After reading Reagan’s water bill veto, I was kind of
surprised; it was clear the tribe had put a lot of work into the bill and
greatly needed the water. I think Reagan’s reasons for vetoing the bill weren’t
outrageous—it’s true that the US government was not really involved in the
process but was expected to pay most of the costs & that’s not exactly
fair. However, the veto set back the tribe significantly; the bill had taken
years of work to complete, and for Reagan to reject it outright seemed a bit
harsh. I wondered about his administration’s relationship with Native Americans
and whether this was part of a larger trend and was surprised at what I found
in my research.
Looking through all of his vetoes alone, I was surprised to see such a high number relating to Native Americans & resulting in reduced funding for tribes, or refusal to recognize groups as sovereign, among other things. Furthermore, I came across a 1988 article in the Chicago Tribune that talked about some fairly controversial things Reagan said about Native Americans while in Russia that drew a lot of backlash from Indian leaders. Reagan is quoted as saying, “Maybe we made a mistake. . . Maybe we should not have humored them in that, wanting to stay in that kind of primitive lifestyle. Maybe we should have said, `No, come join us. Be citizens along with the rest of us.'” I think the sentiments strongly reflected a lot of the decisions he made while in office & his own personal beliefs, and I’m curious now as to how other—more recent—presidents have viewed & treated Native American groups.
Interesting thoughts in this post. Certainly every president has had different views on tribal sovereignty and the federal government's trust obligations. That could be the topic of a dissertation. Regarding Raegan's veto, it should be mentioned here that a modified version of that settlement act did pass and we signed into law shortly after the veto.
ReplyDelete