Geography
Indian Reservations in the US
Indian reservations in the US are designated areas of land managed by Native American tribes under the US government's jurisdiction. These reservations are sovereign nations with their own laws and governance, and they often have a unique cultural and historical significance. The establishment and management of Indian reservations have been a complex and contentious issue throughout US history.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
3 Key excerpts on "Indian Reservations in the US"
Learn about this page
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
eBook - ePub- Michelle Aicken, Chris Ryan(Authors)
- 2010(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
This chapter evaluates several case studies of sustainable tourism developments that have been established on reservations as a means of cultural, environmental, socio-economic and political sovereignty. The case study analysis highlights the factors of sustainable tourism and how incorporation of certain elements into reservation development is essential to the sustainable development and management of American Indian reservations. This work helps fill a gap in the existing knowledge about contemporary American Indian tourism through this review which leads to an assessment of those factors which create successful, sustainable tourism developments. By understanding these factors, other American Indian reservations could adopt more sustainable tourism policies. Sustainable development is essential for all communities, especially those who have perceived themselves as victims of exploitation in the past. Therefore, it is important to implement culturally appropriate, sustainable developments into tribal communities.American Indian Socio-Economic Condition
American Indian tribes currently own approximately 52 million acres of federally recognized reservation land. Reservation lands are held in trust by the United States government for the tribes' occupancy and benefit. Many American Indian reservations, however, lack the bare necessities of modern life, such as running water, indoor plumbing, electricity, or telephones, not to mention the basic infrastructure components of police, fire, sanitation and health and education. Expanding population bases, limited land space, destructive economic developments, diminishing water resources, deteriorating infrastructures and many social ills are the reasons why the American Indians especially need to develop sustainable land uses which do not jeopardize their community and environment.Reservation Tourism Development
Given the socio-economic status of American Indian reservations, it has become apparent that some type of economic development is needed for the revitalization of tribal communities. While the U.S. government has attempted to develop reservations through resource extraction, most of these strategies have failed. Many studies indicate that tourism has been widely accepted by American Indian reservations as an economic development tool (Hill 1992 ; Lew 1996 ; Rudner 1994 ; Sweet 1991 ; White 1993 ). Lew (1996)
eBook - ePub- William Christie Macleod(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
rancherias of a few acres to great desert and timbered mountain reservations of millions of acres. About ninety of these reservations have resident agents. To-day the official "Indian Country" comprises the aggregate of reservation lands unallotted and of allotted lands the title to which is still held in trust for the Indians by the government.Let us note something of the unequal distribution of these Indians among the states in 1924. First we note those in which the Indians are prepared for immediate or early assimilation. They are: Wisconsin, with 10,000 Indians; Michigan, 1,200 on reserves with 6,400 scattered; Minnesota, 13,000; New York, 6,000; Wyoming, 1,800; Utah, 1,500; California, 18,000; Oregon, 6,700; Washington, 10,000; Nebraska, 2,000; Kansas, 1,500. There is also Oklahoma with 119,000 "Indians" (23,000 of whom are negro freedmen), all of whom shortly will disappear in the melting pot.As for the rest of the states with a noteworthy Indian population, and which will probably see the Indian problem within their borders for more decades than other states will, there are Arizona, with 43,000 Indians; New Mexico with 21,000; Nevada, 11,000; South Dakota, 23,000; Montana, 12,000; Idaho, 3,900.Indians, and "Indians"
These round figures are not in accord with the figures of the Indian Bureau, from whose figures misleading deductions are often made, but are roughly the figures for the restricted Indians—Indians in some real sense of the word, checked, roughly, with the figures of the Census Bureau.The Indian Bureau and the Census Bureau have always disagreed on the number of Indians, because they have different meanings for the term "Indian" as a classification for enumeration. The Census Bureau aims to classify as Indian only those persons racially identifiable as Indian or publicly known as Indians. The Indian Bureau on the other hand defines an Indian as "any person whose name is on a tribal roll; the descendant of any such person; any person who has an identifiable amount of Indian blood; any non-Indian who by marriage, adoption, or any other tribal customs has become a recognized member of any Indian tribe".
eBook - ePub- Theodore W Taylor(Author)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
Whether a solution to the Indian dilemma is any nearer today than when the conference was held in 1954 is a matter of judgment. It seems to me that the conference stated the issues more clearly than the AIPRC or any other group or individual has stated the issues for the 1980s. Today the general assumption of federal legislation and policy is not that assimilation is inevitable, as was the case in 1954. Present policy supports pluralism and Indian self-determination. However, one of the clouds hanging over this objective is still the same as in 1954—the "economic burden of nonproductive Indian groups," that is, economic dependency. Another cloud is the increased intermixing of Indian and non-Indian populations both off and on most reservations with resulting jurisdictional problems involving or related to police, courts, social services, water resources, game, fish, and the like. A third cloud is the lack of guidelines to determine which Indian reservations have the size, resources, and a sufficient percentage of Indian residents to even have a chance of becoming self-sufficient viable Indian units, economically or governmentally.The options that emerge from this discussion of "Contrasting Premises: One Objective" seem to be (1) continuance of a special status for Indian citizens and Indian governments, (2) movement toward normal federal-state relationships on the part of Indians and Indian governments, and (3) a course involving some elements of both one and two but with clear legislative specification of the relationships.Tribal and Indian Roles
Tribal leaders and Indian interest groups—as well as tribal members in the legislative and executive branches of local, state, and federal governments—will have a great deal of influence, perhaps the dominant influence, in the development of Indian policy and actions to carry out such policy. This impact of Indian leaders and interest groups will not only be a major factor on the reservations, but will also frequently prevail in school board decisions, state legislatures, and the halls of Congress. Their influence on the executive organizations charged with carrying out policy will continue to be substantial.Indians have their own backgrounds, beliefs, and value systems—their own culture. If this culture does not provide an adequate framework for self-sufficiency in the economic, political, and social environment by which they are surrounded, there is a profound dilemma. It has already been noted that cultures are in a constant state of change and modification and that the degree of Indian blood and place of residence may be factors in the rate of change. But up until the present, different beliefs and views by many reservation Indians have not fit the non-Indian ways of economic or governmental behavior, and it may be necessary that they do fit if the Indians are going to cope with the economic and governmental practices of the dominant society.
