![]() |
|||||||||
ProjectsAmerican Indian Community Data Profile, 2002 Namadji Youth and Elders Project Report, 2001 Forum Reports 1996 Fall: Tribal Governments: What will they look like in the year 2010? 1996 Spring: The Threatened State of Tribal Sovereignty |
Tribal Sovereignty and American Indian LeadershipOctober 16, 1997 Vernell and Ernie Wabasha, two elders from the Lower Sioux reservation, spoke about traditional American Indian leadership. They situated their discussion about traditional American Indian leadership within the context of Dakota kinship and its responsibilities. In traditional Dakota communities, kinship was not limited to blood ties. There were four levels of kinship: family, extended family, band and tribe. At all kinship levels, American Indian people had responsibilities to take care of their kin. In describing the different levels of kinship, the Wabashas used an analogy and likened the American Indian family to a tepee. The wife is like three poles that make the original tripod for the tepee, to provide stability for the family. The husband is like the cover of the tepee, to protect and provide for the family. The children are the pegs that hold the tepee down and the family together. Families were the foundation of all relationships. Extended family formed the foundation of and made rules for the band. A council of 10 to 20 people from different bands, situated itself in a special lodge in the middle of a camp made up of the various bands. The council discussed everything. One of its primary responsibilities was to care for the elderly, poor, and handicapped within the bands. No one member of the council had more power than another. Each band had a crier who told everyone about decisions made by the council. The council chose four men to be chiefs for the tribe which consisted of the different bands. No one person was always chief and there were different chiefs depending on the requirements of a situation. The position of chief was often hereditary, but war and hunting chiefs were elected or appointed. Chiefs had limited power except when the council gathered. In council, after a chief listened to all council members engage in a mutual inquiry into the matter being discussed, the chief's final words on the subject were respected and honored. In addition to the council and chiefs, there were special men in the village who took care of people. These men were good hunters and protectors and made sure everyone was safe. Over the years many changes have impacted how leadership is defined in American Indian communities. A point made by the Wabashas was that instead of maintaining the traditions, today's leadership is focused on negotiating programs and policies, and survival through economic growth. Some contemporary leaders do not understand the history of traditional leadership. A fundamental issue has been the change in styles of leadership and government. In traditional American Indian governments, the councils involved people in the decision-making. This is unlike contemporary forms of tribal government in which a few individuals hold power. Vernell Wabasha said, "Setting up an elders council is important, but so too is involving the community and bringing the issues to the people." In closing, Ernie Wabasha contends, "If we do not fight for strong traditional American Indian leadership and hold onto sovereignty, we probably won't survive as a people." Vernell Wabasha added, "[Instead] we'll be brown white people." Contemporary Indian leaders need to return to the roots of traditional American Indian leadership. According to the Wabashas, characteristics of traditional leadership include compassion for others, to be good doers - not good talkers - and to fight for the community. |
||||||||
top | Projects
| Research | Publications
| Links | About Us
| Contact Us | Home © Copyright 2002, American Indian Policy Center. All Rights
Reserved. |
|||||||||