Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in The Inconvenient Indian, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
History and Mythology
Racism and Systemic Oppression
Land
Sovereignty
Summary
Analysis
King repeats his question from the previous chapter: “What do Indians want?” This time, he proposes that “it’s the wrong question.” Specifically, he argues that the “Indians” in question don’t exist but are instead a fantastical “Indian” that exists only in the popular imagination of the U.S. and Canada. Instead, King suggests, one ought to ask what the Lubicon Cree of Alberta want, or the Tlingit of Alaska. Alternatively, one could ask the question, “What do Whites want?” After all, King argues, the history of Indian-White relations in North America has never been about what Indians want.
King cuttingly suggests that it’s more productive to consider the future of Native Nations in terms of what White people want. After all, history tends to unfold according to what Whites want. By making this rather bleak observation, King invites readers to reflect on just how much North American culture has undercut the sense of agency that Indian people might otherwise have when it comes to their own future.
Themes
According to King, Whites want—and have always wanted—land. To Whites, land is even more important than Indian removal or assimilation. While North American attitudes toward assimilation and residential schools have changed over time, their desire for land has never shifted. States King, “[The issue] will always be land, until there isn’t a square foot of land left in North America that is controlled by Native people.” King affirms that Painter saw the truth behind the many government-issued removals, allotments, and reservations: each was aimed at eliminating Native controlled land.
King claims that all Indian-White relations can be traced back to Whites’ desire to control land. While the U.S. has undertaken repeated efforts to frame their treatment of Native people in an evangelical or ideological context, even these incentives may be attributed to a desire to control land that Whites feel is wasted on Native peoples who have no cultural or economic interest in developing land for farming or other moneymaking projects.
Themes
Land is also “a defining element of Aboriginal culture,” at the heart of Aboriginal peoples’ stories, languages, and customs. In contrast, King proposes that North America’s “societal attitude toward land” is to view it as a “commodity.” He cites the Alberta Tar Sands, a major energy-extraction operation with a host of horrific environmental implications, as an example of this attitude of land-as-commodity. King argues that North America doesn’t care about negative consequences of operations like the Alberta Tar Sands because they produce billions of dollars of profits; indeed, there has been little public outcry in response to the Tar Sands.
The reason Indian-White relations have remained fraught comes down to vastly different views about humanity’s relationship to land and the natural world. While the U.S. culture sees land as a “commodity” (or as a way to secure and maximize wealth or political influence), Native people have a more spiritual, close connection to the land. For this reason, the U.S. will always have a price tag attached to land, while to Natives, their sacred land remains priceless.
Themes
King cites the U.S. government’s breaking of the Fort Laramie Treaty as another example of prioritizing profit over ethics. Signed in 1868, the Fort Laramie Treaty was an agreement between the Lakota and the U.S. government that promised the Black Hills to the Lakota. However, after George Armstrong Custer discovered gold in the Hills in 1874, masses of White miners traveled to the Black Hills in search of wealth, and the U.S. Army did little to stop them. In 1875, the Lakota appealed to President Grant for help. The federal government’s response was to draw up a new treaty, offering the Lakota $25,000 to relinquish control of the hills. The Lakota refused to sign the new treaty.
The Lakota Nation’s refusal to accept the government’s offer of $25,000 for the Black Hills demonstrates their spiritual connection to the land. To accept any compensation for the Hills would dishonor them and go against everything they believe in.
Themes
Get the entire The Inconvenient Indian LitChart as a printable PDF.
In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. government had illegally taken the Black Hills from the Lakota; however, instead of returning the land to them, the court ordered the Lakota to be paid the original $25,000 purchasing price outlined in the new treaty—plus interest—which totaled $106 million. Once more, though, the Lakota refused to compromise.
The Lakota’s unwavering refusal to accept compensation for the Hills—even over 100 years later—reaffirms the sacred place the Hills hold in Lakota culture.
Themes
In North American Indian history, it’s nearly impossible to talk about land without talking about treaties. Whereas Natives view Indian land as Indian land, North America (legally speaking) views Indian land as land that the federal government owns and has indefinitely loaned to Indian tribes. One key phrase employed in the treaty process is “as long as the grass is green and the waters run;” however, King reveals, he has yet to read a single treaty that contains this promise in writing. In the end, treaties resulted in a loss rather than a retention of tribal land.
One may interpret the phrase “as long as the grass is green and the waters run” to mean “forever.” The phrase has come to symbolize the U.S. government’s consistent failure to uphold the conditions outlined in their treaties. In fact, the phrase does appear in eight out of nine treaties negotiated between the Confederate States and numerous tribes in Indian Territory, such as the Comanches, in 1861, though none of these original documents exist today. It’s particularly tragic that the treaties use poetic land-related imagery to articulate their broken promise. It magnifies the degree of loss the Native Nations suffered when they lost their ancestral lands.
Themes
King presents several stories to help the reader understand the issue of land. In 1942, the Canadian government eyed land located on the Stoney Point Ojibway reserve in Ontario to use for a new military-training base called Ipperwash. The Ojibway band refused the government’s offers of payment, so the government took the land anyway. In the ensuing years, the Stoney Point Ojibway protested the theft of their land. Finally, on September 4, 1996, 35 Natives occupied the park to protest the land claim. Tensions escalated and violence erupted; in the end, the police wounded two Native protestors and killed Dudley George.
King continues his rhetorical strategy of interspersing stories throughout his historical account to show how histories are consciously, purposefully, and subjectively compiled. Dudley George, an indigenous man, was shot but didn’t die on impact. When his family attempted to transport him to the hospital to receive life-saving treatment, they were stopped and arrested, and George died a few days later. King includes the Ipperwash Crisis to show how land claims disputes aren’t a problem of the distant past: they remain a critical focus of contemporary Indian-White relations.
Themes
King recalls a second story, this one taking place at the Kinzua Dam in the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania. The dam was completed in 1965 and cost over $120 million to build. It formed the deepest lake in Pennsylvania, at the bottom of which lies land that was promised to the Seneca tribe in a 1794 treaty. When hearings in Congress began in 1956 to make arrangements and allocate funds toward the dam’s construction, no Seneca were in attendance. The Seneca went to great lengths to protest the building of the dam, even writing to President John F. Kennedy, though they received no response.
Prior to their relocation following the completion of the dam, the Seneca had maintained a traditional way of life, living without modern amenities such as electricity. However, their forced move to resettlement locations came with a necessity to give in to modern life.
Themes
King tells a third story. In 1717, France gave land located along the Ottawa River to the Sulpician Missionary Society. The main problem with this gift was that France didn’t own the land—the Mohawk did, and they would dispute its sale for the next 151 years. In 1868, Joseph Onasakanrat, a Mohawk chief, wrote to the Sulpicians, demanding the return of the stolen land. The Sulpicians ignored the request. Onasakanrat led an armed march on the Sulpician seminary, though local authorities ultimately forced the Mohawk to leave. When the Sulpicians sold the property in 1936, the Mohawk disputed the sale once more, and, yet again, their pleas were ignored.
King’s third story reaffirms how casually and readily European powers exchanged stolen Indian land. The land in question lies on the northern bank of the Ottawa River in the present-day town of Oka, which is northwest of Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The Mohawk first arrived there in 1673 after moving from their homeland, the Hudson River valley.
Themes
The Mohawk continued to fight to reclaim their lost land into the 20th century, suffering additional losses, such as when a golf course, Club de golf d’Oka, was built on the land. In 1989, the mayor of Oka, Jean Ouelette, announced that the golf course would be expanded, and luxury condos constructed next door, which would rob the Mohawk of additional land, clearing the trees of a forest the Mohawk referred to as “the Pines.” Finally, in March 1990, the Mohawk occupied the Pines. In July, the occupation turned violent. Ouellette ordered the Sûreté du Quebec to attack the Mohawk, which they did, armed with tear gas and grenades.
Prior to the violent occupation of the Pines, the Mohawk had attempted to protest peacefully, and the Quebec Minister of the Environment expressed concerns about the project, for which no environmental review was conducted. This non-violent opposition temporarily halted the project, but a 1990 court ruling in favor of the developers meant the project would commence as originally planned, and the remainder of the Pines would be cleared to make way for the gold course.
Themes
The conflict between the Mohawk and the Sûreté escalated, leading to the deaths of Corporal Marcel Lemay and a Mohawk elder named Joe Armstrong. This led to the onset of the Oka Crisis. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police arrived to aid the Sûreté. Other Natives joined the Mohawk. The opposing sides remained in a standoff for 78 days. Of course, the Oka Crisis could have been avoided. Indeed, John Ciaccia, then Quebec’s Minister of Indian Affairs, pleaded with the federal government to purchase the land from Oka and return it to the Mohawk (despite the fact that the land still technically belonged to the Mohawk in the first place). Ultimately, the Oka Crisis cost over $200 million. In 1997, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development purchased the land for just over $5 million and gave it to the Mohawk.
The Oka Crisis is regarded as the first highly publicized conflict between First Nations and the Canadian Government of the late 20th century. When the Oka Crisis ended, it cost Canada $200 million—far more than the $5 million it would have cost to buy the land for the Mohawk in the first place (though, as King reminds the reader, the Mohawk still legally owned the land). That the government was willing to throw away such a large amount of money before they were willing to buy back the land for the Mohawk shows that economic development takes a backseat to land control. This confirms King’s thesis at the beginning of the chapter: that land always has been and always will be at the center of Indian-White relations in North America.
Themes
King shifts his focus to the Northwest for his fourth story, which involves the salmon that have travelled upstream there for millennia and are vitally important to many tribes who live there. Europeans settled in the Puget Sound area of Washington in 1854, leading to the government imposing the Treaty of Medicine Creek on the Nisqually, Puyallup, Steilacoom, and other western tribes. The Nisqually objected to the loss of land, resulting in the conflicts that are now known as the Puget Sound War. Ultimately, Leschi, the Nisqually chief who objected to the loss of land, was hanged in 1858. After this, Whites assumed control of the land promised to the western tribes, denying Natives their fishing rights.
In this story, King addresses another contentious issue regarding Native land rights and tribal sovereignty: the right for tribes to exercise hunting and fishing practices beyond the regulations enforced for U.S. Citizens. The Treaty of Medicine Creek afforded Indians fishing rights in exchange for much of the Nisqually peoples’ farmland. The conflict that ensued due to Nisqually chief Leschi’s dissatisfaction with the treaty was a controversial issue even at the time. Leschi was tried twice before he was sentenced to death—his first trial ended in a hung jury. In 2004, a court in Pierce County, Washington, ruled to posthumously exonerate Leschi, arguing that the chief should not have been executed for his legitimate role in the Puget Sound War. While this is a nice symbolic gesture, it's yet another example of America’s preference for Dead Indians over Live Indians. Only after Leschi’s death could the court deem him worthy of respect and adequate legal consideration; in life, he was just another “inconvenient” Indian.
Themes
A series of land disputes followed. Two U.S. Supreme Court cases, United States v. Winans (1905) and Suefert Brothers Co. v. United States (1919) ruled that Native people had rights to fish in the Northwest’s rivers. Even so, in 1945, a 14-year-old Nisqually boy named Billy Frank Jr. was arrested for fishing on the Nisqually River, and in 1954, a Puyallup named Bob Satiacum was arrested for fishing on the Puyallup River. Following arrests like these, Natives flocked to the Northwest’s rivers to conduct “fish-ins” in protest. Protestors were arrested and, in 1960, the Pierce County Court ruled that the Puyallup tribe didn’t exist. Moreover, a 1963 ruling claimed that Washington state was authorized to subject Indians to “reasonable and necessary regulations.”
The 1957 case Washington v. Satiacum ended in a split verdict in favor of Native American rights to fish. However, the narrow win meant this authorization was only rarely exercised in practice. Furthermore, the overwhelming sentiment during the height of the termination era was that Indians were subject to the same laws as Whites, even if existing treaties stated otherwise. Furthermore, media portrayals of Native Americans at the time were largely negative, implying that they were unwilling to honor new conservation laws. The negative portrayal of Native people in the media helped craft a narrative that essentially coerced Native peoples to comply with conservation laws and fishing regulations to which they weren’t technically held accountable, lest they be willing to take the blame for any environmental issues for fluctuations in the fish population.
Themes
The conflict over fishing rights escalated, with Hollywood celebrities such as Marlon Brando and Buffy Sainte-Marie traveling to the Northwest to garner media attention. Still, the Department of Fish and Game refused to relinquish their perceived control of the rivers. Critics of Native fishing rights claimed that Natives would damage the ecosystem by “overfishing,” yet no such fears were directed toward sports fishers or factory ships. King suggests that opposition to Native fishing rights likely stemmed from Whites not wanting Indians competing in the commercial and sports fishing industries.
In 1964, Native rights activists established the SAIA to defend Native treaty rights through acts of civil disobedience. Janet McCloud was their first leader. McCloud emphasized the unlikelihood of finding justice through legal battles. The SAIA was a radical organization that accused tribal leaders of being too hung up on pleasing bureaucrats at the BIA. Regardless of the lack of tribal support, they went forward with organizing fish-ins. Capturing the attention of celebrities like Sainte-Marie and Brando was highly effective in bringing media attention to the cause.
Themes
The fishing wars escalated, eventually growing violent. On September 9, 1970, state officials raided a Puyallup fishing camp located along the Puyallup River, arrested 60 people, and bulldozed the village. Ultimately, the conflict went to the District Court of Western Washington. United States v. State of Washington ruled that Indians had fishing rights and the right to 50 percent of the rivers’ harvestable fish.
The public largely sided with the Native Americans who defended the Puyallup fishing camp, despite the fact that violence came from both the Native people and state officials. This change in public perception is a testament to the organizing work SAIA undertook to show the public the fuller picture of Native fishing. By the 1970s, the revolutionary movements of the 1960s had drastically changed the atmosphere of the country. This is another example of how history changes according to the stories one chooses to include. Seeing the fuller picture generated a more sympathetic attitude toward Native rights.
Themes
King relays a fifth story. The Shaughnessy Gold and Country Club was a luxury club located in Vancouver that was founded in 1911. When the Canadian Pacific Railroad, from whom the club leased the land, demanded its land back in 1956, the club was forced to move. The club settled on a parcel of 162 acres of land overlooking the Fraser River—land that belonged to the Musqueam Nation. Through a series of discreet, private meetings, club leadership landed a deal for a long-term lease of the land. The Musqueam were hardly consulted about the matter. In fact, it wasn’t until 1970 when Chief Delbert Guerin received a copy of the lease.
When the lease was signed in 1957, the Canadian government signed on behalf of the Musqueam Nation, who were not authorized to sign a lease on their own land. Although Status Indians had officially been allowed to seek legal counsel since 1951, the Department of Indian Affairs prevented the Musqueam from seeking legal advice and barred them from viewing the lease. When Guerin was finally granted access to view Department of Indian Affairs archives in 1970, he found that the lease was vastly different from the conditions conveyed to them at the time of the lease’s signing. Once more, we see a dueling narrative of the government appearing to protect Native rights on paper but—in practice—failing to honor those rights, as evidenced by the Department of Indian Affairs’ refusal to let the Musqueam seek legal counsel or view the lease.
Themes
Guerin discovered that the Canadian government had leased Musqueam land to the club for 75 years at a price that was roughly half of the land’s appraised worth. The situation grew worse when, in 1965, Ottawa entered a deal with a private developer, granting them access to additional Musqueam land. New developments drastically increased the land’s value, yet the Musqueam were unable to benefit from the market increase, and the developers who bought the land continued to rent at prices far below the new market value.
This land dispute between the Musqueam band and the Canadian government bears many similarities to disputes between tribes and the U.S. government regarding Indian Gaming regulations. In both cases, the government acts as though they are giving Indians opportunities for betterment and economic development when, in practice, they take countless steps to ensure their failure. They essentially coerce Native people into entering into deals that are against their self-interest.
Themes
In 1995, when the leases were up for renewal, the Musqueam raised the rent to reflect the higher market value. The non-Natives who lived on this land were furious to learn that their rent would be raised. They argued that it was unfair to raise the price for Indian land, since they were unable to vote in Musqueam elections. Such logic is ludicrous, of course, as it’s not uncommon for people to own property in places where they have no voting rights. King points to a Canadian friend of his who owns a house in Florida as an example. Nevertheless, homeowners stopped paying rent and took the matter to court. Canada’s Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the Musqueam land was worth only 50 percent of surrounding non-Indian land. However, if the Musqueam sold the land, it could be bought at full market value.
King uses the flimsiness of non-Native residents’ logic to insinuate that society holds Indians and Whites to different standards. Whites are given opportunities for self-advancement, but Indians are not. Whites’ business maneuvers are seen as clever and innovative, but Indian entrepreneurial impulses attract suspicion. The Supreme Court’s ruling that Musqueam land was worth only 50% of its surrounding land—but would be worth more if they sold it, presumably to Whites—very obviously illustrates this double standard. The ruling made it clear that what the law valued most was its ability to control Indian land and keep Indians from flourishing.
Themes
King’s final story takes place in New Mexico, which boasts the third-highest percentage of Indians after Oklahoma and Alaska. Created in 1906 by Theodore Roosevelt, the Carson National Forest is located on what used to be 50,000 acres of Taos Pueblo Indian land. Roosevelt offered the Taos Pueblo no compensation for the stolen land. Ba Whyea, “Blue Lake,” located in a remote corner of the land parcel, was a vital part of the tribe’s ceremonies. However, this didn’t stop the Forest Service from constructing a trail leading to the lake and stocking it with fish for hobbyists.
This story further exemplifies the vastly different relationship Indians and Whites have to land. Similar to how the Lakota Nation refused to accept payment for the Black Hills, the Taos Pueblo believe that monetary compensation is no substitute for the return of sacred land.
Themes
The Taos fought to win back their land. In the 1920s, they were awarded nearly $300,000 by the Pueblo Lands Board. However, the tribe refused the offer, demanding the return of Blue Lake. In 1933, John Collier, then the Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, helped the Taos obtain a 50-year permit granting them year-round, exclusive use of the lake, but the Forest Service delayed the passage of this permit. When the permit finally passed, it was for substantially less access than the original permit had permitted. In 1951, the Indian Claims Commission officially stated that the government had unfairly taken Blue Lake from the Taos, though the Commission lacked the power to actually return the land to the tribe. It wasn’t until President Nixon signed House Bill 471 into law that the Taos’ land was returned to them.
Again, we see a familiar pattern of the U.S. government buying time in a Native land claims dispute by offering increasingly higher buyouts. House Bill 471 granted the Taos Pueblo exclusive use of Blue Lake and the surrounding 1,640 acres. This ruling still stands today, and it’s historically significant as being the first of two lands returned to tribes, the second being Mount Adams in Washington state, which was returned to the Yakama Nation in 1972. While such rulings are certainly victories in Native peoples’ fight to reclaim stolen land, King emphasizes the arduous legal battles and constant loopholes tribes must navigate to lay claim to what is rightfully theirs. The litigiousness of the U.S. government reinforces its differing attitude toward land. For the U.S., land is something to be won and coveted.
Themes
