• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • About
  • Press Room
  • Poverty & Race Journal
  • Donate
  • Publications
    • PRRAC Publications & PRRAC Authors
    • PRRAC Policy Briefs
    • PRRAC Advocacy Resources
  • Events
  • Contact

PRRAC — Connecting Research to Advocacy

Poverty & Race Research Action Council

MENUMENU
  • Fair Housing
    • Fair Housing Homepage
    • Federal Housing Advocacy – by Program
    • Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
    • Housing Mobility (Section 8)
    • Low Income Housing Tax Credit
    • Fair Housing and Community Development
  • School Diversity
  • Environmental Justice
  • Special Projects
    • Civil Rights History
    • Civil Rights & The Administrative State
    • Housing-School Nexus
    • International Human Rights and U.S. Civil Rights Policy
    • One Nation Indivisible: School Diversity, Immigrant Integration, and Multi-Racial Coalitions
    • PRRAC in the Courts
    • Alliance Housing Justice
  • Search
    • Search

You are here: Home / Browse PRRAC Content / Poverty & Race Journal / “American Indian Reparations” by Ronald L. Trosper (November-December 1994 P&R Issue)

“American Indian Reparations” by Ronald L. Trosper (November-December 1994 P&R Issue)

December 1, 1994 by

By Ronald L. Trosper (Click here to view the entire issue)

The experience of American Indians in obtaining reparations from the federal government should interest those who seek similar actions with respect to Black Americans. American Indians have received three types of reparations: (1) cash payments, through the operation of the Indian Claims Commission and the U.S. Court of Claims; (2) land, through an occasional action of Congress to return control over land to particular tribes; and (3) tribal recognition, by either Congress or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The first of these has been the least satisfactory, measured by long-term impact on Indian communities. The second was more satisfactory but has been experienced by very few tribes. The third, which is in the process now, has had the best results.

The settlement of claims for lands unjustly taken was a widespread demand of Indians in the 1920s and 1930s. When the federal government began to accept suits-as a sovereign, the federal government must consent to be sued-limitations were placed on the awards. Congress, in the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946, forbade the award of lands. Proof had to be presented to the Indian Claims Commission regarding ownership; litigation that started in the 1950s lasted until 1978. The Supreme Court developed a distinction between aboriginal title and recognized title; interest could not be earned on awards based on aboriginal title. The federal government paid $5 million in 1975 for lands worth $5 million in 1865.

The majority of tribes that received payments distributed them on a per capita basis among the members enrolled in the tribe at the time of the award. This dissipation of jointly held capital to one generation of recipients has meant that their descendants’ benefits depend solely on the private action of parents to their children and grandchildren. In many cases, people on welfare had their welfare payments suspended until they had used up their per capita share of the tribal award. Some tribes developed traditions of per capita payments, which continue to inhibit community development.

Some tribes have refused to accept money for land. Other tribes, through extraordinary action, have received land. The Taos Pueblo is the best-known example; they acquired U.S. Forest Service land. The Hopi received land, but Navajos were removed. No tribe has received land that required white people to leave their homes.

Recognition of tribal sovereignty and the implementation of self-government have achieved the most significant results. Economic development tends to follow the assertion of governing powers. The creation of casinos is the best-known example of this phenomenon, but the success of casinos over the long term is not assured. While other tribes have established economic development with other industries, many tribes have not yet been able to assert enough sovereignty to build solid economies.

Dr. Trosper is Professor of Forest Economics and Director of the Native American Forestry Program at the School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University. Since 1994, he has been Acting Director of the National Indian Policy Center, which is located at 1he George Washington University (2101 F St. NW, Washington, DC 20052). 

Filed Under: Poverty & Race Journal

You might also like…

“An Opening: Advocating for Equity in a Polarized America” by Olatunde Johnson (Nov/Dec 2020 P&R Issue)
“A Call to Remedy Segregation and Advance Housing Justice: Federal Strategies for 2021 and Beyond” by Megan Haberle and Philip Tegeler (Nov/Dec 2020 P&R Issue)

Primary Sidebar

PRRAC Updates

PRRAC Update (February 19, 2021): 28 applications for the housing mobility demonstration!

PRRAC Update (January 28, 2021): Good luck to HUD Secretary-Nominee Marcia Fudge in Today’s Hearing!

PRRAC Update (January 14, 2021): Cashin on “Whitelash”; More HUD and ED Developments

Previous Updates...

PRRAC in the News

America’s Racist Housing Rules Really Can Be Fixed (Vox)

February 17, 2021

Billions in School Construction in CT Hasn’t Made a Dent in Segregation — But This Year, Things Could Be Different (Connecticut Mirror)

January 4, 2021

Education Dept. Gets $73.5 Billion in Funding Deal That Ends Ban on Federal Aid for Busing (Education Week)

December 22, 2020

Massachusetts’ Public Schools are Highly Segregated. It’s Time We Treated That Like the Crisis It Is (Boston Globe)

December 11, 2020

Previous Posts...

PRRAC on Twitter

Tweets by @PRRAC_DC

Poverty & Race Journal

Footer

PRRAC – Poverty & Race Research Action Council

The Poverty & Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) is a civil rights law and policy organization based in Washington, D.C. Our mission is to promote research-based advocacy strategies to address structural inequality and disrupt the systems that disadvantage low-income people of color. PRRAC was founded in 1989, through an initiative of major civil rights, civil liberties, and anti-poverty groups seeking to connect advocates with social scientists working at the intersection of race and poverty…Read More

Archives

Resources at PRRAC

  • Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
  • Environmental Justice
  • Fair Housing
  • Fair Housing & Community Development
  • Low Income Housing Tax Credit
  • Poverty & Race Journal
  • PRRAC Update
  • School Diversity
  • Housing Choice Voucher Mobility
  • PRRAC in The Courts

Copyright © 2021 · Magazine Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in var _ctct_m = "7608c7e98e90af7d6ba8b5fd4d901424"; //static.ctctcdn.com/js/signup-form-widget/current/signup-form-widget.min.js

PRRAC — Connecting Research to Advocacy

  • Fair Housing
    • Fair Housing Homepage
    • Federal Housing Advocacy – by Program
    • Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
    • Housing Mobility (Section 8)
    • Low Income Housing Tax Credit
    • Fair Housing and Community Development
  • School Diversity
  • Environmental Justice
  • Special Projects
    • Civil Rights History
    • Civil Rights & The Administrative State
    • Housing-School Nexus
    • International Human Rights and U.S. Civil Rights Policy
    • One Nation Indivisible: School Diversity, Immigrant Integration, and Multi-Racial Coalitions
    • PRRAC in the Courts
    • Alliance Housing Justice
  • Search
  • About
  • Press Room
  • Poverty & Race Journal
  • Donate
  • Publications
    • PRRAC Publications & PRRAC Authors
    • PRRAC Policy Briefs
    • PRRAC Advocacy Resources
  • Events
  • Contact