Menominee blacksmith of 1847), or the name might be translated (Jerry Crow, a Seneca blacksmith that same year). For natives with Anglicized names, race or tribe might be given in parentheses. Thus the 1839 personnel list contained Choctaw teacher “T. McKenny (native)” and interpreter “James Vallier (a Quapaw).” Place of birth is another clue, as with the 1855 interpreters Joseph W. Bourassa, born in “Pottawatomie nation,” and Baptiste Peoria, nativity “Indian country.”Google Scholar

¹¹ Foreman quoted in Annual Report 1845, p. 487; and Prescott in 1850, p. 119. For further observations on the impact of governmental wages, see the following Annual Reports: 1834, pp. 238, 255; 1839, p. 84; 1842, pp. 412, 436; 1845, p. 579; 1851, p. 347; 1855, p. 86; 1857, p. 404; and 1859, p. 95.Google Scholar

¹² Blackbird, Andrew Jackson, History of the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan (Ypsilanti, MI, 1887), pp. 56, 59–70.Google Scholar

¹³ Kappler, Charles J., ed., Indian Treaties, 1778–1883 (Washington, DC, 1904), p. 689.Google Scholar By the 1840s several tribes tried to place members in agency positions. See Annual Reports: 1840, p. 480; 1845, p. 502; 1847, pp. 912–13; 1848, p. 474; and 1849, p. 1054.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Prucha, , The Great Father, vol. 2, p. 656.Google Scholar The BIA's long struggle to transform Indians into farmers is analyzed in Hurt, R. Douglas, Indian Agriculture in America, Prehistory to the Present (Lawrence, KS, 1987). Although natives farmed both before and after government programs, Hurt concludes that federal efforts failed because they were tried on infertile lands and because they “required too great a cultural change,” p. 233.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Fletcher, Alice citation., Indian Education and Civilization (Washington, DC, 1888), p. 137.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Otis, D. S., The Dawes Act and the Allotment of Indian Lands, edited by Prucha, Francis Paul (Norman, OK, 1973)Google Scholar; and Carlson, Leonard A., Indians, Bureaucrats, and Land: The Dawes Act and the Decline of Indian Farming (Westport, CT, 1981).Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Annual Reports: 1891, pp. 57–59; 1892, pp. 156–58; 1907, p. 45;Google Scholar and Adams, David Wallace, “From Bullets to Boarding Schools: The Educational Assault on the American Indian Identity,” in Weeks, Philip, ed., The American Indian Experience (Arlington Heights, IL, 1988), pp. 218–39.Google Scholar For general background on this phase of policy, see Fritz, Henry F., The Movement for Indian Assimilation, 1860–1890 (Philadelphia, 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Priest, Loring Benson, Uncle Sam's Stepchildren: The Reformation of United States Indian Policy, 1865–1887 (New Brunswick, NJ, 1942)Google Scholar; Prucha, Francis Paul, American Indian Policy in Crisis: Christian Reformers and the Indian, 1865–1900 (Norman, OK, 1976)Google Scholar; and Hoxie, Frederick E., A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880–1920 (Lincoln, NE, 1984).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Congressional Record, 49th Cong., 1st sess. (1886), vol. 17, part 4, pp. 2268, 2272, 2305–13, emphasis added. Cannon's colleague William Holman echoed his sentiment, “unless the Government gives to the Indian girl or boy employment, in other words, unless they are supported by the Government, they relapse into barbarism when they return to the tribe.”Google Scholar

¹⁹ Welsh, Herbert, Are the Eastern Industrial Training Schools for Indian Children a Failure? (Philadelphia, 1886), pp. 9–12, 14, 36;Google Scholar also Pratt, R. H., Seventh Annual Report of the Carlisle Indian School (Carlisle, 1886)Google Scholar; and Ludlow, Helen, Twenty-Two Years Work of the Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute (Hampton, 1893), p. 488.Google Scholar

²⁰ Prucha, , The Great Father, vol. 2, p.719; and Annual Report 1909, p. 6.Google Scholar For similar provisions, see Funke, Karl A., “Educational Assistance and Employment Preference: Who is an Indian?” American Indian Law Review, 4 (01 1976), pp. 1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Anderson, Kevin N., “Indian Employment Preference: Legal Foundations and Limitations,” Tulsa Law Journal, 15 (Summer 1980), pp. 733–71.Google Scholar

²¹ In the late nineteenth century the entire American society went through a broad shift toward white-collar work. See Bledstein, Burton J., The Culture of Professionalism: The Middle Class and the Development of Higher Education in America (New York, 1976).Google Scholar Indians had some new career opportunities as in the 1870s part-time Indian judges and police were hired on reservations; see Hagan, William T., Indian Police and Judges: Experiments in Acculturation and Control (New Haven, 1966).Google Scholar After the Civil War the U.S. Army hired hundreds of Indian scouts; see Dunlay, Thomas W., Wolves for the Blue Soldiers: Indian Scouts and Auxiliaries with the United States Army, 1860–90 (Lincoln, NE, 1982).Google Scholar

²² Bear, Luther Standing, My People the Sioux (New York, 1928), pp. 239, 241; and “Unpublished Annual Report 1910,” National Archives, Record Group 75, MlOll, reel 100, p. 4.Google Scholar

²³ AnnualReport 1891, p.7; and 1905, pp. 4–5; see also, 1892, pp. 94–97.Google Scholar On the commissioners, see Kvasnicka, Robert M. et al. ,, The Commissioners of Indian Affairs, 1824–1977 (Lincoln, NE, 1979), pp. 193–203, 221–32.Google Scholar

²⁴ Trennert, Robert A., “Educating Indian Girls at Nonreservation Boarding Schools, 1878–1920,” The Western Historical Quarterly, 13 (07 1982), pp. 271–90, 288;CrossRefGoogle ScholarTrennert, Robert A., “From Carlisle to Phoenix: The Rise and Fall of the Indian Outing System, 1878–1930,” Pacific Historical Review, 52 (08 1983), pp. 267–91, 277;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Hoxie, A Final Promise, pp. 201–7.Google Scholar

²⁵ U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Indian Law (Washington, DC, 1958), pp. 532–39;Google ScholarU.S. Civil Service Commission, Tables Showing the Number of Persons Not Under Civil Service (Washington, DC, 1933)Google Scholar; and Annual Report 1941, p. 440, which declared that “the Civil Service will exact no standard or requirement of Indians of one-fourth or more of Indian blood.”Google Scholar

²⁶ Annual Report 1912, pp. 41–42. On Valentine, see Kvasnicka, Commissioners of Indian Affairs, pp. 233–42.Google Scholar

²⁷ Annual Report 1901, p. 537;Google ScholarGranzer, Loretto Mary examined Haskell students seeking federal exployment in “Indian Education at Haskell Institute, 1884–1937” (M.A. thesis, University of Nebraska, 1937), pp. 241–52.Google Scholar A sociologist tracking Haskell graduates in the 1920s found that two-thirds of those employed held government positions. See Blackmar, Frank Wilson, “The Socialization of the American Indian,” American Journal of Sociology. 34 (01 1929), pp. 657,659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁸ “Unpublished Annual Report 1914,” National Archives, Record Group 75, MlOlI, reel 104, pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

²⁹ Hoxie, A Final Promise, pp. 173, 179.Google Scholar

³⁰ Fixico, Donald L., Termination and Relocation: Federal Indian Policy, 1945–1960 (Albuquerque, 1987), pp. 16, 32.Google Scholar

³¹ Department of the Interior, Manual of the United States Reclamation Service (Washington, DC, 1911), pp. 500, 499–512.Google Scholar

³² “Unpublished Annual Report 1914,” pp. 25–26.Google Scholar

³³ “Unpublished Annual Report 1929,” National Archives, Record Group 75, MIOlI, reel 97, p. 15.Google Scholar

³⁴ Annual Report 1900, p. 258.Google Scholar

³⁵ Annual Report 1892, p. 433.Google Scholar

³⁶ Annual Report 1901, p. 356.Google Scholar

³⁷ Annual Report 1904, p. 132.Google Scholar

³⁸ Annual Report 1891, p. 511.Google Scholar

³⁸ “Unpublished Annual Report 1914,” pp. 32–33.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Standing Bear, My People the Sioux, p. 243; also see pp. 192–95, 239–43. See also Standing Bear, Land of the Spotted Eagle, pp. 252–54.Google Scholar

⁴¹ American Indian Magazine, 1 (Jan.-Apr. 1913), p. 48.Google Scholar

⁴² Oskison, John M., “In Governing the Indian, Use the Indian” Case and Comment, 23 (02 1917), p. 726.Google Scholar

⁴³ Bear, Standing, Land of the Spoued Eagle, pp. 252–54.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Congressional Record, 73rd Cong., 2nd sess. (1934), vol. 78, part II, pp. 11, 725.Google Scholar On the Collier reforms, see Philp, Kenneth R., John Collier's Crusade for Indian Reform, 1920–1954 (Tucson, 1977).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Deloria quoted in Philp, Kenneth R., ed., Indian Self-Rule: First Hand Accounts of IndianWhite Relations from Roosevelt to Reagan (Salt Lake City, 1986), p. 197.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Annual Report 1901, pp. 439, 471–74.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Szasz, Margaret Connell, Education and the American Indian (Albuquerque, 1977).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ On the concept of captive bureaucracy, see Thompson, Fred, Regulatory Policy and Practices (New York, 1982), pp. 93–129.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Hertzberg, Hazel W., The Search for an American Indian Identity (Syracuse, 1971), pp. 19, 79–99, 136–54.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Peterson quoted in Philp, Indian Self-Rule, p. 170.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Bailey, Garrick and Bailey, Roberta Glenn, A History of the Navajos: The Reservation Years (Santa Fe, 1986), p. 257Google Scholar; and Sorkin, Alan L., “The Economic Basis of Indian Life,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 436 (03 1978), p. 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Schusky, Ernest L., The Forgotten Sioux: An Ethnohisrory of the Lower Brule Reservation (Chicago, 1975), pp. 198, 222, 228–29.Google Scholar

⁵² D'arcy McNickle Center for the History of the American Indian, Occasional Papers in Curriculum Series, 9, Overcoming Economic Dependency (Chicago, 1988)Google Scholar; Margolis, Richard J., “Native Profit,” Foundation News (Jan./Feb. 1988), pp. 19–23; James Cook, “Help Wanted—Work, Not Handouts,” Forbes (May 4, 1987), pp. 68–71; and Daniel Cohen, “Business: Tribal Enterprise,” The Atlantic (Oct. 1989), pp. 32–43.Google Scholar

⁵³ This is the recommendation of a recent Senate report, see U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Indian Affairs, Special Committee on Investigations, A New Federalism for American Indians (Washington, DC, 1989).Google Scholar