essay on tribal discrimination

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Health Serv Res
• v.54(Suppl 2); 2019 Dec

Discrimination in the United States: Experiences of Native Americans

Mary g. findling.

1 Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston Massachusetts

Logan S. Casey

Stephanie a. fryberg.

2 Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Michigan

Steven Hafner

3 Center for Human Identification, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth Texas

Robert J. Blendon

John m. benson, justin m. sayde, carolyn miller.

4 Research, Evaluation, and Learning Unit, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton New Jersey

Associated Data

To examine reported racial discrimination and harassment against Native Americans, which broadly contribute to poor health outcomes.

Data Source and Study Design

Data come from a nationally representative, probability‐based telephone survey including 342 Native American and 902 white US adults, conducted January‐April 2017.

We calculated the percent of Native Americans reporting discrimination in several domains, including health care. We used logistic regression to compare the Native American‐white difference in odds of discrimination and conducted exploratory analyses among Native Americans only to examine variation by socioeconomic and geographic/neighborhood characteristics.

Principal Findings

More than one in five Native Americans (23 percent) reported experiencing discrimination in clinical encounters, while 15 percent avoided seeking health care for themselves or family members due to anticipated discrimination. A notable share of Native Americans also reported they or family members have experienced violence (38 percent) or have been threatened or harassed (34 percent). In adjusted models, Native Americans had higher odds than whites of reporting discrimination across several domains, including health care and interactions with the police/courts. In exploratory analyses, the association between geographic/neighborhood characteristics and discrimination among Native Americans was mixed.

Conclusions

Discrimination and harassment are widely reported by Native Americans across multiple domains of their lives, regardless of geographic or neighborhood context. Native Americans report major disparities compared to whites in fair treatment by institutions, particularly with health care and police/courts. Results suggest modern forms of discrimination and harassment against Native Americans are systemic and untreated problems.

1. INTRODUCTION

Native Americans have experienced worse health outcomes than whites since Europeans first arrived in the Americas more than 500 years ago. 1 Centuries of massive trauma, genocide, forced migration, segregation, and discrimination have been important causes of Native Americans‐white health disparities, as well as poor health outcomes for generations of Native Americans. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 However, because of sampling difficulties, Native Americans' modern experiences of discrimination and harassment remain understudied in health services research. In order to build evidence for appropriate policies and programs that address these problems and improve related health outcomes, it is critical to examine and document present‐day experiences of discrimination of Native Americans across a broad spectrum of life domains.

Previous research suggests that these experiences have had massive and cumulative effects on the physical, emotional, and psychological health of Native American individuals and communities. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Research also shows that experiences of discrimination and harassment (including disproportionate exposures to trauma and recurrent microaggressions) have severe negative consequences for Native Americans' health behaviors and related outcomes. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 Major issues experienced by Native Americans include high mortality rates, poor health, low‐quality health care, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, depression, and sexual violence. 5 , 13

Prior research indicates that for some US minorities, socioeconomic status, geographic variation, and neighborhood conditions may moderate the relationships between race, discrimination, and health. For example, discrimination research suggests that for blacks and Latinos, higher income and education levels are associated with greater reported discrimination. 14 , 15 However, it has not been thoroughly investigated whether these patterns would extend to Native Americans. Research also suggests that residential segregation impacts discriminatory experiences, with major consequences for racial/ethnic minorities' health, social mobility, and quality of life. 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20

Increasing evidence about the health risks associated with experiencing discrimination suggests an updated examination of minority groups is warranted, to complement ongoing national policy work on these issues. 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 In particular, more research is needed among populations hard to reach in telephone polling, including Native Americans. 25 Therefore, this study had three purposes: (a) to document the prevalence of racial discrimination against Native American adults across institutional domains (health care, education, employment, housing, political participation, police, and the criminal justice system), as well as interpersonal experiences that affect health outcomes, including slurs, microaggressions, harassment, and violence; (b) to document disparities in experiences by comparing Native Americans to whites; and (c) to conduct exploratory analyses examining the variation in Native American adults' experiences with discrimination by socioeconomic status and geographic/neighborhood characteristics.

This study brings a public health perspective to the complexity and pervasiveness of discrimination in the United States today, alongside complementary articles in this issue of Health Services Research . It was conducted as part of a larger nationally representative survey fielded in 2017 in response to a growing national debate about discrimination in the United States today, 22 , 26 to understand experiences of discrimination against several different groups in America, including blacks, Latinos, Asian Americans, Native Americans, women, and LGBTQ people.

2.1. Study design and sample

Data were obtained from an original, nationally representative, probability‐based telephone (cell and landline) survey of US adults, conducted from January 26 to April 9, 2017. The survey was jointly designed by Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and National Public Radio. SSRS administered the survey. Because Harvard researchers were not directly involved in data collection and de‐identified datasets were used for analysis, the study was determined to be “not human subjects research” by the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health Office of Human Research Administration.

The full sample included 3453 US adults aged 18 years and older, and this paper examines the subsample of 342 Native Americans and 902 non‐Hispanic whites. Potential respondents were told the surveyor was calling on behalf of the Harvard School of Public Health and National Public Radio, and the purpose of the survey was to conduct “research about some interesting issues in America today.” Screening questions regarding racial identities were asked at the beginning of the survey, and all questions about racial/ethnic identity were based on respondents' self‐identification. If respondents identified as multiracial, interviewers asked which race they identified with most. Respondents were asked if they identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, following the language used by the US Census, and volunteered responses of “Native American” are also allowed. In all follow‐up questions for Native American respondents, question wording used the term “Native American,” following language most commonly used. This method of screening also allowed interviewers to use the appropriate language in survey questions to describe or refer to the respondent's own identity. For example, this allowed questions to be read as “Did you experience [form of discrimination] because you are [‘Native American’]?” rather than “because of your race or ethnicity?”

The completion rate for this survey was 74 percent among respondents who answered initial demographic screening questions, with a 10 percent overall response rate, calculated based on the American Association for Public Opinion Research's (AAPOR) RR3 formula. 27 Because data from this study were drawn from a probability sample and used the best available sampling and weighting practices in polling methods (eg, 68 percent of interviews were conducted by cell phone, and 32 percent were conducted via landline), they are expected to provide accurate results consistent with surveys with higher response rates 28 , 29 and are therefore reliably generalizable to the broader populations of white and Native American adults, within a margin of error of ±4.7 percentage points (whites) ±8.0 percentage points (Native Americans) at the 95 percent confidence interval. See Benson, Ben‐Porath, and Casey (2019) for a further description of the survey methodology. 30

2.2. Survey instrument

The poll asked about adults' experiences of racial discrimination. We conceptualized racial discrimination as differential or unfair treatment of individuals based on self‐identified race, whether by individuals (based on beliefs, words, and behavior) or social institutions (based on laws, policies, institutions, and related behavior of individuals who work in or control these laws, policies, or institution). 15 , 21 , 31 We analyzed 18 questions from the survey, covering six institutional and six interpersonal areas of discrimination (question wording in Appendix S1 ). Institutional areas included were health care, employment, education, housing, political participation, and police and courts. Interpersonal areas included were racial slurs, microaggressions, racial fear, sexual harassment, being threatened or nonsexually harassed, and violence. We also explored two areas in which concerns about discrimination might prevent adults from taking needed action: seeking health services and protection from the police.

Questions were only asked among a random half sample of respondents to maximize the number of questions while limiting respondent burden. Questions were only asked of relevant subgroups (eg, college questions only asked among adults who had ever applied to college). Questions on harassment, violence, and avoiding institutions for fear of discrimination were asked about whether they had been experienced by either respondents or their family members because of the sensitive nature of the topic. Prior literature has demonstrated the validity of asking questions this way to measure experiences on sensitive topics, as vicarious experiences of stress (eg, through discrimination or harassment experienced by family members) can adversely affect the health of individuals reporting it, even without respondents directly experiencing it themselves. 32

2.3. Statistical analyses

After calculating descriptive statistics, we calculated the prevalence of all Native Americans and whites who reported that they had ever experienced racial discrimination in each of the domains. Using pairwise t tests of differences in proportions, we made uncontrolled comparisons of the percentage of Native American and white adults reporting discrimination across domains. For all analyses, statistical significance was determined at P  < .05.

We then conducted logistic regression models to assess whether reporting discrimination remained significantly associated with race (reference group: whites) after controlling for the following variables that are related to variation in experiences of discrimination: gender, age (18‐49, 50+), household income (<$25 000, $25 000+), education (less than college degree or college graduate), neighborhood racial composition (whether or not respondents live in a neighborhood they describe as predominantly their own race), metropolitan status (urban, suburban, rural [outside metropolitan statistical areas]), and region (US Census Bureau 4‐region division: Midwest, Northeast, South, West).

Finally, we estimated logistic regression models as exploratory analyses among Native Americans only, to give further consideration as to whether socioeconomic status, neighborhood racial composition, residence on a reservation or tribal lands, or metropolitan status (rural or nonrural) are associated with experiences of institutional discrimination among Native American adults. We examined variation in institutional discrimination by socioeconomic status (income: <$25 000 or $25 000+; education: less than college degree or college graduate) and neighborhood racial composition (living in a predominantly Native American neighborhood or not), while controlling for gender and age (18‐49 or 50+). To test characteristics associated with experiencing greater amounts of discrimination across domains, we ran an ordinal logistic regression model reported in Table ​ Table3 3 to estimate factors associated with experiencing between 0 and 7 institutional types of discrimination among Native American adults only (questions were asked among only a half sample of respondents for each type of institutional discrimination). Logistic regression models were estimated using complete case analysis.

Odds of reporting personal experiences of racial discrimination across institutional domains among Native American adults in the United States a

Nationally representative sample of Native American adults ages 18+.

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.

We tested the sensitivity of our results to several model specifications. First, we tested an alternate measure of neighborhood racial composition: whether respondents reported living on tribal lands such as a reservation, pueblo, or Alaska Native village (“yes” n = 109). Second, we tested an alternate measure of geography: whether respondents reported living in rural (n = 172) or nonrural (urban or suburban, n = 131) areas. We ultimately used living in a predominantly Native American neighborhood as the measure of neighborhood racial composition in final models, as it has been associated with worse health outcomes 19 , 33 and is more inclusive of Native American adults living off, but near, reservations and other tribal areas.

To compensate for known biases in telephone surveys (eg, nonresponse bias) and variations in probability of selection within and across households, sample data were weighted by household size and composition, cell phone/landline use, and demographics (gender, age, race/ethnicity, and Census region) to reflect the true population distribution of Native American and white adults in the country. According to the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS), Native American populations on average have slightly less phone access (95 percent) than the general population (97 percent). However, since access is still above 90 percent, we do not expect this slight difference to introduce any sample bias. ACS estimates were derived from data downloaded from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS). 34 Other techniques, including random‐digit dialing, replicate subsamples, and random selection of a respondent within a household, were used to ensure that the sample is representative. All analyses were conducted using STATA version 15.0 (StataCorp), and all tests accounted for the variance introduced by weighted data.

Weighted characteristics of Native Americans and whites in this study sample are presented in Table ​ Table1. 1 . Native Americans differed than whites on several demographic measures. Compared to whites, Native American adults were less likely to have a college degree (15 percent vs 34 percent, P  < .01), more likely to live in lower‐income households (<$25 000/year) (39 percent vs 23 percent, P  < .01), and less likely to live in a neighborhood that is predominantly their own race (31 percent vs 67 percent, P  < .01).

Characteristics of the study sample, by race a

Abbreviations:  AI/AN, American Indian or Alaska Native; NHOPI, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

Table ​ Table2 2 shows unadjusted estimates of Native American and white adults reporting personal discrimination because of their race across institutional and interpersonal domains, as well as actions based on concerns about discrimination. In the context of institutional discrimination, more than one in five Native American adults reported personally experiencing discrimination across most domains of life examined, including employment, health care, and the police and courts. For example, 33 percent of Native American adults said they experienced discrimination in obtaining equal pay or being considered for promotions, 31 percent in applying for jobs, 23 percent when going to a doctor or health clinic, and 29 percent when interacting with the police. Roughly one‐third reported discrimination against themselves or a Native American family member in being unfairly treated by the police (32 percent) and courts (32 percent). Less than one‐quarter of whites reported personally experiencing discrimination in any single domain.

Differences between Native American and white adults in reporting discrimination because of race a

More than one‐third of Native American adults also reported that they have experienced several interpersonal forms of discrimination: 39 percent report that they have been the target of microaggressions, 38 percent said they or a family member have experienced violence because they are Native American, and 35 percent have been the target of racial slurs. Further, 34 percent say they or a family member have been threatened or nonsexually harassed because they are Native American, while 23 percent have experienced sexual harassment. Fewer reported that others have shown racial fear, that is, acted afraid of them because they are Native (10 percent).

Concerns or anticipation that they would experience discrimination also prevented some Native American adults from taking potentially needed actions: more than one in five (22 percent) reported that they have avoided calling the police or other authority figures, even when in need, and 15 percent reported that they have avoided the doctor or seeking health care for themselves or their family, out of fear they would be discriminated against or treated poorly.

After we accounted for potential sociodemographic confounders in logistic regression models (Figure ​ (Figure1), 1 ), Native American‐white disparities in reported discrimination persisted in most domains, including equal pay/promotions, health care visits, police interactions, unfair treatment of themselves or family members by the police and courts, microaggressions, violence, sexual and nonsexual threats/harassment toward themselves or family members, and avoiding health care and police protection due to anticipated discrimination against themselves or family members. Figure ​ Figure1 1 shows adjusted differences in the odds of Native American adults personally experiencing discrimination compared to whites (full modeled results shown in Appendices S2 and S3 ).

Adjusted odds of experiencing discrimination among Native American adults compared to whites (reference group). OR, odds ratio, with 95% confidence interval bars. Nationally representative sample of Native American and non‐Hispanic white adults ages 18+. Full model results available in Appendices S2 and S3 . *Statistical significance at P  < .05. Don't know/refused responses coded as missing. Odds ratios report the odds that Native American adults reported experiencing discrimination for each outcome (whites were the reference group). These estimates control for sex, age (18‐49 vs 50+), education (<college vs college graduate or more), household income (<$25 k vs $25 k+), living in a neighborhood that is predominantly one's own race, household location (urban, suburban, rural), and region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West). a Equal pay question only asked among respondents who have ever been employed for pay. b Jobs question only asked among respondents who have ever applied for a job. c College application/attendance was only asked among respondents who have ever applied for college or attended college for any amount of time. d Includes discrimination against you or a family member because you are Native American or white. e Housing question only asked among respondents who have ever tried to rent a room or apartment, or to apply for a mortgage or buy a home. f Microaggressions indicate that someone made negative assumptions or insensitive or offensive comments about you because you are Native American or white. g Racial/ethnic slurs indicate that someone referred to you or your racial group using a slur or other negative word because you are Native American or white. h Racial/ethnic fear indicates that people acted as if they were afraid of you because you are Native American or white

Among Native Americans only, there were differences in odds of reporting discrimination by income and neighborhood racial composition, as shown in Table ​ Table3. 3 . Native Americans with household incomes of at least $25 000 annually had lower odds of experiencing discrimination in political participation and avoiding calling the police compared to those with less than $25 000 household incomes annually. For neighborhood racial composition, living in a predominantly Native neighborhood (a measure of residential segregation) was associated with higher odds of reporting discrimination in applying for jobs, equal pay/promotions, political participation, police interactions, and unfair treatment by the police and courts against you or Native American family members. In the ordinal logistic regression model, living in a predominantly Native neighborhood was the only variable associated with experiencing more types of discrimination overall (Table ​ (Table3). 3 ). College‐educated Native Americans had higher odds of reporting racial discrimination when trying to vote or participate in politics, while gender was not associated with discrimination for any domains in any model specifications.

In sensitivity analyses using alternate measures of geographic/neighborhood characteristics, living on tribal lands was associated with higher odds of reporting discrimination in obtaining housing (OR [95% CI] 6.15 [1.61, 23.52]) and unfair treatment of you or family members by the courts (3.13 [1.19, 8.24]); there was no association with living on tribal lands and overall institutional discrimination in ordinal logistic regression models (1.37 [0.67, 2.84]) or institutional discrimination in any other domains (data not shown). Using metropolitan status as a measure of geographic variation, compared to those living in rural areas, living in a suburban or urban area was associated with higher odds of reporting unfair treatment by the courts (OR [95% CI] 2.73 [1.02, 7.28]), but there was no association with rural status and reported overall institutional discrimination in ordinal logistic regression models (0.65 [0.34, 1.24]) or institutional discrimination in any other domains (data not shown).

4. DISCUSSION

Four key findings emerged from this survey of Native American adults. First, our results clearly demonstrate that Native Americans experience pervasive patterns of discrimination across many areas of life in the United States, particularly when it comes to health care, employment, interactions with the police and courts, and interpersonal areas including violence, harassment, microaggressions, and racial slurs.

Second, in the context of health care specifically, we found that almost one in six Native Americans reported avoiding health care for themselves or family members due to anticipated discrimination or unfair treatment. Prior research shows that Native Americans commonly report discrimination in health care visits, associate Western health care practices with other abuses by the US government, and deem such heath care as not culturally safe. 6 , 35 Our findings, coupled with prior research, demonstrate a need to improve accessible, affordable, and culturally appropriate care at both the institutional (eg, those serving Native American populations) and clinical levels (eg, by clinicians).

Third, Native Americans have significantly higher odds of reporting racial discrimination than whites in most areas, even after adjusting for major sociodemographic differences between the two groups. These significant differences in discrimination may amplify health disparities between Native Americans and whites. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4

Fourth, geographic/neighborhood measures indicated variation in discriminatory experiences. Native Americans who reported living in predominantly Native American areas had higher odds of reporting greater institutional discrimination overall, compared to those living in areas that were not predominantly Native American. This is generally consistent with related research showing that as the size of a racial/ethnic minority population increases, white attitudes become more biased against them—though importantly, results may vary by minority group and geographic characteristics. 36 , 37 , 38 There may also be unmeasured geographic characteristics associated with living in self‐reported predominantly Native American neighborhoods that account for this relationship. Little research has examined discrimination among Native Americans and alternate measures of geography—whether living on tribal lands, or in rural areas—and our models showed no association with higher odds of reporting overall discrimination. For discrimination specifically by the court system, all three geographic measures found the same pattern: Whether by self‐reported rurality, living in a predominantly Native American area, or living on tribal lands, Native Americans in those areas had consistently higher odds of reporting unfair treatment by the courts (compared to, respectively, Native Americans in nonrural areas, not in predominantly Native areas, or off tribal lands). Due to our sample size, this study was limited in our ability to examine more nuanced patterns in experiences of discrimination along neighborhood and geographic lines, but future research should explore potentially important differences in Native Americans' experiences by geographic location, cultural identity, tribal affiliation, and residential segregation. 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 33

Regardless of geographic or neighborhood living situation, Native American adults reported experiencing high levels of discrimination in many areas of life, and our estimates are consistent with nonrepresentative samples that also find discrimination and bias against Native American people in their interactions with the police and the courts. 39 , 40 This may be due in part to the complex criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country and also racial tension between Native and non‐Native communities, including suspicion of law enforcement, perceived prejudice, and cultural conflicts between Native American and Western values. 39 , 40 , 41 This study found that more than one in five Native Americans reported avoiding interactions with the legal system because they fear unfair treatment, further perpetuating distrust and increasing racial disparities in interactions with law enforcement.

High levels of reported violence and harassment are also troubling, particularly given that such experiences are typically underreported in surveys, 42 so the true rate is likely higher. These findings support other research documenting high rates of ongoing sexual assault and violence against Native American people, and Native American women in particular. 5 , 13 Results are also consistent with other research findings that Native Americans are frequently subject to recurrent microaggressions and racial slurs through antiquated and demeaning representations and stereotypes, including in sports mascots and media depictions. 4 , 7 , 8 In addition to addressing more overt forms of discrimination, future programmatic and policy efforts should address these subtler, but still harmful forms of discrimination that threaten Native American identities.

Importantly, we found little variation in experiences of discrimination among Native American adults by socioeconomic status and gender, suggesting that having a higher income and earning a college degree are not protective against discrimination for Native Americans in most areas of life.

While it is beyond the scope of these results to recommend specific approaches to ending discrimination, because discrimination continues to affect such a significant share of the Native American population, health service researchers should continue to examine Native Americans' unique experiences of discrimination because of their long‐term impacts on patients' overall health and well‐being. Native Americans' problems with discrimination extend beyond health care, and future laws, policies, services, and research should identify, implement, and rigorously evaluate interventions to identify and end discrimination against Native Americans, as well as study‐related health and health care outcomes.

Taken together with other research documenting the failure of both federal policies and agencies to address the needs of Native nations, 23 , 24 this literature suggests that in addition to equalizing access to economic, medical, and social resources for Native Americans, specific antidiscriminatory efforts are necessary in future policies to improve health, including positive portrayals of contemporary Native Americans to change biased cultural ideas. 8 Policies and programs that give Native nations better resources to address harassment and violence may also improve health for some, including the ability to exercise Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction over non‐Indians under the Violence Against Women Act of 2013. 8 , 43

4.1. Limitations

The results of this study should be interpreted while considering the following limitations. Due to the cross‐sectional design of this study, we cannot determine the causality, timing, or severity of experiences of discrimination. Our low response rate is a notable limitation, though evidence suggests that low response rates do not bias results if the survey sample is representative of the study population. 28 , 29 Recent research has shown that such surveys, when based on probability samples and weighted using US Census parameters, yield accurate estimates in most cases when compared with both objective measures and higher response surveys. 28 , 29 , 44 , 45 For instance, a recent study showed that across fourteen different demographic and personal characteristics, the average difference between government estimates from high‐response rate surveys and a Pew Research Center poll with a response rate similar to this poll was 3 percentage points. 28 However, it is still possible that some selection bias may remain that is related to the experiences being measured. This survey also did not distinguish between the heterogeneous experiences of different Native Americans, who are culturally diverse by language, heritage and traditions, geographic location, and tribal affiliation. The sample size also limited our ability to estimate complex models and to test geographic and neighborhood differences. Large confidence intervals in some logistic regression models (eg, health care avoidance) should be cautiously interpreted, as they may indicate low precision in estimates. In addition, because we specifically asked about racial discrimination, and because many forms of discrimination (including sexual harassment and violence) are often underreported, the “true” rate of Native Americans' experiences with discrimination is likely higher than our estimates. For example, in this issue SteelFisher et al 46 explore the high rates of gender discrimination experienced among Native women. Given this, our findings may subject to underreporting and thus may be considered a lower bound estimate of discrimination and harassment against Native Americans in the United States today. Despite these limitations, our results highlight the extent of discrimination currently experienced by Native Americans across public policies and interpersonally.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Our findings document widespread, high levels of discrimination personally experienced by Native Americans today across many areas of life, regardless of geographic or neighborhood context. Alongside other research on the failure of federal policies and agencies to address the needs of Native communities, these results suggest discrimination against Native Americans is still a pervasive, systemic, and untreated problem in the United States. In policies, services, and research, future work should explicitly seek to end discrimination, as it affects a significant share of the Native American population.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments.

Joint Acknowledgment/Disclosure Statement : This work was supported by Grant #73713 from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Findling MG, Casey LS, Fryberg SA, et al. Discrimination in the United States: Experiences of Native Americans . Health Serv Res . 2019; 54 :1431–1441. 10.1111/1475-6773.13224 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Current Issue
• Past Issues
• Get New Issue Alerts
• American Academy of Arts 
and Sciences

Reclaiming Representations & Interrupting the Cycle of Bias Against Native Americans

The most widely accessible ideas and representations of Native Americans are largely negative, antiquated, and limiting. In this essay, we examine how the prevalence of such representations and a comparative lack of positive contemporary representations foster a cycle of bias that perpetuates disparities among Native Americans and other populations. By focusing on three institutions – the legal system, the media, and education – we illustrate how the same process that creates disparate outcomes can be leveraged to promote positive contemporary ideas and representations of Native Americans, thereby creating more equitable outcomes. We also highlight the actions some contemporary Native Americans have taken to reclaim their Native American identity and create accurate ideas and representations of who Native Americans are and what they can become. These actions provide a blueprint for leveraging cultural change to interrupt the cycle of bias and to reduce the disparities Native Americans face in society.

ARIANNE E. EASON is a Ph.D. candidate in Psychology at the University of Washington. Her interests lie at the intersection of social and developmental psychology, specifically how children and adults process environmental information related to race and interracial interactions. Her research has been published in  Developmental Psychology, Current Directions in Psychological Science , and  Infancy .

LAURA M. BRADY is a Research Associate in the Department of Psychology at the University of Washington. She has published in such journals as  Current Opinion in Psychology, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , and  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

STEPHANIE A. FRYBERG is Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology and the Department of American Indian Studies at the University of Washington. Her work on representations of Native Americans has appeared in  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Social Issues, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology , and  Journal of Applied Social Psychology , among other publications.

What white people see when they look at you is not visible. What they do see when they do look at you is what they have invested you with. . . . To survive this, you have to really dig down into yourself and recreate yourself, really, according to no image which yet exists in America. You have to impose who you are, and force the world to deal with you, not with its idea of you. –James Baldwin, The Last Interview and Other Conversations 1

When you think about the most accessible representations of Native Americans in the United States, what comes to mind? You might conjure historical representations of buckskin-wearing, teepee-dwelling people with feathers, or contemporary images of impoverished, drug-abusing, uneducated people. 2  Such negative, limiting, and inaccurate representations are widely accessible in the United States. Now, take a moment to think about what it means to be successful. You might think of someone who is highly educated, with a lucrative career in law, entertainment, education, or some other field. Do the aforementioned representations of Native Americans align with this image of success? How do you think these representations affect the way Native Americans are viewed and treated in consequential domains such as the legal system, the media, and education?

Social scientists largely agree that being human is a social project; people are shaped by the individuals around them and the cultural context in which they live. 3  The dominant culture provides ideas, beliefs, and assumptions about what it means to be a person or a member of a group and, as such, offers a schema for understanding both oneself and others. 4  For Native Americans, the most widely accessible ideas about their group, as well as the representations that stem from them, are not harmless misunderstandings or overgeneralizations. As Baldwin’s quote highlights, White American institutions and individuals have overwhelmingly created and defined prevalent representations of racial minority groups, including Native peoples. 5  The resulting representations reflect negative, inaccurate ideas about Native Americans while ignoring positive, accurate ideas. Consequently, biased understandings of how contemporary Native Americans look, sound, and behave permeate U.S. society. We contend that biased ideas and representations of Native Americans – particularly the scarcity of positive, accurate, and contemporary ideas and representations – constitute the modern form of bias against Native Americans and perpetuate a recursive cycle of low expectations, prejudice, and discrimination that reinforces disparities in domains from public health to education.

Breaking this cycle, as Baldwin contends, requires that new ideas and representations defined by Native American people accurately reflect who and what Native people are, not who others imagine them to be. We draw upon the culture cycle framework to describe how ideas and representations of Native Americans become embedded in the social fabric (that is, within institutions, interactions, and individuals) and provide a roadmap for change. First, we highlight how widely accessible ideas and representations about Native Americans fuel a cycle of bias and create disparate outcomes, specifically in the legal system, the media, and education. Second, we call attention to actions of Native American tribes and individuals that have reshaped U.S. culture and promoted more equitable outcomes for contemporary and future Native people. We end with a discussion of how both Native and non-Native people can leverage cultural change to break the cycle of bias against Native peoples.

The  culture cycle  describes the relation between the surrounding cultural context and individuals’ thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Four levels of culture –  ideas, institutions, interactions , and  individuals  – work together in a mutually constitutive manner to shape and reinforce social and cultural outcomes. 6  The highest level of the culture cycle includes  ideas , such as social, political, and economic histories, assumptions, and norms. These ideas include understandings of how to be a “good” or “moral” individual, stereotypes that shape expectations of group members, and the value placed on different ways of knowing or engaging with the world.  Institutions  include the legal system, the media, and the education system. The practices, policies, structures, and products of institutions reflect prevalent cultural ideas. For example, the legal system sanctions individuals who violate ideas about “good” and “moral” behavior, and the media produces movies, books, and news reports that reflect and reify cultural ideas. Institutional practices and policies in turn provide scripts and norms that shape everyday  interactions  among people, institutions, and cultural products. Finally, ideas, institutions, and interactions all shape the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of  individuals.  When individual behavior aligns with cultural influences, it reinforces the culture cycle; when behavior does not align, it pushes back in subtle and not-so-subtle ways against the dominant cultural ideas and reconstitutes the culture cycle.

While conversations about disparities focus on how individuals’ characteristics – such as race, gender, or social class – relate to outcomes, the culture cycle framework highlights the importance of considering the role of the entire cultural system in perpetuating and alleviating disparate outcomes for Native Americans. In the next three sections, we highlight the mutual constitution of cultural ideas, institutions, interactions, and individuals by focusing on the legal system, the media, and education. These institutions reflect and foster a core set of negative and limited ideas about Native people that can lead influential individuals – for example, politicians, judges, lawyers, and educators – to lower expectations and ultimately bring about the exact same disparate outcomes society has come to expect of this group. Finally, we discuss the steps Native American individuals and communities have taken to create more accurate and positive cultural ideas of their groups, and how these actions reverberate throughout the culture cycle to promote more equitable outcomes, both today and in the future.

In historic and contemporary legal policy and practice, Native Americans have been represented as “uncivilized,” incapable of behaving according to mainstream American norms. 7  For example, until the 1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act was passed, federal policies treated Native Americans as “wards of the government” and prevented Native American communities from making their own decisions about health care, education, and governance. Similarly, federal laws have restricted tribes’ control over policing Native American communities; and federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, have failed to provide adequate funding to keep Native communities safe. 8  On one hand, restricting tribal control over law enforcement reifies the notion that Native Americans are incapable of policing their own communities. 9  On the other hand, federal and state governments’ failure to provide sufficient resources to Native communities causes the negative outcomes expected to arise from Native Americans’ supposed inability to police themselves, thus reinforcing harmful stereotypes.

Biased institutional understandings of Native people also impact law enforcement officers’ interactions with Native people and, ultimately, Native peoples' outcomes within the legal system. For example, interactions with law enforcement are more likely to end in the use of deadly force for Native Americans than for any other racial group relative to population size. 10  A study of Native American individuals from seven states and eight tribal nations revealed that even when interactions with police do not lead to violence, police often use racial slurs or derogatory language. 11  Courtroom interactions are similarly biased; for example, Native youth are 30 percent more likely than White youth to be referred to juvenile court rather than having their charges dropped. 12  Given these outcomes, Native Americans report being reluctant to turn to the legal system when they need help because they believe that law enforcement will not take their complaints seriously or intervene when they are in danger. 13  Interactions between Native Americans and the legal system not only perpetuate distrust, but also promote racial disparities that undermine Native peoples’ well-being and livelihood. 14

Construing Native people through a negative and limiting lens – as unable to govern themselves or as “uncivilized” – further justifies the perpetuation of disparate outcomes for Native Americans interacting with the legal system. The underlying assumption of these negative and limiting ideas is that anything non-Native legal institutions do on behalf of Native Americans is better than what Native people could have done on their own. According to this logic, in spite of Native Americans’ disparate outcomes in the legal system relative to other groups, changes do not need to occur because Native people are still better off than they would be if they were governing themselves. Yet such a biased and inaccurate view of Native people in the legal system obscures the fact that Native people have long governed themselves and worked to alleviate the disparate outcomes they face in the American legal system. According to the National American Indian Court Judge Association, 93 percent of federally and state-recognized tribes have their own tribal justice systems. 15  Furthermore, Native American individuals and communities have long utilized Indian law to advocate for their well-being and to challenge federal and state laws. Two such examples include the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

ICWA, which passed in 1978, gives Native American tribes jurisdiction over child welfare cases involving Native children. From 1969–1974, the U.S. government separated 25–35 percent of all Native children from their families and placed them in foster homes, adoptive homes, or institutions. A majority (85 percent) of these children were placed in non-Native homes even when Native homes were available, reflecting the bias that Native Americans are incapable of raising their own children. 16  The Association on American Indian Affairs conducted surveys in states with large Native American populations to understand why so many Native children were removed. These surveys revealed that many children were removed not because of abuse or neglect, but because their families practiced communal childrearing. Communal childrearing is normative in Native American communities, but it conflicts with the nuclear family model of childrearing that prevails in White, middle-class contexts. 17  Thus, the research affirmed that the removal of Native children was fueled by cultural bias against Native ways of being.

By giving tribes control over child welfare cases, ICWA directly challenged negative beliefs about Natives’ ability to care for their own children and changed how the U.S. government intervened in these cases. Following ICWA, the number of Native children placed in foster care or adoption between 1978 and 1986 decreased significantly. 18  ICWA’s passage set the stage for Native tribes nationwide to build child welfare agencies that keep Native families and communities together. 19 By challenging biased understandings of Native families and ways of being, ICWA and the Native individuals, organizations, and communities that were essential to its passing improved both disparate child welfare outcomes and relationships among tribal governments, Native parents, Native children, and federal and state governments.

Just as ICWA was a direct response to the disproportionate removal of Native American children from their families, the 2013 reauthorization of VAWA came as a direct response to the disproportionate rates of violence experienced by Native women at the hands of non-Native men. Approximately 56 percent of Native American women report experiencing sexual violence in their lifetime, and 96 percent of these women report sexual assault by a non-Native man. 20  Native women are the only ethnic group more likely to be assaulted by a male of a different ethnicity than by a male of the same ethnicity. 21  Prior to VAWA, federal and/or state governments had jurisdiction over cases involving non-Native men assaulting Native women on reservations. Despite this jurisdiction, law enforcement agencies and prosecutors failed to investigate or litigate many cases involving non-Native individuals, leaving perpetrators free to reoffend and victims without justice. 22  While rates of reporting and litigating against sexual assault perpetrators are low regardless of victim demographics, people of color, and Native American women in particular, face additional barriers rooted in racial bias. 23  Like many people of color, Native women are perceived as less worthy of protection than White women: 24  as recently as 1968, a federal appellate court upheld a statute that reduced sentencing for rape cases involving Native American women. 25  Furthermore, prosecutors often take Native women’s sexual assault claims less seriously, assuming that Native victims were under the influence (in accordance with the stereotype of Native Americans as drunks), making it less likely that litigation will proceed. 26   In 2015, after a decade of Native American grassroots efforts and advocacy, Congress added a provision to VAWA granting tribes jurisdiction over cases of intimate partner violence involving non-Native individuals on reservations. Once VAWA passed, a pilot project gave three tribes early jurisdiction. In the span of seventeen months, these tribes charged a total of twenty-six offenders. 27  While advocates are seeking to expand VAWA protections to other types of violence, this legislation stands as an example of Native communities working to address the needs of their people and improving their outcomes by assuming control over their own legal processes.

ICWA and VAWA demonstrate how Native tribes have pushed back against biased legal policies and practices to better protect and serve their communities, thereby improving their lives in contemporary society. In particular, there is a direct relationship between the number of self-determining actions a tribal community takes and the community’s mental health. Specifically, First Nations bands (the Native people of Canada) who enacted more self-determining practices that reflected their cultural histories and values, such as making claims to traditional lands or taking community control over education and health services, had lower suicide rates than bands who enacted fewer self-determining practices. 28  The legal system’s biased understanding and paternalistic treatment of Native Americans undermines equitable outcomes for Native American individuals and communities. Importantly, these outcomes are not predetermined or rooted in Native Americans’ “inadequacies”; when Natives challenge biased legislation and self-govern, Native communities flourish.

The institution most responsible for creating and transmitting biased representations is the media. Psychologist Peter Leavitt and colleagues, for example, examined the content that emerged from search engine queries for the terms “Native American” or “American Indian.” 29  Ninety-five percent of Google results and 99 percent of Bing results included antiquated portraits of Native American people in traditional clothing and feathers; contemporary images of Native Americans were scant. Although inaccurate, these antiquated images remain prevalent because people continue to consume them, so search engine algorithms continue to present them as valid representations of Native Americans. 30  Biased and inaccurate representations of Native Americans also persist in television, film, and advertising. While contemporary members of other racial groups are by and large represented, Native Americans are largely omitted. 31  From 1987–2008, only three Native American characters were featured on primetime television (out of 2,336 characters). 32  On the rare occasion that Native Americans are represented in mainstream media, they often appear in stereotypical roles (such as the casino Indian, “Indian Princess,” or drunken Indian) or in secondary roles lacking character development. 33  Individuals responsible for creating new media representations, such as casting agents or directors, often reify the invisibility of contemporary Native peoples by passing over Native actors for roles that are “unrealistic” based on stereotypes about Native Americans (for example, by not casting Native people as doctors or lawyers). 34  While there is great variability in how Native Americans look, speak, and act, Natives who do not fit a narrow, prototypical image of a Native American are often excluded from roles intended for Natives. 35  The lack of positive and accurate contemporary representations denies Native Americans’ continued existence and literally and figuratively writes them out of contemporary life.

Widely available media representations of Native Americans carry significant consequences, as they undermine Native Americans’ psychological well-being and hopes for future success. For example, Stephanie Fryberg and colleagues demonstrated through multiple studies that negative stereotypes of Native Americans and sports mascots such as the Cleveland Indians’ Chief Wahoo depressed Native Americans’ self-esteem, decreased perceptions of their Native community’s worth, and made them less likely to envision successful futures (such as earning good grades, finding a job, or completing a degree). 36  Such representations set in motion a self-fulfilling prophecy that renders Native American accomplishments invisible, hindering Native people from imagining and pursuing their own successful futures. 37  While harmful for Native Americans, these biased representations have a positive impact on White individuals, which may exacerbate intergroup tensions and disparate outcomes. After exposure to widely available representations of Native people, European American participants reported boosts in self-esteem and greater feelings of connection to their racial group. Both the negative effects of Native Americans and the positive effects for Whites at the expense of Native Americans suggest that it is critical to promote positive, contemporary representations of Native Americans that accurately reflect who Native people are and what they are capable of achieving. Breaking the cycle of discrimination and disparities in resources and achievement requires taking control of how Native people are portrayed both to the outside world and within Native communities themselves.

Although non-Native individuals created many of the prevalent representations of Native Americans, Native people are working to recreate representations that accurately reflect contemporary Native Americans. For example, in 2012, Matika Wilbur, a Swinomish and Tulalip photographer, launched Project 562, which aims to photograph members of all 562 federally recognized tribes. To date, Wilbur has photographed members of four hundred tribes. Wilbur’s photos depict Native people of all ages in both urban and rural settings, wearing contemporary Western and tribally appropriate traditional clothing. Unlike twentieth-century photographer Edward Curtis, who is responsible for many of the antiquated images of Native Americans that prevail today, Wilbur collaborates with her Native American subjects. She presents contemporary Native Americans in positive, contemporary ways that counter the systemic exclusion that characterizes the modern form of bias against Native people. 38

Similar video campaigns (including Buzzfeed’s “I’m Native, but I’m Not … “ and Arizona State University’s “Native 101”) and websites ( WeRNative.org ) showcase Native Americans resisting negative cultural ideas and offering more positive contemporary representations of Native people. 39  Native-defined representations offer accurate, nuanced understandings of Native Americans that have always existed but have been obscured by biased portrayals created by non-Natives. As accurate images of Native Americans take hold, they have the power to challenge harmful stereotypes and ideas about Native Americans and illustrate what is possible for them, breaking the cycle of bias and disparate outcomes.

For a final example of how negative cultural ideas and representations of Native Americans perpetuate a cycle of bias and disparities, we turn to the education system. In the United States, education is often viewed as the key to upward social mobility and “a better life.” Yet, just as in the legal system and the media, biased ideas about and representations of Native Americans limit Native students’ opportunities and outcomes. For centuries, Native Americans have been portrayed as intellectually inferior and Native ways of knowing have been viewed as incorrect and incompatible with mainstream U.S. education. Federal boarding schools, in which Native children were forcibly enrolled throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, aimed to eliminate Native cultures and languages and acculturate Native children into White society. Although this explicitly assimilationist agenda has faded, many of its ideas prevail within the education system today. Research reveals, for example, that Native students are often perceived to struggle or to be “problem” students. 40  School curricula also fail to incorporate – and sometimes actively exclude – Native Americans’ cultural history and practices from the learning environment, as these histories and practices are deemed irrelevant to the goals of mainstream education. 41

Negative and limiting ideas and representations influence interactions between educators and Native students and contribute to Natives’ disparate outcomes. For example, compared with White students with equivalent test scores and grades, teachers are less likely to recommend Native students for advanced coursework. 42  Native students are also suspended at more than twice the rate of White students. 43  These inaccurate and biased understandings of what is possible for Native students systematically deprive them of the ability to engage with and succeed within a system intended to foster opportunities for upward mobility.

Changing the way Native students are understood and treated within educational institutions can break the cycle of bias and alleviate educational disparities. For example, Stephanie Fryberg, Rebecca Covarrubias, and Jacob Burack describe an intervention in a predominantly Native American school that resulted in an 18 percent increase in the number of Native students who met state performance standards. 44  Teachers were taught about Native cultural ways of being, and school guidelines and routines were created to validate Native American cultures. Each school day began with a welcome assembly that included a tribal song and dance and a culturally relevant welcome message. When the intervention began, the school ranked in the bottom 5 percent of schools in the state, and much like the state and national pattern for the past forty years, there were no notable positive changes among Native students. 45  However, during the intervention, Native students improved immensely, showing growth on the Measures of Academic Progress (map) test at a rate of 1 to 1.5 years’ advancement in half a school year. This intervention revealed that school culture was the problem, not Native students: Native students thrive when their ways of knowing and being are validated in educational contexts and when they are seen as having potential. Creating more accurate representations – and thus understandings – of Native students paved the way for their success.

The culture cycle framework demonstrates the power of cultural ideas and representations in shaping Native Americans’ experiences. Prevailing harmful and limiting ideas and representations of Native Americans fuel a cycle of bias and reinforce disparate outcomes for Native people. These ideas and representations shape the policies and practices of consequential social institutions, promote low expectations for Native people that influence their interactions with non-Natives, and limit what both Native and non-Native individuals believe is possible for Native Americans. In addition to the prevalence of harmful and antiquated ideas and representations about their group, Native Americans  also  contend with the systematic exclusion of positive, contemporary ideas and representations. Consequently, Native Americans are effectively written out of contemporary existence, which creates barriers to their well-being and success. Hence, the modern form of bias against Native Americans includes not only negative ideas and representations, but also the omission of positive, multidimensional ideas and representations of their group. 46

Breaking this cycle requires challenging derogatory ideas and representations and also, as James Baldwin suggests, infusing the broader cultural context with more accurate contemporary representations defined by Native people themselves. The culture cycle framework can be leveraged to reclaim what it means to be Native American and promote equity. Indeed, Native people and communities have already begun harnessing this power for change. As we have shown, their actions in key institutions have brought light to positive, nuanced understandings of Native Americans as they live today and have challenged antiquated, biased representations. As Native Americans and their allies continue fighting systemic exclusion and bias, we must ensure that targeted action is implemented at each level of the culture cycle. The ideas and representations put forth must reflect Native Americans’ knowledge of who they are and what they are capable of achieving.

While it is essential for Native individuals and communities to have a voice in creating accurate representations of Native Americans, the onus for changing the culture cycle does not rest solely on Native Americans. Non-Native individuals and institutions must also actively foster cultural change. For White individuals specifically, this responsibility necessitates acknowledging the legacy of building and benefiting from a cultural system that has intentionally misunderstood and devalued Native people and ways of life and attempted to thwart Natives’ well-being and, in many respects, their very existence. As such, the dominant institutions must ensure that their practices, policies, and products set the stage for positive and equitable interactions with Native American individuals and communities. More generally, this responsibility hinges on a commitment to building a more equitable system that uplifts people from all backgrounds and allows all people to understand and recognize the needs, voices, and contributions of communities of color.

As the opening quote suggests, Native Americans are living within a cultural system that was constructed neither for nor by them. By understanding cultural influences on institutions and individuals, and by taking strategic, targeted action to change biased cultural ideas and representations, we can reconstitute the culture cycle to reflect accurate understandings of who Native people are and what they can become. Ultimately, these actions will produce more equitable outcomes for Native peoples both in the present and in the future.

• 1 James Baldwin, James Baldwin: The Last Interview and other Conversations (New York: Melville House, 2014), 4–5.
• 2 Walter C. Fleming, “Myths and Stereotypes about Native Americans,” Phi Delta Kappan 88 (3) (November 2006): 213–217.
• 3 Hazel R. Markus and Maryam G. Hamedani, “Sociocultural Psychology,” in  Handbook of Cultural Psychology , ed. Shinobu Kitayama and Dov Cohen (New York: Guilford, 2010).
• 4 Serge Moscovici, “The Phenomenon of Social Representations,” in  Social Representations , ed. R. M. Farr and S. Moscovici (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 3–69; and Serge Moscovici, “Notes Towards a Description of Social Representations,”  European Journal of Social Psychology  18 (3) (1988): 211–250.
• 5 In the case of Native Americans, see Robert F. Berkhofer,  The White Man’s Indian: Images of the American Indian from Columbus to the Present  (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978), 96.
• 6 Hazel R. Markus and Alana Conner,  Clash! 8 Cultural Conflicts That Make Us Who We Are  (New York: Hudson Street Press, 2013).
• 7 Devon Abbott Mihesuah,  American Indians: Stereotypes & Realities  (Gardena, Calif.: SCB Distributors, 2013).
• 8 Stewart Wakeling, Miriam Jorgensen, Susan Michaelson, and Manley Begay,  Policing on American Indian Reservations  (Washington D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, 2001); and United States Commission on Civil Rights, Office of Civil Rights Evaluation,  A Quiet Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country  (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2003).
• 9 Rosemary M. Maxey, “Who Can Sit at The Lord’s Table? The Experience of Indigenous People,” in  Native and Christian: Indigenous Voices on Religious Identity in the United States and Canada , ed. James Treat (New York: Routledge, 2012), 38–50.
• 10 Mike Males, “Who Are Police Killing?” Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, August 26, 2014,  http://www.cjcj.org/news/8113 .
• 11 Barbara Perry, “Nobody Trusts Them! Under- and Over-policing Native American Communities,”  Critical Criminology  14 (4) (November 2006): 411–444; and Robynne Neugebauer, “First Nations People and Law Enforcement: Community Perspectives on Police Response,” in  Interrogating Social Justice: Politics, Culture and Identity , ed. Marilyn Corsianos and Kelly A. Train (Toronto: Canadian Scholar’s Press, 1999), 247–269.
• 12 Christopher Hartney,  Native American Youth and the Juvenile Justice System  (Washington, D.C.: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2008).
• 13 See Perry, “Nobody Trusts Them !”; and Neugebauer, “First Nations People and Law Enforcement.”
• 14 Barbara Perry, “Impacts of Disparate Policing in Indian Country,”  Policing & Society  19 (3) (2009): 263–281.
• 15 “National Directory of Tribal Justice Systems,” National American Indian Court Judges Association,  http://directory.naicja.org/directory  (accessed September 15, 2017).
• 16 Claire Palmiste, “From the Indian Adoption Project to the Indian Child Welfare Act: The Resistance of Native American Communities,”  Indigenous Policy Journal  22 (1) (2011): 1–4.
• 17 H.R. Rep. No. 95–1386, at 10 (1978); and Steven Unger, ed.,  The Destruction of American Indian Families  (New York: Association on American Indian Affairs, Inc., 1977).
• 18 Ann E. MacEachron, Nora S. Gustavsson, Suzanne Cross, and Allison Lewis, “The Effectiveness of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978,”  Social Service Review  70 (3) (September 1996): 451–463.
• 19 Lakota People’s Law Project, “5 Sioux Tribes Applied to Fund Their Own Foster Care Programs,”  Indian Country Today , June 26, 2014,  https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/culture/health-wellness/5-sioux-tribes-applied-to-fund-their-own-foster-care-programs/ .
• 20 André B. Rosay,  Violence Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women and Men: 2010 Findings from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey  (Washington D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, 2016).
• 21 Amnesty International,  Maze of Injustice: The Failure to Protect Indigenous Women from Sexual Violence in the USA  (New York: Amnesty International USA, 2007).
• 23 Ibid.; International Indigenous Women’s Forum,  Mairin Iwanka Raya: Indigenous Women Stand Against Violence. A Companion Report to the United Nations Secretary-General’s Study on Violence Against Women  (Lima, Peru: FIMI, 2006); and Sarah Deer, “Toward an Indigenous Jurisprudence of Rape,”  Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy  14 (2004): 121–154.
• 25 Gray v. U.S. , 394 F.2d 96, 98 (9th Cir. 1968).
• 26 Amnesty International,  Maze of Injustice.
• 27 Jennifer Bendery, “At Last, Violence Against Women Act Lets Tribes Prosecute Non-Native Domestic Abusers,”  Huffington Post , March 6, 2015,  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/vawa-native-americans_n_6819526.html .
• 28 Michael J. Chandler and Christopher Lalonde, “Cultural Continuity as a Hedge against Suicide in Canada’s First Nations,”  Transcultural Psychiatry  35 (2) (1998): 191–219.
• 29 Peter A. Leavitt, Rebecca Covarrubias, Yvonne A. Perez, and Stephanie A. Fryberg, “‘Frozen in Time’: The Impact of Native American Media Representations on Identity and Self-Understanding,”  Journal of Social Issues  71 (1) (March 2015): 39–53.
• 30 Rand Fishkin, “The State of Searcher Behavior Revealed Through 23 Remarkable Statistics,” March 17, 2017,  https://moz.com/blog/state-of-searcher-behavior-revealed .
• 31 Dana E. Mastro and Susannah R. Stern, “Representations of Race in Television Commercials: A Content Analysis of Prime-Time Advertising,”  Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media  47 (4) (December 2003): 638–647; Russell K. Robinson, “Casting and Casteing: Reconciling Artistic Freedom and Antidiscrimination Norms,”  California Law Review  95 (1) (February 2007): 1–73; and Riva Tukachinsky, Dana Mastro, and Moran Yarchi, “Documenting Portrayals of Race/Ethnicity on Primetime Television over a 20-Year Span and Their Association with National-Level Racial/Ethnic Attitudes,”  Journal of Social Issues  71 (1) (March 2015): 17–38.
• 32 Tukachinsky et al., “Documenting Portrayals of Race/Ethnicity on Primetime Television.”
• 33 Casey R. Kelly, “Representations of Native Americans in the Mass Media,”  Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication  (February 2017),  http://communication.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-142#acrefore-9780190228613-e-142-div2-5 , doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.142; and Robinson, “Casting and Casteing: Reconciling Artistic Freedom and Antidiscrimination Norms,” 1–73.
• 35 Hilary N. Weaver, “What Color is Red? Exploring the Implications of Phenotype for Native Americans,” in  The Melanin Millennium: Skin Color as 21st-Century International Discourse , ed. Ronald E. Hall (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2013), 287–299.
• 36 Stephanie A. Fryberg, Hazel R. Markus, Daphna Oyserman, and Joseph M. Stone, “Of Warrior Chiefs and Indian Princesses: The Psychological Consequences of American Indian Mascots,”  Basic and Applied Social Psychology  30 (3) (July 2008): 208–218.
• 37 Stephanie A. Fryberg and Sarah S. M. Townsend, “The Psychology of Invisibility,” in  Commemorating Brown: The Social Psychology of Racism and Discrimination , ed. Glenn Adams, Monica Biernat, Nyla R. Branscombe, Christian S. Crandall, and Lawrence S. Wrightsman (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2008), 173–193.
• 38 Hilal Isler, “One Woman’s Mission to Photograph every Native American Tribe in the U.S.,”  The Guardian , September 7, 2015,  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/07/native-american-photographs-matika-wilbur-project-562 ; Whitney Richardson, “Rejecting Stereotypes, Photographing ‘Real’ Indians,”  Lens , February 19, 2014,  https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/rejecting-stereotypes-photographing-real-indians/?mcubz=1 ; and Matika Wilbur, Project 562,  http://www.project562.com .
• 39 Chris Lam, “I’m Native, but I’m Not … “ Buzzfeed, February 3, 2016,  https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrislam/im-native-but-im-not?utm_term=.yvERRZyBPe#.py9JJKLdl8 ; Deanna Dent, “Native 101,”  ASU Now , November 29, 2016,  https://asunow.asu.edu/20161129-sun-devil-life-native-101-asu-students-faculty-bust-stereotypes ; and WeRNative,  http://www.WeRNative.org .
• 40 Stephanie A. Fryberg and Peter A. Leavitt, “A Sociocultural Analysis of High-Risk Native American Children in Schools,” in  Cultural and Contextual Perspectives on Developmental Risk and Well-Being , ed. Jacob A. Burack and Louis A. Schmidt (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 57–80; and Katie Johnston-Goodstar and Ross VeLure Roholt, “‘Our Kids Aren’t Dropping Out; They’re Being Pushed Out’: Native American Students and Racial Microaggressions in Schools,”  Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work  26 (1–2) (January 2017): 30–47.
• 41 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,  A Quiet Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country  (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2003).
• 42 Claudia Rowe, “Gifted Programs across Washington Leave Out Black and Latino Students – But Federal Way is One Model for Change,”  The Seattle Times , April 2, 2017,  http://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/gifted-programs-across-washington-leave-out-black-and-latino-students-except-in-federal-way/ .
• 43 Rebecca Clarren, “How America is Failing Native American Students,”  The Nation , July 24, 2017,  https://www.thenation.com/article/left-behind/ ; and U.S. Department of Education,  Civil Rights Data Collection 2011–12  (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2014),  https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/data.html .
• 44 Stephanie A. Fryberg, Rebecca Covarrubias, and Jacob A. Burack, “The Ongoing Psychological Colonization of North American Indigenous People: Using Social Psychological Theories to Promote Social Justice,” in  The Oxford Handbook of Social Psychology and Social Justice , ed. Phillip L. Hammack Jr. (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2016), doi:10.1093/oxford hb/9780199938735.013.35.
• 45 Kim Burgess, “‘Stagnant’ Test Scores for Native American Students,”  Albuquerque Journal , April 10, 2017,  https://www.abqjournal.com/985310/stagnant-test-scores-for-native-american-kids.html .
• 46 Stephanie A. Fryberg and Arianne E. Eason, “Making the Invisible Visible: Acts of Commission and Omission,”  Current Directions in Psychological Science  26 (6) (2017): 554–559.

Chapter 5: Civil Rights

Civil Rights for Indigenous Groups: Native Americans, Alaskans, and Hawaiians

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Outline the history of discrimination against Native Americans
• Describe the expansion of Native American civil rights from 1960 to 1990
• Discuss the persistence of problems Native Americans face today

Native Americans have long suffered the effects of segregation and discrimination imposed by the U.S. government and the larger white society. Ironically, Native Americans were not granted the full rights and protections of U.S. citizenship until long after African Americans and women were, with many having to wait until the Nationality Act of 1940 to become citizens. [1] This was long after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, which granted citizenship to African Americans but not, the Supreme Court decided in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), to Native Americans. [2] White women had been citizens of the United States since its very beginning even though they were not granted the full rights of citizenship. Furthermore, Native Americans are the only group of Americans who were forcibly removed en masse from the lands on which they and their ancestors had lived so that others could claim this land and its resources. This issue remains relevant today as can be seen in the recent protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which have led to intense confrontations between those in charge of the pipeline and Native Americans.

NATIVE AMERICANS LOSE THEIR LAND AND THEIR RIGHTS

From the very beginning of European settlement in North America, Native Americans were abused and exploited. Early British settlers attempted to enslave the members of various tribes, especially in the southern colonies and states. [3] Following the American Revolution, the U.S. government assumed responsibility for conducting negotiations with Indian tribes, all of which were designated as sovereign nations, and regulating commerce with them. Because Indians were officially regarded as citizens of other nations, they were denied U.S. citizenship. [4]

As white settlement spread westward over the course of the nineteenth century, Indian tribes were forced to move from their homelands. Although the federal government signed numerous treaties guaranteeing Indians the right to live in the places where they had traditionally farmed, hunted, or fished, land-hungry white settlers routinely violated these agreements and the federal government did little to enforce them. [5]

In 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, which forced Native Americans to move west of the Mississippi River. [6] Not all tribes were willing to leave their land, however. The Cherokee in particular resisted, and in the 1820s, the state of Georgia tried numerous tactics to force them from their territory. Efforts intensified in 1829 after gold was discovered there. Wishing to remain where they were, the tribe sued the state of Georgia. [7] In 1831, the Supreme Court decided in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia that Indian tribes were not sovereign nations, but also that tribes were entitled to their ancestral lands and could not be forced to move from them. [8]

The next year, in Worcester v. Georgia , the Court ruled that whites could not enter tribal lands without the tribe’s permission. White Georgians, however, refused to abide by the Court’s decision, and President Andrew Jackson, a former Indian fighter, refused to enforce it. [9] Between 1831 and 1838, members of several southern tribes, including the Cherokees, were forced by the U.S. Army to move west. The forced removal of the Cherokees to Oklahoma Territory, which had been set aside for settlement by displaced tribes and designated Indian Territory, resulted in the death of one-quarter of the tribe’s population. [10] The Cherokees remember this journey as the Trail of Tears .

By the time of the Civil War, most Indian tribes had been relocated west of the Mississippi. However, once large numbers of white Americans and European immigrants had also moved west after the Civil War, Native Americans once again found themselves displaced. They were confined to reservations, which are federal lands set aside for their use where non-Indians could not settle. Reservation land was usually poor, however, and attempts to farm or raise livestock, not traditional occupations for most western tribes anyway, often ended in failure. Unable to feed themselves, the tribes became dependent on the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in Washington, DC, for support. Protestant missionaries were allowed to “adopt” various tribes, to convert them to Christianity and thus speed their assimilation. In an effort to hasten this process, Indian children were taken from their parents and sent to boarding schools, many of them run by churches, where they were forced to speak English and abandon their traditional cultures. [11]

In 1887, the Dawes Severalty Act, another effort to assimilate Indians to white society, divided reservation lands into individual allotments. Native Americans who accepted these allotments and agreed to sever tribal ties were also given U.S. citizenship. All lands remaining after the division of reservations into allotments were offered for sale by the federal government to white farmers and ranchers. As a result, Indians swiftly lost control of reservation land. [12] In 1898, the Curtis Act dealt the final blow to Indian sovereignty by abolishing all tribal governments. [13]

THE FIGHT FOR NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS

As Indians were removed from their tribal lands and increasingly saw their traditional cultures being destroyed over the course of the nineteenth century, a movement to protect their rights began to grow. Sarah Winnemucca, member of the Paiute tribe, lectured throughout the east in the 1880s in order to acquaint white audiences with the injustices suffered by the western tribes. [14] Lakota physician Charles Eastman also worked for Native American rights. In 1924, the Indian Citizenship Act granted citizenship to all Native Americans born after its passage. Native Americans born before the act took effect, who had not already become citizens as a result of the Dawes Severalty Act or service in the army in World War I, had to wait until the Nationality Act of 1940 to become citizens. In 1934, Congress passed the Indian Reorganization Act, which ended the division of reservation land into allotments. It returned to Native American tribes the right to institute self-government on their reservations, write constitutions, and manage their remaining lands and resources. It also provided funds for Native Americans to start their own businesses and attain a college education. [15]

Despite the Indian Reorganization Act, conditions on the reservations did not improve dramatically. Most tribes remained impoverished, and many Native Americans, despite the fact that they were now U.S. citizens, were denied the right to vote by the states in which they lived. States justified this violation of the Fifteenth Amendment by claiming that Native Americans might be U.S. citizens but were not state residents because they lived on reservations. Other states denied Native Americans voting rights if they did not pay taxes. [16] Despite states’ actions, the federal government continued to uphold the rights of tribes to govern themselves. Federal concern for tribal sovereignty was part of an effort on the government’s part to end its control of, and obligations to, Indian tribes. [17]

In the 1960s, a modern Native American civil rights movement, inspired by the African American civil rights movement, began to grow. In 1969, a group of Native American activists from various tribes, part of a new Pan-Indian movement, took control of Alcatraz Island in San Francisco Bay, which had once been the site of a federal prison. Attempting to strike a blow for Red Power, the power of Native Americans united by a Pan-Indian identity and demanding federal recognition of their rights, they maintained control of the island for more than a year and a half. They claimed the land as compensation for the federal government’s violation of numerous treaties and offered to pay for it with beads and trinkets. In January 1970, some of the occupiers began to leave the island. Some may have been disheartened by the accidental death of the daughter of one of the activists. In May 1970, all electricity and telephone service to the island was cut off by the federal government, and more of the occupiers began to leave. In June, the few people remaining on the island were removed by the government. Though the goals of the activists were not achieved, the occupation of Alcatraz had brought national attention to the concerns of Native American activists. [18]

In 1973, members of the American Indian Movement (AIM) , a more radical group than the occupiers of Alcatraz, temporarily took over the offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington, DC. The following year, members of AIM and some two hundred Oglala Lakota supporters occupied the town of Wounded Knee on the Lakota tribe’s Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, the site of an 1890 massacre of Lakota men, women, and children by the U.S. Army. Many of the Oglala were protesting the actions of their half-white tribal chieftain, who they claimed had worked too closely with the BIA. The occupiers also wished to protest the failure of the Justice Department to investigate acts of white violence against Lakota tribal members outside the bounds of the reservation.

The occupation led to a confrontation between the Native American protestors and the FBI and U.S. Marshals. Violence erupted; two Native American activists were killed, and a marshal was shot. After the second death, the Lakota called for an end to the occupation and negotiations began with the federal government. Two of AIM’s leaders, Russell Means and Dennis Banks, were arrested, but the case against them was later dismissed. [19] Violence continued on the Pine Ridge Reservation for several years after the siege; the reservation had the highest per capita murder rate in the United States. Two FBI agents were among those who were killed. The Oglala blamed the continuing violence on the federal government. [20]

LINK TO LEARNING

The official website of the American Indian Movement provides information about ongoing issues in Native American communities in both North and South America.

The current relationship between the U.S. government and Native American tribes was established by the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975. Under the act, tribes assumed control of programs that had formerly been controlled by the BIA, such as education and resource management, and the federal government provided the funding. [21] Many tribes have also used their new freedom from government control to legalize gambling and to open casinos on their reservations. Although the states in which these casinos are located have attempted to control gaming on Native American lands, the Supreme Court and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 have limited their ability to do so. [22] The 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act granted tribes the right to conduct traditional ceremonies and rituals, including those that use otherwise prohibited substances like peyote cactus and eagle bones, which can be procured only from vulnerable or protected species. [23]

In an important recent development, several federal court cases have raised standing for Native American tribes to sue to regain former reservation lands lost to the U.S. government. If Native Americans were to gain a positive outcome in such a case, especially at the U.S. Supreme Court, it would be the most important advancement since the reapplication of the Winters Doctrine (which led to a stronger footing for tribes in water negotiations). [24] Among the reservation land cases making their way through the system, Carpenter v. Murphy , which revolves around a murder case in Oklahoma, would perhaps be the most profound, given the history of the Trail of Tears. At issue is whether Mr. Murphy committed murder on private land in the state of Oklahoma or on the Muscogee (Creek) reservation and who should have jurisdiction over his case. If the court decides to proclaim the land as a reservation, that potentially leads to half the State of Oklahoma being designated as such. The Court heard arguments in late 2018 and will make a decision in 2019. [25]

ALASKA NATIVES AND NATIVE HAWAIIANS REGAIN SOME RIGHTS

Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians suffered many of the same abuses as Native Americans, including loss of land and forced assimilation. Following the discovery of oil in Alaska, however, the state, in an effort to gain undisputed title to oil rich land, settled the issue of Alaska Natives’ land claims with the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971. According to the terms of the act, Alaska Natives received 44 million acres of resource-rich land and more than $900 million in cash in exchange for relinquishing claims to ancestral lands to which the state wanted title. [26]

Native Hawaiians also lost control of their land—nearly two million acres—through the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893 and the subsequent formal annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by the United States in 1898. The indigenous population rapidly decreased in number, and white settlers tried to erase all trace of traditional Hawaiian culture. Two acts passed by Congress in 1900 and 1959, when the territory was granted statehood, returned slightly more than one million acres of federally owned land to the state of Hawaii. The state was to hold it in trust and use profits from the land to improve the condition of Native Hawaiians. [27]

In September 2015, the U.S. Department of Interior, the same department that contains the Bureau of Indian Affairs, created guidelines for Native Hawaiians who wish to govern themselves in a relationship with the federal government similar to that established with Native American and Alaska Native tribes. Such a relationship would grant Native Hawaiians power to govern themselves while remaining U.S. citizens. Voting began in fall 2015 for delegates to a constitutional convention that would determine whether or not such a relationship should exist between Native Hawaiians and the federal government [28] When non-Native Hawaiians and some Native Hawaiians brought suit on the grounds that, by allowing only Native Hawaiians to vote, the process discriminated against members of other ethnic groups, a federal district court found the election to be legal. While the Supreme Court stopped the election, in September 2016 a separate ruling by the Interior Department allowed for a referendum to be held. Native Hawaiians in favor are working to create their own nation. [29]

Despite significant advances, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians still trail behind U.S. citizens of other ethnic backgrounds in many important areas. These groups continue to suffer widespread poverty and high unemployment. Some of the poorest counties in the United States are those in which Native American reservations are located. These minorities are also less likely than white Americans, African Americans, or Asian Americans to complete high school or college. [30] Many American Indian and Alaskan tribes endure high rates of infant mortality, alcoholism, and suicide. [31] Native Hawaiians are also more likely to live in poverty than whites in Hawaii, and they are more likely than white Hawaiians to be homeless or unemployed. [32]

CHAPTER REVIEW

See the Chapter 5.4 Review for a summary of this section, the key vocabulary , and some review questions to check your knowledge.

• Theodore Haas. 1957. "The Legal Aspects of Indian Affairs from 1887 to 1957," American Academy of Political Science 311, 12–22. ↵
• Elk v. Wilkins, (1884)112 U.S. 94. ↵
• See Alan Gallay. 2009. Indian Slavery in Colonial America. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. ↵
• See James Wilson. 1998. The Earth Shall Weep: A History of Native America. New York: Grove Press. ↵
• Ibid; Gloria Jahoda. 1975. Trail of Tears: The Story of American Indian Removal, 1813–1855. New York: Henry Holt. ↵
• See Wilson. 1998. The Earth Shall Weep. ↵
• See John Ehle. 1988. Trail of Tears: The Rise and Fall of the Cherokee Nation. New York: Doubleday; Theda Perdue and Michael Green. 2007. The Cherokee Nation and the Trail of Tears. New York: Penguin Books. ↵
• Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831). ↵
• Francis Paul Prucha. 1984. The Great Father: The United States Government and American Indians, vol. 1. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 212; Robert V. Remini. 2001. Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars. New York: Viking, 257; Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832). ↵
• Prucha, 241; Ehle, 390–392; Russell Thornton. 1991. "Demography of the Trail of Tears," In Cherokee Removal: Before and After, ed. William L. Anderson. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 75–93. ↵
• “Indian Reservations,” http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/uhic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?zid=2a87fa28f20f1e66b5f663e76873fd8c&action=2&catId=&documentId= GALE|CX3401802046&userGroupName=lnoca_hawken&jsid=f44511ddfece4faafab082109e34a539  (April 10, 2016). ↵
• Ibid. ↵
• "Curtis Act (1898)," http://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=CU006 (April 10, 2016). ↵
• See Gae Whitney Canfield. 1988. Sarah Winnemucca of the Northern Paiutes. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ↵
• Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (P.L. 73–383); "Indian Reservations," http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/uhic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?zid=2a87fa28f20f1e66b5f663e76873fd8c&action=2&catId=&documentId= GALE|CX3401802046&userGroupName=lnoca_hawken&jsid=f44511ddfece4faafab082109e34a539 (April 10, 2016). ↵
• Daniel McCool, Susan M. Olson, and Jennifer L. Robinson. 2007. Native Vote. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 9, 19. ↵
• "Indian Reservations," http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/uhic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?zid=2a87fa28f20f1e66b5f663e76873fd8c&action=2&catId=&documentId= GALE|CX3401802046&userGroupName=lnoca_hawken&jsid=f44511ddfece4faafab082109e34a539 (April 10, 2016). ↵
• See Troy R. Johnson. 1996. The Occupation of Alcatraz Island: Indian Self-Determination and the Rise of Indian Activism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ↵
• Emily Chertoff, "Occupy Wounded Knee: A 71-Day Siege and a Forgotten Civil Rights Movement," The Atlantic, 23 October 2012. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/occupy-wounded-knee-a-71-day-siege-and-a-forgotten-civil-rights-movement/263998/ . ↵
• Public Law 93–638: Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, as Amended. ↵
• W. Dale Mason. 2000. Indian Gaming: Tribal Sovereignty and American Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 60–64. ↵
• Public Law 95–341: American Indian Religious Freedom, Joint Resolution. ↵
• Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908). ↵
• Adam Liptak.27 November 2018. "Is Half of Oklahoma an Indian Reservation? The Supreme Court Sifts the Merits." New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/oklahoma-indian-territory-supreme-court.html . ↵
• U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, "Racism’s Frontier: The Untold Story of Discrimination and Division in Alaska," http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/ak0402/ch1.htm (April 10, 2016). ↵
• Ryan Mielke, "Hawaiians’ Years of Mistreatment," Chicago Tribune, 4 September 1999. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-09-04/news/9909040141_1_hawaiians-oha-land-trust . ↵
• Brittany Lyte, "Historic Election Could Return Sovereignty to Native Hawaiians," Aljazeera America 30 Oct. 2015, http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/10/30/historic-election-could-return-sovereignty-to-native-hawaiians.html . ↵
• Jason Daley. 28 September 2016. "Rule Allows Native Hawaiians to Form Their Own Government." Smithosian.com. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/rule-allows-native-hawaiians-form-their-own-government-180960598/ . Brittany Lyte. 5 November 2017. "Native Hawaiians Again Seek Political Sovereignty with a New Constitution." Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/native-hawaiians-again-seek-political-sovereignty-with-a-new-constitution/2017/11/05/833842d2-b905-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b456552351c1 . ↵
• Jens Manuel Krogstad. 13 June 2014. "One-in-Four Native Americans and Alaska Natives Are Living in Poverty," http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/13/1-in-4-native-americans-and-alaska-natives-are-living-in-poverty/ . ↵
• Karina L. Walters, Jane M. Simoni, and Teresa Evans-Campbell. 2002. "Substance Use Among American Indians and Alaska Natives: Incorporating Culture in an ‘Indigenist’ Stess-Coping Paradigm," Public Health Reports 117: S105. ↵
• Kehaulani Lum, "Native Hawaiians’ Trail of Tears," Chicago Tribune, 24 August 1999. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-08-24/news/9908240280_1_native-hawaiians-hawaiian-people-aleuts . ↵

the name given to the forced migration of the Cherokees from Georgia to Oklahoma in 1838–1839

the Native American civil rights group responsible for the occupation of Wounded Knee, South Dakota, in 1973

American Government (2e - Second Edition) Copyright © 2019 by OpenStax and Lumen Learning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, FROM LEGAL TEXTS TO POLICING PRACTICE

By Patricia Miranda Wattimena Reposted from World Policy  with permission from author.

Over 370 million Indigenous people worldwide, the majority of whom live in Asia, face various forms of suppression and rights violations that can often be directly or indirectly attributed to the legacies of colonialism. In 19th-century Indochina, colonial governments recognized the presence of Indigenous peoples and referenced them in the new European-style legal frameworks, but the terms introduced to describe these groups almost always had negative connotations suggesting that Indigenous societies were savage, uncivilized, primitive, and backward. Sadly, despite Indigenous movements’ decades-long struggles and the adoption of the  United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)  in 2007, discriminatory language introduced by colonialists is still commonly used by governments and mainstream societies—and, in some countries, even remains in legal texts.

In the Asian context, this problem is further complicated by the failure of national authorities to introduce (or accept) the term and concept of “Indigenous,” which recognizes the unique positions and distinctive rights of the peoples it describes. Instead, in many countries, the term native, tribal, ethnic minorities among others are still used in many laws, including those regulating lands and resources. This causes confusion and, in most cases, hinders Indigenous peoples from protecting and asserting their rights. In Indonesia, for example, while the government recognizes ethnic minorities and customary law communities, it contends that the concept of Indigenous peoples as is laid out in the UNDRIP does not apply. The government is thus able to circumvent its international obligations regarding Indigenous Peoples, including protections for collective rights, self-determination, and more. The Indigenous Peoples' movement in Indonesia has strongly criticized the state’s position, as have groups in other Asian nations that use similar arguments to evade U.N. human rights standards.

Colonization is not only economic domination by the colonizer; it is also connected to the basic values and systems of the colonized. For instance, before being colonized, many Indigenous groups had maintained their own socio-political and legal systems, governance structures, and social norms for generations. Most of them were destroyed, however, when colonial governments imposed their values and systems on the Indigenous populations.

During colonization, manipulation schemes and strategies were employed by colonizers to remove Indigenous peoples from their land and exploit their natural resources. Millions of Indigenous families were forcibly displaced and deprived of their livelihoods. This massive violation of the collective rights of Indigenous peoples has yet to be rectified, and the legacies of systemic marginalization and discrimination are exacerbated by today’s criminal justice systems. Movements of Indigenous peoples seeking equal access to basic services such as health and education have often been oppressed.

Indigenous leaders and activists have been criminalized, persecuted, and even murdered. Porlajee Rakchongcharoen (also widely known as Billy), a prominent Karen land activist in Thailand, has been missing since 2014, when he was detained by four Kaeng Krachan National Park officials after being accused of illegal possession of a wild bee honeycomb and six bottles of honey. In 2016, Bahtiar bin Sabang, an Indigenous farmer from the Sinjai district in South Sulawesi, Indonesia, was sentenced to one year in prison for allegedly stealing 40 pieces of timber from his own land, which was arbitrarily claimed by the Sinjai government as a state forest area.

Indigenous communities defending their rights and identities—particularly their collective rights to self-determination, territories, and resources—are in most cases labeled as criminals and regarded as threats to national security and sovereignty. Across the world, thousands of human rights defenders, including Indigenous women and youth, have been incarcerated for asserting their rights and standing against the marginalization they face. In April 2017, for example, 14 members of Seko communities in Sulawesi, Indonesia, were detained and more than 400 Seko Indigenous women were beaten, slammed into the ground, and shot with tear gas by police for building tents and barricades to protest a hydroelectric power plant project in their ancestral territory.

Justice will only be realized when the colonial-era legacies of marginalization and discrimination are eliminated and Indigenous Peoples’ rights, particularly their collective rights to lands, territories, and resources, are recognized, respected, and promoted by all parties, from local police officers to the highest levels of government.

--  Patricia Miranda Wattimena is the former advocacy coordinator at Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact in Thailand.

Related Articles

Meet Our Second Cohort of 2023 Fellows

• Oct 02, 2023

Most Native Americans Speak Spanish

• Apr 29, 2024

​​​​​​​Michel Forst on His Mandate as UN Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders

• Sep 02, 2023

Land Acknowledgement We acknowledge that we are headquartered on Massachusett land , in Cambridge, MA, and we thank the past, current, and future Indigenous stewards of this territory.

Our Mission

Cultural Survival advocates for Indigenous Peoples' rights and supports Indigenous communities’ self-determination, cultures and political resilience, since 1972.

Cultural Survival envisions a future that respects and honors Indigenous Peoples' inherent rights and dynamic cultures, deeply and richly interwoven in lands, languages, spiritual traditions, and artistic expression, rooted in self-determination and self-governance.

Stay Informed

Sign up today to stay informed about the latest news, Cultural Survival program updates, events and MORE...

• Cultural Survival E-Newsletter - News and Updates
• Bazaars and Events
• Information on conferences, meetings and global events pertaining to Indigenous Peoples
• Free digital CSQ Magazine

© 2023 Cultural Survival. All Rights Reserved. | Donor Privacy Policy | EIN: 23-7182593

Included, but still marginalised: Indigenous voices still missing in media stories on Indigenous affairs

Research fellow, University of Technology Sydney

Professor of Race Relations, Deakin University

Disclosure statement

Amy Thomas has consulted for All Together Now, and has received research funding from Aboriginal Affairs NSW.

Yin Paradies is a board member of All Together Now.

University of Technology Sydney provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

Deakin University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Since the British invasion of Gadigal land at Sydney Cove in 1788, race relations in Australia have been underscored by what Wiradjuri writer Jack Gibson describes as the “supremeness of whiteness”.

Narratives of Indigenous inferiority and deficiency , combined with paternalistic policies, have produced a cultural climate where non-Indigenous voices have often dominated debate on matters of concern and importance to Indigenous communities.

However, in recent years, Indigenous journalists and storytellers have sought to change this.

The Uluru Statement From the Heart calls for a process of truth-telling. And as the Black Lives Matter movement has grown, some media organisations are recognising the need to deal with their histories of racist representations. In 2020, for example, the Stuff Group in New Zealand apologised for its racist and exclusionary depictions of Māori over decades.

Our new research , published as a joint report from All Together Now, University of Technology Sydney, Deakin University and Cultural and Indigenous Research Australia, examines the ways in which the mainstream media use language, voices, and other features (such as sources and points of view) to represent and frame Indigenous communities and issues.

Our research revealed the media is increasingly depicting Indigenous people and communities in “inclusive” ways. In a survey of 288 opinion pieces about Indigenous communities across mainstream newspapers and television networks in Australia, we found that 151 had inclusive depictions of Indigenous people.

Articles were considered inclusive if their language defied racial stereotypes, condemned racism, or gave a voice to Indigenous people.

However, when we delved more deeply into a smaller sample of these inclusive pieces using discourse analysis, we found that inclusive commentary can still deny agency to Indigenous people through marginalising Indigenous voices.

Exploring surface level inclusion

Focusing on 20 opinion articles published between 2019 and 2020 in five leading newspapers - The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, The Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun and The Courier Mail - we found that Indigenous voices, points of view and sources were routinely under-represented, while relevant historical and cultural context was regularly overlooked.

This obscures the actions and views of Indigenous people in the political debates that matter to their communities.

Our research found what we called surface level inclusion : inclusion of Indigenous people through the absence of negative stereotypes, but excluding Indigenous authors, perspectives, historical and cultural contexts, and voices.

Non-Indigenous voices dominated discussion of Indigenous matters. Only 20% of authors had an Indigenous background, while 50% were written by authors of an Anglo-Celtic background.

One example was the opinion piece , “Time to deal with dysfunction so First Australians can heal”, published by The Courier Mail. This almost exclusively recounted the issue of police brutality towards Indigenous people from the white author’s perspective, when it could have also drawn on the accounts of Indigenous people and their families.

We also found the majority of the articles we studied reflected the views of elites — a category we defined as members of government, police or academia. More than half (55%) of articles were written from this perspective.

By contrast, only 35% of opinion pieces contained an Indigenous point of view. We often found the authors’ white standpoint was prominent. This included white authors presenting an “us” and “them” dialogue, or focusing on coming to terms with their responsibility to provide support and allyship for Indigenous people.

This prevalence of white points of view was combined with a lack of Indigenous historical context and sources in social commentary discussing Indigenous issues. Just over a third of the articles did not make reference to historical and cultural context of invasion and/or subsequent policies of assimilation and discrimination.

As Darambul and South Sea Islander scholar Amy McQuire powerfully argues , inattention to Indigenous historical and cultural context in even sympathetic contexts can unwittingly assign blame for Indigenous disadvantage on individuals and communities rather than histories of racism and discrimination.

Sixty-five percent of the opinion pieces used Indigenous sources. While this number looks promising, considering we looked exclusively at inclusive social commentary, there is much room for improvement. A dominant white lens distorts public perceptions of Indigenous people and politics.

The role of media to challenge and change

Our research shows that a substantial shift in media commitment to highlighting Indigenous voices and perspectives is required to challenge the negative patterns of deficit-based reporting . Even “inclusive” coverage has not always been paired with centring Indigenous voices and prioritising Indigenous perspectives on Indigenous issues.

In her foreword to our report , award-winning Warlpiri journalist and creative Rachael Hocking argues that our findings speak to “the power imbalance of whose knowledge is valued in Australian society.”

Hocking argues that mainstream media journalists must deliberately engage with and learn from Indigenous-run media, which prioritise Indigenous knowledge and expertise. This is just one of five key recommendations our report makes for ways the media can engage in a process of reflection and seek to change or challenge the status quo.

As Stuff’s chief executive, Sinead Boucher, recognised in 2020, media has “an enormous impact in shaping public thought”. Rather than imagine its role as a passive reflection of public opinion, the media can acknowledge and take responsibility for the way it shapes the conversation around Indigenous issues.

Deliana Iacoban and Umesha Weerakkoddy from All Together Now also contributed to this article.

• Australian media
• Representation
• Self-determination
• Indigenous representation
• Indigenous media

Data Manager

Research Support Officer

Director, Social Policy

Head, School of Psychology

Senior Research Fellow - Women's Health Services

• Chronicle Conversations
• Article archives
• Issue archives
• Join our mailing list

Discrimination Against Indigenous Peoples: The Latin American Context

About the author, edward telles.

In discussing the issue of discrimination against indigenous peoples, it is tempting to paraphrase a preambular paragraph of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and say that at all periods of history, discrimination, in its many forms, has inflicted great losses on humanity. 1

There is a clear contradiction in the assumptions made by some lawyers and theologians in their fight for "good treatment" and the "humanity" of indigenous peoples at the beginning of the colonial period: the indigenous people should be treated well so that the colonists' king, god and faith could be imposed on them; the indigenous people had to pay taxes, provide food and work in mineral mining and pearl harvesting, and if they did not do so, a "just war" would be waged against them. 2 At times, the conquistadores arrived and waged the "just war" first and only subsequently imposed their divine and material conditions.

The declarations of independence of the continent's republics referred to the equality of rights of all inhabitants but did not bring about an improvement in the situation of indigenous peoples; in some cases the presence, existence and rights of indigenous people were recognized de jure but their de facto recognition was denied. All the independence struggles were marked by the efforts to establish equality of rights and put an end to discrimination.

In 1923, the great Cayuga chief Deskaheh, representative of the Iroquois people in Ontario (Canada) and holder of a passport issued by the authorities of his people, came to Geneva to the headquarters of the League of Nations. Acting on a mandate from the Government of the Federation of the Six Nations of the Grand River, he was carrying a letter containing an appeal for justice that was addressed to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. The main goal of his mission was to ask for the Federation that he represented to be admitted as a member of the League of Nations and to request compliance with a treaty signed in 1784 by the authorities of his people and ratified by King George III of Great Britain. Great chief Deskaheh spent over a year in Europe but was not officially received by any League of Nations official and his requests were never discussed. Great chief Deskaheh is considered to be one of the main precursors of the current fight of indigenous peoples at the international level. 3

In response to the terrible atrocities experienced during the Second World War by various groups of individuals, due to their political affiliation, sexual orientation or religious belief, or simply due to physical or mental handicaps, the Charter of the United Nations includes the principle (which was later included as a right in other instruments) that no distinction should be made "as to race, sex, language or religion". The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, establishing the right to non-discrimination in article 2, states: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965) and the international human rights covenants (1966) were significant landmarks in the fight against discrimination. The following instruments are also worthy of mention in connection with their respective areas of application: ILO Convention No. 111 concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation (1958) and the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education (1960).

The following instruments refer specifically to non-discrimination against indigenous peoples: ILO Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (1989); the references in the declarations and programmes of action adopted at the World Conferences (Rio de Janeiro (1992), Vienna (1993), Cairo (1994), Copenhagen (1995), Beijing (1995), Istanbul (1996), Rome (1996), Durban (2001) and Johannesburg (2002); 4 General Recommendation No. 23 (51) on indigenous peoples adopted by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 1997; and the document of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on the rights of indigenous children (2003).

In 1974, the United Nations Economic and Social Council granted consultative status for the first time to a non-governmental organization (NGO) of indigenous peoples. In 1977, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations held the first International NGO Conference on Discrimination against Indigenous Populations in the Americas at the Palais des Nations in Geneva; and in 1981, the same Committee organized the International NGO Conference on Indigenous Peoples and the Land at the same venue; the discussions held at these meetings covered some very important issues, including various aspects of discrimination. Since the end of the 1970s, most of the human rights claims or complaints relating to indigenous peoples -- considered either by the human rights bodies established by the United Nations Charter or by the monitoring bodies established in the human rights treaties -- have referred in some way to discrimination. The creation in 1981 (and operation from 1982 to 2006) of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities was a landmark in the history of the United Nations because it allowed the participation of representatives of indigenous peoples, communities and organizations in all the debates and, in particular, in the drafting of the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.

The Human Rights Committee quite rightly stated in 1989 that "non-discrimination, together with equality before the law and equal protection of the law, without any discrimination, constitute a basic and general principle relating to the protection of human rights". The multifaceted aspects of discrimination are reflected in the wording of article 5 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and in the definition given in article 1, paragraph 1.

There is an obvious link between discrimination, genocide, slavery (in its modern or other forms) and apartheid which are the worst of the crimes defined in international human rights law. In relation to both non-discrimination and other important individual and specific rights of indigenous peoples, early adoption of the declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples by the United Nations General Assembly is expected.

An analysis of the instruments and studies 5 of the United Nations system which refer (directly or indirectly) to discrimination shows that the indigenous struggles, rebellions and attitudes of resistance on the American continent (both in the colonial period and subsequently) had a strong anti-discriminatory focus. The multiple and varied forms and expressions of discrimination that indigenous people face on a daily basis have a negative impact on all the universally recognized rights and freedoms, and impair the life and dignity of indigenous peoples, communities and individuals.

Some of the main rights and liberties that have been denied, distorted or diminished (although the claims are urgent) include:

• recognition by States of the physical and cultural existence of indigenous peoples;
• the right to the real and effective ownership of traditional lands and territories and to the resources (both material and spiritual) that they contain;
• the right of indigenous peoples to have their own understanding of their history;
• the right to participate in and propose policies and projects for development, health, education and other areas;
• the right to have effective mechanisms to protest against or oppose legislation, administrative measures, projects, policies and programmes that have a negative impact on the life, economy or environment of their communities;
• the real and effective recognition of indigenous legal systems and religions, and the contributions that indigenous cultures have made to the progress of humanity, especially in relation to the environment, agriculture, philosophy, mathematics and other fields.

Today, the challenge in relation to indigenous peoples for the system of human rights and hence the United Nations is to create the conditions for requiring Member States to implement all the provisions against discrimination contained in all international human rights instruments and, when necessary, to make timely, adequate and effective technical assistance available to States. This challenge of course also includes adoption by the General Assembly of the declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. 6

The challenge for indigenous peoples today is to make proposals -- without relinquishing any of the rights established in international human rights law -- for the building of just, non-discriminatory and democratic societies; the declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples -- strengthened and supported by other valuable human rights instruments -- will surely be a basic tool for this building process.

1 The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by United Nations General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948.

2 The "just war" was a legal and theological ploy to justify the conquest and subjugation of the continent.

3 In 1925, the Maori religious leader W. T. Ratana arrived in Geneva, accompanied by a large delegation, to submit a claim to the League of Nations concerning observance of the Treaty of Waitangi signed between the Maori authorities and the English Crown. His request was not considered by the League of Nations.

4 Consideration should also be given to the declarations and programmes of action of the world conferences on racism and racial discrimination (Geneva, 1978 and 1983) which contain specific paragraphs referring to indigenous peoples.

5 Three UN studies on indigenous people should be mentioned: (a) ILO Report on the living and working conditions of the indigenous peoples of the independent countries, 1953; (b) Racial discrimination, 1971, UN document E/CN.4/Sub.2/307/Rev.1; and (c) Report on the problem of discrimination against indigenous populations, 1986, UN document E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7 and Add.1 to 4.

6 It should also be pointed out that the Organization of American States initiated a policy process to prepare a draft American declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. This interesting work has unfortunately come to a standstill, but there have recently been indications that the negotiations are soon to be resumed.

The UN Chronicle  is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.

Cultural Diversity in the Digital Age: A Pillar for Sustainable Development

Two important issues affecting the protection and promotion of cultural diversity deserve our attention: the question of discoverability of local and national content, and the impact of generative artificial intelligence (AI).

“Bee Engaged with Youth” to Safeguard Bees and Other Pollinators

As we celebrate World Bee Day on 20 May, let us remember how crucial it is to prioritize efforts to protect bees and other pollinators. FAO is committed to supporting youth, who have a key role to play in fostering the transformative changes and future initiatives and activities needed to save our bees and other pollinators.  

Digital Innovation—Key to Unlocking Sustainable Development 

Digital tools have the potential to accelerate human progress, but those who are not online are most at risk of being left behind.

Documents and publications

• Yearbook of the United Nations 
• Basic Facts About the United Nations
• Journal of the United Nations
• Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
• United Nations Official Document System (ODS)
• Africa Renewal

Libraries and Archives

• Dag Hammarskjöld Library
• UN Audiovisual Library
• UN Archives and Records Management 
• Audiovisual Library of International Law
• UN iLibrary 

News and media

• UN News Centre 
• UN Chronicle on Twitter
• UN Chronicle on Facebook

The UN at Work

• 17 Goals to Transform Our World
• Official observances
• United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI)
• Protecting Human Rights
• Maintaining International Peace and Security
• The Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth
• United Nations Careers

Interested in staying up to date with our reports? Subscribe to our newsletter!

Email address:

Subscribe to our newsletter so you can keep up to date with our recent articles

Spheres of Influence

Discrimination and Violence Against Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines

Share this:

Content Warning: Police and military brutality

In the early hours of December 30, 2020, Filipino police and military soldiers raided several Indigenous communities on the western island of Panay, killing nine people and arresting ten. The individuals killed and arrested in the attacks were known protestors of the military and objectors of the Jalaur River Dam Project, which will forcibly relocate thousands of Indigenous Peoples and entire communities. 

Representative Arlene Brosas, a member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines, remarked that this horrific event, referred to as the Tumandok massacre, was a “chilling conclusion of a year marred by bloody attacks on rights defenders and ordinary citizens amid the pandemic.” The attacks represent an escalation of violence towards land defenders and the targeting of the country’s most marginalized communities. 

Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines 

There are around 11.3 million Indigenous people and 110 unique ethno-linguistic Indigenous groups in the Republic of the Philippines. It is estimated that Indigenous people account for 11-12% of the population, but this number could be as high as 20% . The Philippines is a country made up of over 7,000 islands, so the lifestyles, livelihoods, and languages across Indigenous groups vary greatly. Groups that reside in the northern mountainous region of Luzon are known as the Igorot. In the south, members of eight Indigenous groups from the island of Mindoro are known as the Mangyan . The Tumandok People reside in Central Panay, an island southwest of Manila, the country’s capital. 

The Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines are “ranked among the poorest and most disadvantaged [in the country]” according to the International Labour Organization (ILO). They lack legal land rights and have higher rates of illiteracy, mortality, and unemployment than the rest of the population. On top of these disadvantages, they are disproportionately impacted by environmental damage caused by dams and other industrial activities across the country and have been violently targeted by government officials for defending their own territory. 

Historical Context 

The Tumandok, and other Indigenous communities across the Philippines, have had a long history of resisting dam construction projects that threatened their way of life on Panay island. In the 1970s , emphasis was placed on the country’s natural resources as “the national economy became increasingly foreign-dominated and export-oriented.” Many foreign and domestic corporations took advantage of these resources by increasing activity in export-based industries, such as logging, mining, and agriculture. As a result, the military forcibly relocated many Indigenous communities to avoid confrontation or opposition towards improper land use.

Jalaur River Dam Project 

Tumanduk Farmers in Defense for Land and Life, also known as TUMANDUK, is an organization that opposes environmentally destructive development projects. The group has strongly opposed the Jalaur River Multi-Purpose Project (JRMPP), in which the government has proposed construction of a dam across the Jalaur River to generate “hydroelectric power … and eco-tourism” revenue. TUMANDUK is concerned about the potential flooding that could occur as a result of this dam. The potential flooding would displace an estimated 17,000 residents of Indigenous communities along the river. 

The dam is also set to be built just 11 kilometers from the West Panay Fault line, which saw several destructive earthquakes in 2012 and 2013. Despite legitimate concerns regarding the safety of the project, there has been a rise in the criminalization of environmental activists who oppose it. 

Red-Tagging and the Criminalization of Indigenous Activists 

Today, the political situation under President Rodrigo Duterte has heightened the violent attacks against Indigenous groups in the Philippines. In response to resistance from organizations such as TUMANDUK, the government has resorted to criminalizing them in what is known as “Red-Tagging.” Red-Tagging is a classification given by the government to those they believe are aligned with the Communist Party of the Philippines and its armed division, the New People’s Army. In most cases, government officials have little evidence that individuals are actually engaged in criminal activity. 

More importantly, as Amnesty International points out , belief in communist ideology “cannot be … used as a justification to target any individual or group.” This classification has led to many arbitrary arrests of peaceful protestors, including attacks and killings. The Tumandok massacre was a devastating example of this classification, as targeted Indigenous activists were “victims of red-tagging.”

  On July 3, 2020, President Duterte signed a bill entitled the “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.” The law further expands the legal definition of terrorism and allows those who are “likely to join considered terrorist groups” to be targeted by the government. This law gives the government more power to deem peaceful protests and legitimate criticism of the government as “terrorism.” Under Duterte’s presidency, laws such as the Anti-Terrorism Act have been used to violently target and silence people who speak out against government policies and environmental destruction, particularly Indigenous communities who are directly impacted by these actions. 

Public Support of Duterte and Upcoming 2022 Elections

Despite Duterte’s harsh policies and targeting of Indigenous groups, the president’s approval rates have remained relatively high in the Philippines. Nearing the end of his term and in the midst of a pandemic, Duterte received a 58% approval rating and a 55% trust rating in July according to a survey conducted by Publicus Asia. These findings are significant, as while under the constitution Duterte cannot run for a second term, he will be running for Vice President in the upcoming May 2022 elections. Some experts have proposed that Duterte’s high approval ratings are thanks to his tactics of fear-mongering as well as a divided and inadequate opposition. 

Nevertheless, a survey conducted by Social Weather Stations also found that “60% of 1,200 respondents believed his move [to run as VP] violates the intention of the constitution.” These findings show that Duterte does not have blind support from the public, but they still indicate a frightening trend towards the rise of extreme right-wing politicians around the world who build platforms based on fear and “othering” certain groups. This can be seen clearly in the criminalization of Indigenous populations in the Philippines.

More Media Attention is Needed

Despite violent attacks made by the government, organizations such as TUMANDUK continue to fight against improper land use. Many human rights groups have condemned Duterte’s government for the Tumanduk killings and called for an official investigation of the event. Nine months later and with little accountability, the issue of violence against Indigenous communities in the Philippines needs much more international attention and media exposure. 

Edited by Bethlehem Samson and Chase Kelliher

Toko peters.

Toko is from Vancouver, BC, and was born in Hamamatsu, Japan. After obtaining her B.A. in International Relations at UBC, she continued to pursue her passion and affinity for writing, politics, and world... More by Toko Peters

Water in Mayotte: An Increasingly Familiar Humanitarian Crisis in Overseas France

In 2023, Mayotte endured another severe year-long water crisis that impacted all spheres of society. Lessons should be learned.

Anti-Black Racism in Tunisia: The Persecution of Sub-Saharan African Migrants

Defying the Odds: Sibawayh’s Battle for Linguistic Legacy in Arabic

Blessed are the Peacemakers: Explaining the Rise in Sub-Saharan African Intervention and Advocacy

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

A Study on Issues and Challenges of Tribal Women in Present Era

The Scheduled tribes constitute a small proportion of the total population of the country and they are marginalized from the society in many respects. Provisions made in the Constitution have brought about changes in their position but still they are confronted with a number of challenges. Tribal women in India are hardworking than tribal men and they contribute significantly towards their family income but their income generating sources are limited.Today, atrocities on women have become a matter of rising concern. Crimes against them such as dowry, female infanticide and domestic violence, including marital rape, continue to increase. Besides these, other problems that still afflict women are patriarchal oppression, violence, gender discrimination, lack of opportunities, extreme poverty, etc. Therefore, we talk about issues like women's liberation/emancipation and women empowerment.The purpose of this theoretical paper is to find out the challenges faced by tribal women. This Paper Completely based on Secondary Data.

Related Papers

Lalchawiliana Varte

Abdul Kalam

Women in India, although constitute almost fifty percent of its total population, remain to be a neglected section of our society (Agarwalla, S., 2012). “Though men and women are declared to be equal before the law and though discrimination on the basis of sex is forbidden by the constitution, it is common knowledge that women are still at a disadvantage in India in many areas of life” (Das, B. B. & S. B. Bhuyan, 2012:43). According to FAO, “the most disadvantaged section of the society is the women; they are the „silent majority‟ of the world‟s poor. Seventy percent of the world‟s poor are women. They face peculiar social, cultural, educational, political and allied problems” (Sharma, P. & Varma, S.K., 2008:46).

Volume 2 Issue 1

Tabiya Hassan

Indian Journal of Research in Anthropology

Dr. Amit Soni

Empowerment is an active and multidimensional process. Empowerment involves awareness; enhancement of ability and involvement in decision making; possession of assets and power and a state of proper execution of rights and responsibilities. Thus, empowerment may be in various fields, such as, social, economic, political, religious, etc. State of empowerment reflects the stage of developmental process in a particular field or overall development. In tribal communities, the role of women is substantial and crucial. Tribal women in India amply contribute in livelihood activities along with performing household chores and family responsibilities. Despite several economic, political and social changes, tribal women are still far behind. This paper assess and reviews the status of empowerment of tribal women in central India through her role and status in social, economic, religious and political spheres along with status of her education, liberty, authority and possess rights.

This paper studied on the constraints of women of Uttar Dinajpur district in West Bengal with special respect to one of the backward group of our society i.e. Tribal. In India tribals have lived in isolation for many of years and untouched by the modern life developed around them. This isolation is cause of the constraints of tribal women empowerment of Indian society. For women development as well as women empowerment, education is most vital because educating women brings societal changes which bring many benefits for society. And women's education will increase the financial gain of their families additionally that may be a part of economic process of society. This study is qualitative in nature and semistructured interview schedule was use to gather the information. Main objective of the study is to look at the barriers of tribal women empowerment in Uttar Dinajpur District of West Bengal. This paper founds that in Uttar Dinajpur District of West Bengal the tribal women literacy rate is incredibly low. For women empowerment literacy is an important part but in this region girls are generally not given adequate chance to accumulate formal education which is important condition for women empowerment. So special attention should be given to the tribal girls of Uttar Dinajpur in different section like health, education, security, job etc. This study concludes that only correct care will bring tribal women empowerment in Uttar Dinajpur District of West Bengal. Education and additional encouragement will give them urge to think big and which will lead to women empowerment.

Dr.Manoj Kumar Nag

mahendra mehta

Rashmirekha Das

Empowerment of tribal women is one of the central issues in the process of development all over the world. It is a multifaceted, multi-dimensional and multi layered concept. Women empowerment is a process in which women gain greater share of control over material, human and intellectual resources as well as control over decision-making in the home, community, society and nation. However the tribal women faced many problems in our society. There is basic cultural and psychological tendency on the part of men to dominate the women, which is also seen among the tribal men. On the part of the tribal women too, due to sociological or cultural reasons, they are unable or unwilling to come out of their clichés. Of course, ignorance and illiteracy play a major role in hampering the empowerment of tribal women. It is indeed a herculean task on the part both of government and voluntary agencies to find different ways and means to assist the tribal societies in general and the tribal women in ...

TJPRC Publication

Schedule Tribes (ST's) are Indian population groups that are explicitly recognized by the constitution of India order 1950. The order lists 744 tribes across 22 states in its first schedule. In Andhra Pradesh 34 types of Schedule Tribes are living in 13 districts. ST's are 5.7% are in total population of Andhra Pradesh. They have rich heritage along with their innocent life style. The tribal women, constitute like any other social group, about half of the total population. Tribal societies generally view gender as complimentary and egalitarian, where each role is defined but complimentary to the other. Men focus on cultivation and women plant and gather the food, thus both roles are necessary and complimentary in the holistic relationship of the family/community. Traditionally, tribal women and men had equal access to lands, animals and resources, and this was beneficial to the collective. However, as a result of the integration and assimilation efforts of dominant culture, capitalistic systems and the ideal of individual ownership, tribal women in particular experience fewer opportunities to access their natural resource and lands. As a consequence Gender relations within tribal society have been changing. The present paper is based on empirical study carried out in the Visakhapatnam district of Andhra Pradesh that highlights the plight of tribal women in present scenario.

Dr. Sagarika Saha

Empowerment is the new buzz word in Women Development sector. The indicators of empowerment vary place to place and it may differ community wise. In this paper different indicators of empowerment are showcased from the perspectives of marginalized community mainly ST or Tribal Culture. Murshidabad District is the remote and backward district of West Bengal in respect of economic, social and cultural development. This paper will discuss mainly the power gained by the tribal women in every aspect of their family life in Bahadurpur GP of Farakka block. Their rigid customs, beliefs and adaptation towards the improved living standard provide a good example of empowered women against all odd circumstances. They not only construct their own self-esteem but raise the consciousness of their better halfs to think and work positively. They also influence their children to take education as an important element in their lives. Alcoholism, addiction and sluggishness are the critical conditions found common in male population of this community, but these women has used their 'Atma Sakti' to demolish those evils and reestablished their families and community. SHG also plays vital role in this community to realize the leadership quality of the woman which exits in them as part of Matriarchal society. Keywords: Woman, empowerment, tribal, development, education, indicators, health

RELATED PAPERS

indah fitrianingrum

J. Özlem OKTAY ÇEREZCİ

Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine

Nicholas Theodore

Arkeoloji-Sanat Yayınları

Murat Ufuk Kara

Chander Prakash

Boletín Salud & Nutrición; Núm. 17 (2017)

Alexandra Mondragón Serna

sofyan sbahi

International Journal of Molecular Sciences

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Amir hosein Behzadi bigdeli

Journal of the Institute of Electronics Engineers of Korea

European Journal of Cancer

Börje Ljungberg

Fernando Correa

Shaghayegh Rezaei

Biomedical Research-tokyo

Magda Hassanin Youssef

Filosofia e Educação

Marcelo Vinicius

Scientific Reports

Muhammad shahan khalid

Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny

Marta Dąbrowska

Malaria Journal

Sanjib Mohanty

sezai sylejmani

Antoine BEYER

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Race, Ethnicity, or National Origin-Based Discrimination

Learn more here about your right to be free from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or national origin, and how the law protects you. (Updated October 2023 to reflect additions regarding online hiring and digital discrimination.)

What does discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin look like?

It is illegal discrimination if a person or a company intentionally treats you differently based on your race, ethnicity, or national origin. for example, a landlord violates the law if you apply to rent an apartment and are told that the landlord doesn’t rent to black people. likewise, it is illegal for an employer to refuse to hire a person of color because of that person’s race,  ethnicity, or national origin..

Some forms of illegal discrimination may be subtler. An employer or housing or credit provider may adopt policies that cause unjustified and disproportionate harm to people of a particular race, ethnicity, or national origin. For example, refusing to hire anyone with any sort of criminal record disproportionately hurts Black and Latine job applicants, who are more likely than white applicants to have criminal records in the current criminal legal system. Many kinds of convictions, including old convictions, will have nothing to do with an applicant’s ability to do the job. A blanket policy excluding people with criminal records would amount to illegal “disparate impact” discrimination. Additionally, depending on the reasons why this particular policy was adopted, the facts could show that the policy was driven by a desire to exclude people of color with criminal records, in which case the policy would constitute illegal intentional racial discrimination as well. For another example of racial discrimination in employment, employers may be using automated tools to review job applications, and these tools may evaluate resumes based on information that directly correlates with the job applicant’s race. For instance, an evaluation of one resume screening tool found that the tool identified being named Jared and playing high school lacrosse as key to being a successful employee .  

Your rights

• Federal anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination in housing, credit, employment, and “public accommodations” like restaurants, movie theaters, parks, and trains.
• You cannot be denied a home, a job, or service at a business that is open to the public because of your race, ethnicity, or national origin, and you cannot be charged a different price because of your race, ethnicity, or national origin.
• The Constitution prevents the government from subjecting you to worse treatment because of your race, ethnicity, or national origin in any situation.
• State and local laws may also provide protection against discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin.

What to do if you believe your rights have been violated

• Gather all the documents that might support your claim — emails, text messages, application forms, for example — and locate the people who witnessed the discriminatory conduct.
• Write down a timeline of events and all the facts that lead you to believe you were discriminated against.
• You can show that you’ve been subject to intentional discrimination by pointing to people of a different race, ethnicity, or national origin who received better treatment, or by pointing to actions by the landlord or employer that don’t make sense in the absence of discrimination.
• Figure out which government agency can take your complaint. This can be somewhat confusing because there are federal, state, and local agencies that may be able to help, and the process varies depending upon where you live. Start with the websites for the federal agencies: for housing, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; for jobs, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; and for consumer credit, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
• Your city or town may also have its own civil or human rights agency that can help.
• These agencies will ask you to file a description of your complaint with any supporting documents and conduct an investigation at no cost to you. Be aware that the time period for filing a complaint may be short. The process may result in monetary damages for you as well as the opportunity to be considered for the job or housing at issue, and it could require the employer or housing provider to change its policies going forward.
• You may also consider filing a lawsuit in state or federal court.

Could I face retaliation for filing a complaint?

• Take note of any action that your current landlord or employer takes against you after learning of your complaint or lawsuit. That conduct could violate your First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for complaining about discrimination.
• If this happens, you can make a separate complaint with the appropriate agency for retaliation or amend your lawsuit to include a retaliation claim.

Additional resources

• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
• Department of Housing and Urban Development
• Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights
• Civil Rights complaints can also be filed with the Federal Departments of Transportation, Agriculture, Labor and the Environmental Protection Agency.
• NAACP Legal Defense Fund
• Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights
• Mexican American Legal Defense Fund
• National Fair Housing Association
• Muslim Ban Fact Sheet

In other languages

• (Arabic) العَرَبِيَّة
• Español (Spanish)
• Français (French)
• (Urdu) اُردُو
• Soomaali (Somali)
• हिंदी (Hindi)
• (Traditional Chinese) 繁體中文
• (Simplified Chinese) 简体中文

Race, ethnicity, or national origin-based discrimination at work

• You cannot be denied a job, promotion, or a raise based on your race, ethnicity, or national origin. You have these rights whether you apply for and interview for a job in person or online , and whether the employer is using traditional or automated systems for hiring or in the workplace .  
• Examples of illegal discrimination under the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Act include any decision by an employer to refuse to hire or to impose conditions based upon race, ethnicity, or national origin.  This also includes taking actions such as setting requirements for hiring which are not actually required to do the work and which exclude people based on race, ethnicity, national origin, or any other protected categories.
• The Constitution also prevents the government from subjecting you to worse treatment because of your race, ethnicity, or national origin in any situation.
• Keep all the documents s ubmitted and received during your hiring process — emails, text messages, application forms, for example.
• You can show that you’ve been subject to intentional discrimination by pointing to people of a different race, ethnicity, or national origin who received better treatment, or by pointing to actions by the employer, company, or prospective employer that just don’t make sense in the absence of discrimination.
• Submit a complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
• Your city, town, or tribe may also have its own civil or human rights agency that can help.
• Government agencies will ask you to file a description of your complaint with any supporting documents and conduct an investigation at no cost to you. The process may result in monetary damages for you as well as the opportunity to be considered for the job at issue, and it could require the employer to change its policies going forward.
• Take note of any action that your current employer takes against you after learning of your complaint or lawsuit. That conduct could violate your First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for complaining about discrimination.
• National Employment Law Project

Race, ethnicity, or national origin-based discrimination in housing

Examples of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin in housing.

• If you apply to rent an apartment or purchase a house and are told that the landlord or owner doesn’t rent or sell to Black people.
• A housing or credit provider has a policy that causes unjustified and disproportionate harm to people of a particular race, ethnicity, or national origin. For example, you are denied a mortgage loan because of your race or an agency refuses to provide loans or insurance coverage because a property is located in a particular area or refuses to provide loans or insurance coverage on equal terms.
• The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing and lending. The federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act also provides protections from discrimination in lending.  Both statutes explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
• State and local civil/human rights laws typically prohibit discrimination in housing and housing related services.
• You can show that you’ve been subject to intentional discrimination by pointing to people of a different race who received better treatment, or by pointing to actions by the landlord that don’t make sense in the absence of discrimination.
• Submit a complaint to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and/or  the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
• Government agencies will ask you to file a description of your complaint with any supporting documents and conduct an investigation at no cost to you. The process may result in monetary damages for you as well as the opportunity to be considered for the job or housing at issue, and it could require the employer or housing provider to change its policies going forward.
• Take note of any action that your current landlord takes against you after learning of your complaint or lawsuit. That conduct could violate your First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for complaining about discrimination.
• National Fair Housing A lliance

Race, ethnicity, or national origin-based discrimination at schools and colleges

Examples of discrimination in schools or on campus.

• Segregation of classes or school-sponsored activities on the basis of students’ race, ethnicity, or national origin.
• Denial of language services to English learners.
• Disciplining students of one race, ethnicity, or national origin, but not others.
• Providing different resources to students based on their race, ethnicity, or national origin.
• Harassment or profiling based on race, ethnicity, or national origin by faculty, fellow students, or school staff.
• Targeting of students of a particular race, ethnicity, or national origin for searches or arrest.
• Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance is prohibited. This includes schools and colleges that receive funding from the U.S. Department of Education. (Note: some private schools do not received any federal funding, so Title VI protections do not apply to them.)
• Your educational institution must respond to instances of discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin that deny or limit your ability to take part in and benefit from your school’s educational programs and activities.
• You can show that you’ve been subject to intentional discrimination by pointing to people of a different race who received better treatment, or by pointing to actions by the teacher or fellow student that just don’t make sense in the absence of discrimination.
• Submit a complaint to the Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education.
• Government agencies will ask you to file a description of your complaint with any supporting documents and conduct an investigation at no cost to you. The process may result in monetary damages for you as well as the opportunity to be considered for the job or housing at issue, and it could require the school provider to change its policies going forward.
• Living While Black on Campus: A Roadmap for Student Activism
• Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section
• The Education Law Center
• Dignity in Schools
• State civil/human rights agencies as well as state Departments of Education have additional information and may be able to take complaints of discrimination.

Other Know Your Rights Issues

Essay on Tribal Empowerment – 200, 500 Words

Table of Contents

Essay on Tribal Empowerment in 200 Words

Empowerment of tribal communities is crucial for fostering inclusive and sustainable development. These indigenous groups, often residing in remote and marginalized regions, have faced historical injustices, socio-economic disparities, and cultural marginalization. However, empowering tribal communities can lead to positive outcomes for both them and the society as a whole.

Firstly, tribal empowerment enables economic growth. By providing access to education and skill development programs, tribal members can acquire knowledge and expertise that will boost their employability in various sectors. Equipped with these capabilities, they can contribute to local economies, enhancing productivity and reducing poverty within their communities.

Secondly, empowering tribes preserves their unique cultural heritage. Indigenous cultures hold valuable knowledge about sustainable living, traditional medicines, and conservation practices. Empowering these communities ensures the preservation of their customs and traditions, enriching humanity’s cultural diversity.

Moreover, tribal empowerment promotes social cohesion and inclusivity. By encouraging their participation in decision-making processes and providing them with platforms to voice their concerns, society can benefit from the wisdom and insights of these ancient communities. This inclusivity fosters social harmony and reduces conflicts between different segments of society.

In conclusion, tribal empowerment is an essential step towards achieving sustainable development. By addressing the historical injustices and providing opportunities for education, skill development, and active participation, tribal communities can contribute significantly to their own well-being and the progress of society at large. Through such initiatives, we can create a more equitable and harmonious world, embracing the rich diversity of cultures and traditions that enrich our global community.

How to celebrate Women’s Day

Essay on Tribal Problems

Introduction.

Tribal communities have a rich cultural heritage and have been an integral part of societies across the globe for centuries. They inhabit diverse regions and have their unique social, economic, and political systems. Despite their cultural significance, these indigenous communities face a myriad of challenges that threaten their traditional way of life, social cohesion, and economic stability. In this essay, we will delve into some of the major tribal problems, their underlying causes, and potential solutions to address these issues.

Land Rights and Displacement

One of the most pressing problems faced by tribal communities is the loss of their ancestral lands due to land encroachments, resource exploitation, and government-sponsored development projects. Displacement from their traditional territories leads to the erosion of their cultural identity and disrupts the delicate balance between nature and their way of life. Ensuring secure land rights for tribal communities and recognizing their collective ownership of these lands is crucial to safeguard their existence.

Poverty and Lack of Access to Basic Services

Tribal populations often face higher poverty rates compared to non-tribal communities. Limited access to education, healthcare, clean water, and sanitation contributes to their marginalization and perpetuates the cycle of poverty. Governments and NGOs must prioritize the provision of basic services to these communities to bridge the gap and uplift their living conditions.

Cultural Erosion and Identity Crisis

Globalization and urbanization exert immense pressure on tribal cultures, leading to cultural erosion and an identity crisis. Traditional practices, languages, rituals, and art forms are at risk of disappearing, which can have detrimental effects on their social fabric. Efforts to preserve and promote indigenous languages, art, and customs are vital to safeguard their unique cultural heritage.

Lack of Education and Skill Development

Education is a powerful tool for empowerment and progress, but tribal communities often face obstacles in accessing quality education. Inadequate infrastructure, lack of trained teachers, and cultural insensitivity in educational systems hinder their learning opportunities. Initiatives that integrate traditional knowledge with formal education can empower tribal youth and equip them with skills necessary to improve their livelihoods.

Health Issues and Healthcare Disparities

Tribal communities are susceptible to various health issues due to limited access to healthcare facilities and inadequate health awareness. Communicable diseases, malnutrition, and inadequate maternal and child care are common concerns. Strengthening healthcare infrastructure in tribal areas and sensitizing healthcare providers to their unique needs can mitigate these challenges.

Exploitation and Discrimination

Tribal communities are often subjected to exploitation, discrimination, and violence. Land grabbing, forced labor, and human rights violations are rampant in some regions. Legal measures, awareness campaigns, and support from civil society organizations are crucial to combat these injustices and protect the rights of tribal populations.

Environmental Degradation

Tribal communities have been living in harmony with nature for generations. However, modern development and resource extraction activities disrupt the ecological balance, leading to environmental degradation. Recognizing the traditional ecological knowledge of tribal communities and involving them in sustainable development planning can contribute to a more eco-friendly approach.

The challenges faced by tribal communities are deeply interconnected and require multi-faceted solutions. Governments, civil society organizations, and the international community must work collaboratively to address the root causes of these problems and ensure the protection of the rights and well-being of tribal populations. Preserving their unique cultural heritage, providing access to education and healthcare, securing land rights, and promoting sustainable development can empower these communities to thrive while preserving their rich traditions and way of life. By addressing tribal problems with sensitivity and inclusivity, we can create a more equitable and harmonious world for all.

Essay on Artificial Intelligence

Essay on Tribal Empowerment

Students are often asked to write an essay on Tribal Empowerment in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Tribal Empowerment

Introduction.

Tribal empowerment refers to the enhancement of tribal communities’ socio-economic status. It involves improving their access to resources, rights, and opportunities.

Empowering tribal communities is crucial. They often live in isolation, lack basic amenities, and face discrimination. Empowerment can help them lead better lives.

Tribal empowerment can be achieved through education, providing healthcare, and creating job opportunities. Also, preserving their culture and traditions is important.

Tribal empowerment is an essential step towards equality and justice. It ensures that tribal communities can contribute to society while maintaining their unique cultural identity.

Also check:

• 10 Lines on Tribal Empowerment

250 Words Essay on Tribal Empowerment

Tribal empowerment refers to the process of enhancing the social, economic, and political strength of tribal communities. It involves providing these communities with the resources and opportunities necessary to make decisions that affect their lives.

The Need for Tribal Empowerment

Historically, tribal communities have been marginalized and subjected to social exclusion, economic deprivation, and political disenfranchisement. Empowerment is crucial to address these injustices, ensuring that tribal communities can exercise their rights and participate fully in society.

Strategies for Tribal Empowerment

A multi-pronged approach is necessary for tribal empowerment. It includes ensuring access to quality education, healthcare, and livelihood opportunities. Legal and policy reforms are also vital to safeguard tribal rights and promote their socio-economic development.

Role of Education

Education is a powerful tool for empowerment, providing tribal communities with the knowledge and skills to advocate for their rights and improve their living conditions. It is essential to make education culturally relevant and accessible to tribal communities.

Challenges and Future Directions

Despite efforts to empower tribal communities, they continue to face numerous challenges, including discrimination, poverty, and lack of access to basic services. Moving forward, it is necessary to address these issues through inclusive policies, community engagement, and sustained commitment to tribal empowerment.

In conclusion, tribal empowerment is a crucial aspect of social justice and sustainable development. It requires concerted efforts from all stakeholders, including the government, civil society, and the tribal communities themselves.

500 Words Essay on Tribal Empowerment

Tribal empowerment refers to the process of enhancing the social, economic, political, and cultural strength of indigenous communities. It is a comprehensive approach that involves addressing historical injustices, ensuring the preservation of cultural heritage, and creating opportunities for sustainable development.

Historical Context and Current Challenges

Historically, tribal communities have faced systemic discrimination and marginalization. They have had their lands confiscated, been subjected to forced labor, and had their cultural practices suppressed. Today, these communities often face challenges such as poverty, lack of access to quality education and healthcare, and cultural erosion.

The Importance of Tribal Empowerment

Tribal empowerment is crucial for several reasons. Firstly, it is a matter of justice. Indigenous communities have a right to self-determination, cultural preservation, and equitable access to resources. Secondly, it is a matter of sustainability. Indigenous knowledge systems often contain valuable insights for managing natural resources sustainably. Finally, it is a matter of diversity. The cultural richness of indigenous communities is an invaluable part of our global heritage.

There are several strategies that can be employed to empower tribal communities. These include:

1. Legal Recognition: This involves acknowledging the rights of indigenous communities to their lands, resources, and cultural practices. It also means ensuring that these rights are protected by law and enforced by government institutions.

2. Educational Initiatives: Education can play a vital role in tribal empowerment. This includes not only improving access to quality education for tribal communities but also incorporating indigenous knowledge and perspectives into mainstream curricula.

3. Economic Opportunities: Creating economic opportunities for tribal communities can help alleviate poverty and promote self-reliance. This can involve initiatives such as supporting indigenous entrepreneurship and promoting fair trade in indigenous products.

4. Political Participation: Ensuring that tribal communities have a voice in the political process is key to their empowerment. This can involve measures such as ensuring representation in government bodies and promoting the participation of indigenous individuals in political leadership.

In conclusion, tribal empowerment is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires concerted efforts from various stakeholders. It is not only a matter of justice for marginalized communities but also a key component of sustainable development and cultural diversity. By adopting strategies such as legal recognition, educational initiatives, economic opportunities, and political participation, we can make significant strides towards empowering tribal communities and ensuring their rightful place in society.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Importance of Good Manners
• Essay on Gender Norms
• Essay on Effects of Gender Inequality

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

The Concept and Implications of Colorblind Racism

This essay about colorblind racism explains how the ideology of ignoring race to promote equality can perpetuate racial injustice. It discusses how colorblindness emerged in the post-civil rights era and argues that treating everyone equally without acknowledging race overlooks systemic inequalities. The essay highlights how colorblind racism denies racial differences, avoids discussions about race, and critiques policies like affirmative action, which aim to address inequality. It emphasizes the need to recognize and address systemic racism, validate the experiences of people of color, and foster open conversations about race to achieve genuine equality and justice.

How it works

The concept of colorblind racism delineates a modern iteration of racial prejudice that feigns ignorance toward the significance of race in human existence and choices. This ideology advocates for the notion that eradicating discrimination entails treating all individuals with parity, irrespective of their racial, ethnic, or chromatic attributes. Nonetheless, this perspective often overlooks the entrenched systemic disparities persisting within society, inadvertently perpetuating racial injustice.

The notion of colorblindness in societal frameworks gained prominence notably during the post-civil rights era, notably in the United States.

Proponents argue that by averting acknowledgment of race, society can transcend historical injustices and foster a genuinely equitable environment. However, critics contend that this viewpoint oversimplifies the matter and fails to acknowledge the pervasive entrenchment of race and racism within societal structures. It posits that ceasing to recognize race would result in the eradication of racial issues, a notion starkly distant from reality.

Colorblind racism materializes in diverse manifestations. One prevalent manifestation is the repudiation of racial disparities, coupled with the assertion that everyone enjoys equal opportunities. This stance disregards the historical context of racial bias and the persistent disparities evident in realms such as education, employment, housing, and criminal justice. For instance, the notion that meritocracy singularly propels success overlooks systemic impediments disproportionately affecting people of color. It neglects the enduring ramifications of historical discrimination and the perpetuation of inequitable policies and practices disadvantaging specific racial demographics.

Another manifestation is the evasion of conversations regarding race and racism. While dialogues on race may induce discomfort, evading them does not resolve the underlying issues; rather, it complicates their resolution. When individuals espouse colorblindness, they frequently dismiss the lived experiences of individuals of color, thereby trivializing their struggles and viewpoints. This engenders a deficit of comprehension and empathy, exacerbating the challenge of attaining genuine equity.

Moreover, colorblind racism is discernible in the critique of policies crafted to redress racial inequality, such as affirmative action. Opponents argue that such policies constitute reverse discrimination, advocating for a uniform treatment of all individuals. However, this stance disregards historical instances of unequal opportunities and underscores the necessity of proactive measures to level the playing field. By denouncing these endeavors as unjust, colorblind racism perpetuates the status quo, impeding progress toward equity.

The ideology of colorblindness also influences interpersonal dynamics. For instance, individuals asserting to “not see color” may perceive themselves as non-racist. However, this assertion proves problematic as it disregards the import of racial identity and the repercussions of racism on individuals’ lives. It obstructs substantive discussions on race and impedes the formulation of policies and practices addressing racial disparities.

Combatting colorblind racism necessitates a paradigm shift. It demands acknowledgment of the salience of race and the pervasive nature of systemic racism. This entails heeding and validating the experiences of individuals of color, recognizing the historical and structural factors underpinning inequality, and actively dismantling these barriers. It also involves fostering transparent discussions on race, fostering enhanced comprehension and empathy.

In educational contexts, this could entail integrating diverse viewpoints into curricula and establishing forums for students to engage in dialogues on race and racism. In workplaces, it might entail implementing policies fostering diversity and inclusivity and rectifying disparities in recruitment, advancement, and compensation. On a broader societal scale, it requires endorsing policies addressing systemic disparities and advocating for justice and equity.

In conclusion, colorblind racism epitomizes a multifaceted and pernicious manifestation of racism that, albeit ostensibly progressive, ultimately perpetuates racial disparities. By disregarding the realities of race and racism, it precludes society from confronting the root causes of discrimination, impeding progress toward authentic equity. Overcoming colorblind racism necessitates recognition and confrontation of the systemic underpinnings of racial disparities, along with active endeavors to promote racial justice and equity. Only through acknowledging the import of race and addressing its repercussions can society aspire to forge a more just and equitable future for all.

Cite this page

The Concept and Implications of Colorblind Racism. (2024, Jun 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-concept-and-implications-of-colorblind-racism/

"The Concept and Implications of Colorblind Racism." PapersOwl.com , 1 Jun 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-concept-and-implications-of-colorblind-racism/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Concept and Implications of Colorblind Racism . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-concept-and-implications-of-colorblind-racism/ [Accessed: 1 Jun. 2024]

"The Concept and Implications of Colorblind Racism." PapersOwl.com, Jun 01, 2024. Accessed June 1, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-concept-and-implications-of-colorblind-racism/

"The Concept and Implications of Colorblind Racism," PapersOwl.com , 01-Jun-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-concept-and-implications-of-colorblind-racism/. [Accessed: 1-Jun-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Concept and Implications of Colorblind Racism . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-concept-and-implications-of-colorblind-racism/ [Accessed: 1-Jun-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

News | LA lifeguard alleges religious discrimination…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Investigative Reporting
• Environment

News | LA lifeguard alleges religious discrimination in lawsuit over pride flags

Capt. Jeffrey Little, who describes himself as a devout evangelical Christian who has worked for Los Angeles County for more than 22 years, stated in the lawsuit that he took down three Pride Flags at his workplace in Pacific Palisades last June hoisted in support of LGBTQ residents because he did not want to work “in these conditions.”

Last year, the county’s Board of Supervisors voted to require that many government buildings — including the facilities where Little worked at Will Rogers Beach, home to an LGBTQ-friendly section known as Ginger Rogers Beach — fly the Progress Pride Flag throughout June, which is Pride Month.

“The views commonly associated with the Progress Pride Flag on marriage, sex, and family are in direct conflict with Captain Little’s bona fide and sincerely held religious beliefs on the same subjects,” according to the suit filed in Los Angeles federal court. “His bona fide and sincerely held religious beliefs require him to reject those views.”

Little’s suit, which names the fire department and three chief officers in the lifeguard division as defendants, alleges that after he took down the flags, he was suspended from his role with the department’s background investigation unit, which investigates emergencies on the beach.

A representative for the L.A. County Fire Department, which oversees lifeguards, said the department cannot comment on personnel issues or any ongoing litigation.

• Newsroom Guidelines
• Report an Error

More in News

Crime and Public Safety | Manhattan Beach Pier closed because of bee activity

Crime and Public Safety | Family of 14-year-old girl killed in Balboa Peninsula crash touts DUI reforms

News | To bring extinct great otters back in Argentina, the LA Zoo sent Rosario

News | Cutting back on my columns, but not story tips from loyal readers