John W. Friesen, Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Calgary
Review of Re-Creating the Circle: The Renewal of American Indian Self-Determination. LaDonna Harris, Editor and Mentor; Stephen M. Sachs and Barbara Morris, General Authors; Deborah Esquibel Hunt, Gregory A. Cajete, Benjamin Broome, Phyllis M. Gagnier and Jonodev Chaudhuri, Contributing Authors (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 2011, 513pp., including bibliography and index, for $75 cloth or E-book).
Let it not be said that there are major differences between the challenges faced by Native American Indians and First Nations in Canada, because the contents of this book will prove them wrong. While the primary focus of this bold new book is the recreation of the sacred circle, the foci of the various chapters emphasize the need for authentic self-government for Native Americans, economic development, banking, healing, leadership, and education, all of which can more meaningfully be realized by a return to traditional forms of governance.
According to the preface, Recreating the Circle is a collective undertaking by both Aboriginal and nonAboriginal researchers designed to draw attention to the need for Native Americans to achieve self-determination. This objective will be achieved when American Indians are able to live well in their communities while partnering meaningfully with their neighbors, the nation, and the world for mutual advancement. The writing style undertaken by the authors involves weaving the perspectives and styles of individual contributors into a larger whole in order to provide a broader understanding of important issues and events.
Recreating the Circle examines current efforts towards renewal, primarily aimed at Native American communities, and secondly at interested members of mainline society. The writers begin by examining imported disruptive influences that impacted devastatingly on well-working resident Indigenous societies, but they do not stop there. They go on to suggest meaningful ways in which the cultural devastation can be halted. To accomplish this, each author draws on his/her own work as exemplary means by which to recreate the circle. One of the very convincing arguments of Recreating the Circle is its emphasis on traditional American Indian values, forms of governance, and societal functioning, and their relevance in the 21st century. The continuing impact of colonialism on Native American peoples is as evident as it was when Indian Commissioner John Collier made this observation in the 1940s: “They have what the world has lost. They have it now. What the world has lost, the world must have again, lest it die…. It is the ancient, lost reverence and passion for human personality, joined with the ancient, lost reverence for the earth and the web of life…. what the American Indians almost universally had, and representative groups of them have it still” (Collier, 1947, p. 7).
Returning Indian Nations to sovereignty as partners in American federalism can have mutual benefits for improving tribal life, encouraging appropriate Indigenous economic development, providing relevant education, and promoting healing of communities and people. There is an urgent need to improve tribal governance and life by applying inclusive traditional values appropriately for current and developing conditions in the 21st century.
The message of Re-Creating the Circle is clear. Like their counterparts in Canada, the First Nations of the United States are seeking empowerment, pursuing justice, and striving for decolonization by retracing their steps and adopt more traditional practices. The principle of respect for all people, and indeed for all things (including the earth), must be reinstated (p. 5), because, as Black Elk put it, “the nation’s hoop is broken and scattered” (p. x). The circle or “hoop” has been shattered because of “five hundred years of devastating contact with Europeans and European Americans that brought physical and cultural genocide” (p. 52). As a result, many Native American communities are suffering economic hardships and often struggling to overcome destructive infighting among their members.
The book’s writers contend that the circle can be restored, beginning with a renewed relationship between Indian tribes and the American federal government. One of the problems is that perceptions of the concept of federalism differ between the two parties. Initially, the relationship was one of perceived equality, but has evolved to where even into the 1980s the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is essentially a colonial institution, dominated many matters pertaining to Indian self-determination. The self-sufficiency of American Indians was “hampered and inhibited by a lack of implementation policy by the very federal agencies charged with working together on a government-to-government basis” (p.117), until a still continuing process of building genuine government-to-government interactions began to change the relationship.
Tribal self-determination can only occur by returning to what might be called pan-Indian, culturally approved forms of decision-making that vary with tribal interpretation but incorporate the principle of inclusive participatory decision-making. The goal of Native American leaders is to be able to act as full partners in federalism, with full government-to-government relations between tribe and state and local governments. This can only happen when neighboring governments come to appreciate the mutual benefits of relating with Indian nations on that basis. The latter need to be able to create their own structures and develop their own personnel—including hiring, education, and training for effective functioning (p. 183).
The authors discuss a number of efforts by Indian nations to overcome the inappropriate forms of government imposed on them by the U.S. Federal government. In the case of Navajo Nation’s long process to improve tribal government by applying traditional values appropriately for current circumstances, it was interesting that the Dine Policy Institute of Dine College, at the request of the Navajo Nation Council, presented a governmental reform report, posing four options for reviving traditional elements of tribal governance (pp. 201-213): (i) the status quo model, which emphasizes little change but alludes to efficiency in government; (ii) a bicarmeral parliamentary model, which stresses the integration and cooperation of a traditional and legislative body that would formulate and execute laws and require approval from the body politic; (iii) a dialectical option, that would call into question the current system and critique its operations and decolonize its non-functional aspects; and, (iv) a decentralized option that would emphasize national and community concerns and give greater power to subgroups and agencies. Moreover, it would also reflect traditionally revered customs and norms. The fourth option identified four steps to moving their current system of governance from a presidential model to something more like the historic naachid (p. 214). Essentially this implies a moderation of power in the executive branch, a restructuring of agency councils to balance power between legislative and chapter house members, and creating new mechanisms through which nongovernmental organizations can influence governmental processes.
A good example of successfully modifying established modes of governance is the Comanche Nation that for a time applied the Indigenous Leadership Interactive System (ILIS) to build tribal consensus through an inclusive participatory process on proposals for the tribal business committee. Set in stages, the ILIS begins with a problem-definition phase, then moves to a deeper comprehension of outstanding challenges. Essentially a facilitated group interactive process, ILIS procedures adhere to the traditional “talking stick” model wherein all participants have opportunity to address a topic of discussion but may pass on the opportunity. In the Comanche case, the process concluded in a spirit of collaboration and harmony. As one elder put it, “We managed to disagree without being disagreeable” (p. 229). In the end a concrete set of plans for future development materialized without violating traditional Comanche values.
Self-government is not the only concern voiced by the writers. They also address the rebuilding of the sacred circle by focusing on economic development, and stress the importance of the kind of tribally appropriate education that would provide needed skills for employment and heal psychological and social wounds that limit individuals from pursuing these goals. For the most part, Native American communities have been undercapitalized and underdeveloped. If sovereignty and independence are to be at the forefront of development in Indian communities, the institution of banking must also be addressed. The last decade has witnessed some improvement in this area, particularly in the field of economic development. Many Native American tribes that have done well in creating jobs and increasing income as aspects of community development (rather than as ends in themselves), and in general this is a better model for development than what is generally used by the western world.
Native Americans tend to view learning as a creative act. Educators in these communities are constantly engaged in the art of making meaning and re-creating their world through the unique process of human learning. The Indian view is that true learning must be instinctual, continuous, and simultaneously the most complex of human traits (p. 332). The envisaged model to correct the shortcomings of the present system would focus on the roots of tribal education that reflects of the needs, values, and socio-political concerns of the people themselves, not some state-approved mainstream model. Native American educators must begin to dialogue about the perceived nature of such a model, and that need is urgent. One example of this new model involved an approach using the acronym, “c-u-l-t-u-r-a-l” to include caring, understanding the teenage brain, love and heart intelligence, truth, understanding, relationship building, awareness, and learning.
Finally, the writers address the topic of tribal and local leadership, noting that traditionally leadership in Indian society was “largely a matter of inclusively facilitating the forming of community consensus while providing guidance for reinforcing traditional values and applying them to contemporary contexts” (p. 408). As Native American societies regain self-determination, they will gravitate to more traditional modes of leadership, a trend that may be identified in both Canada and the United States.
This book clearly has relevance for First Nations in both Canada and the United States although Canadian readers may have to adjust to use of the terms “Indian,” “tribal,” and “Native American,” and the fact that the United States maintains a Bureau of Indian Affairs. Canadian writers tend to prefer the designations First Nations or Aboriginal, but terminology should not deter from the message of this timely book. Both Aboriginal and nonAboriginal researchers, students, and politicians in both countries should find this book a valuable resource.
Collier, John. (1947). Indians of the Americas. New York: The New American Library.