Liberating Tribal Economies—Ending the Oppressive Myths and Federal Policies | Opinion

Native American Heritage Month is here and bound to produce the usual depictions of Native Americans as a monolithic, teepee dwelling, non-commercial people who live in harmony with nature. Indigenous cultural aversion to business is often blamed for the poverty that plagues Indian reservations. Though many people assume tribal economic struggles result from a cultural clash with the United States’ free enterprise system, the problem isn’t Indigenous culture. The problem is federal policy.

Long before Europeans entered the Americas, Indigenous Americans had vibrant, free market economies. Copper mined in the Great Lakes was traded as far south as Florida, and lightning whelks from the Gulf Coast were traded as far north as Canada. The long-distance trade is particularly impressive considering pre-Columbian North America’s only pack animal was the dog. Ground transportation was performed by humans, who had no boots or tennis shoes, along well-worn trade routes—routes many modern highways follow. Indians also ably used waterways to expedite trade. They built boats capable of carrying several tons of goods and engineered canals.

To support commerce, tribes secured property and contract rights. Private property rights even extended to songs, stories and images. Through contracts, Indian merchants offered warranties on goods and charged interest. Tribes also used currencies including turquoise, elk teeth and dentalium.

European arrival brought hardships for Americas’ Indigenous peoples, but they seized opportunities to trade. Indians immediately recognized that metal knives, axes and needles could make their daily lives easier. Indians also knew Europeans wanted furs. Accordingly, many tribal economies shifted from agriculture to pelt production to satisfy market demands. Despite vast cultural differences between Indians and Europeans, a mutual understanding of markets allowed exchange to organically occur.

Many tribes prospered in the post-Columbian economy. Mohawk success in the fur trade enabled them to outbid colonists for European wares—leading Dutch colonists to complain that Indians were driving up the price of baked goods. The New Netherland Council responded to the complaints by banning the sale of cake and bread to Indians. In 1722, a priest in New Orleans wrote the Tunica Chief “was dressed in the French fashion [and] carries on trade with the French, supplying them with horses and poultry, and is very expert at business.” Tribes naturally adapted, and Indians did not question whether horses, guns, or metal tools were destroying their cultures. Rather, Indigenous cultures evolved just as other cultures do. 

So what happened? Federal policies.

Over the years, the U.S. federal government has enacted numerous laws that continue to haunt tribal economies. Take reservation trust land. It’s owned by the federal government for the benefit of a tribe or individual Indians. Trust land cannot be used without federal permission. Simply getting federal approval to lease trust land can take over a year. Construction on trust land requires jumping through more federal hoops and can cost millions of dollars. Commenting on the labyrinthine federal bureaucracy, former Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez said, “The federal government subjects us to crippling oversight whenever we dig a hole.”

The slow-moving federal bureaucracy costs tribes money. Southern Ute Indian Tribe knows this well. Southern Ute needed rights-of-way to develop energy infrastructure on its reservation and obtaining federal approval took over eight years. During the delay, natural gas prices reached record highs. By the time approval occurred, gas prices tanked—costing Southern Ute an estimated $95 million. Money the tribe will never recover.

The United States Supreme Court deserves blame for tribes’ economic troubles too. The Court’s jurisprudence has consistently undermined tribal governance authority, and this has created tremendous uncertainty over whether tribes or states regulate activities occurring on tribal land. Resolving these jurisdictional disputes costs significant time and money. Businesses avoid this jurisdictional escapade by operating beyond reservation borders.

Moreover, the Supreme Court allows states to tax transactions on tribal lands. Quil Ceda Village (QCV) is illustrative. QCV houses a bustling shopping center that was built by the Tulalip Tribes on its reservation. Tulalip provides all government services at QCV. Nevertheless, in 2018, a federal court affirmed Washington state and Snohomish County’s power to tax transactions at QCV—snatching over $40 million a year from tribal coffers. Meanwhile, Tulalip collects $0 in tax revenue. 

Antiquated federal bureaucracy, bewildering jurisdictional rules and burdensome state taxation bludgeon the spirit of enterprise on tribal lands. They are the barrier to tribal prosperity—not Indigenous culture.

To rekindle Indigenous economies, tribes must be liberated from the outmoded constraints on their sovereignty. This means recognizing tribes’ right to control their land and assert exclusive jurisdiction over the events occurring on it. Affirming tribal sovereignty will enable Indigenous economies to innovate and thrive.

Adam Crepelle is a professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law. He is the author of the book Becoming Nations Again: The Journey Towards Tribal Self-Determination.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.