On December 17, 2020, President-Elect Joe Biden announced he would nominate Native American Deb Haaland to be the next Secretary of the Interior. Debate began immediately over Haaland’s fit for the position, but it could not detract from the historic occasion, the first Native American to head the department responsible for the US government’s relationship with Native American nations.
The New York Times reported that Biden was leaning toward New Mexico Senator Tom Udall, before a concerted public opinion campaign convinced him to turn to Haaland. Udall supported the choice, saying, “President-Elect Biden has chosen an outstanding leader. She will undo the damage of the Trump administration, restore the department’s work force and expertise, uphold our obligations to Native communities, and take the bold action needed to tackle the accelerating climate and nature crises.” Conscious of both the immediate issues to be addressed and the historic nature of her selection, Haaland said, “It would be an honor to move the Biden-Harris climate agenda forward, help repair the government-to-government relationship with Tribes that the Trump Administration has ruined, and serve as the first Native American cabinet secretary in our nation’s history.”
This is not Haaland’s first “first,” as both she and Sharice Davids of Kansas became the first Native American women elected to congress in 2018.
Speaking specifically of the role of the Interior in handling the US relationship with Native Americans, NPR reported: “Tribal consultation is basically nonexistent during this Trump administration,” Haaland said. “President-elect Biden has promised to consult with tribes, which I think will help immensely with some of the environmental issues that he wants to address.” What some see as an assault on public lands during the trump administration, others say is simply the most effective use of lands that otherwise would remain unused, a massive collection of untapped potential. The debate comes down to one of value, specifically a question over what about those lands is valuable- is it the potential dollars to be made from them, or the cultural, biological, and environmental value of leaving them undisturbed?
Haaland is an excellent choice to pursue Biden’s climate agenda. However, her fit for this is only partially due to her being Native American. There is a danger of believing that a Native American will help manage public lands because of the mythical belief that Native Americans lived in harmony with their environment. This myth arose from the lush, bountiful ecosystems Europeans encountered when they arrived. They believed this was a sign of native americans living more in tune with nature, closer to nature, and therefore less civilized. To this day this myth helps justify Westward Expansion and the problematic relationship between the United States and Native nations. Rather than evidence of closeness to nature, the lush ecosystems Europeans encountered were the product of generations of Native Americans’ direct, purposeful manipulation of their surroundings to create an environment that plentifully produced things humans found most useful.
The relationship between the United States and Native Americans did not begin with independence- before they became Americans, Americans were British, and had over 100 years of history of interactions with Native Americans. The same problems the British faced confronted the new nation: the United States was growing, and the land it needed to grow into was already inhabited. There were a variety of ways the early United States could have chosen to address this problem, everything from extermination to a fully cooperative relationship.
The first Indian office was created within the War Department in 1824. Its mission was to solve the “Indian problem,” and the two methods to gain that solution were control and assimilation. Shortly thereafter, under President Andrew Jackson, the emphasis changed to relocation. In its various iterations, the office that would come to be known as the Bureau of Indian Affairs went through many changes in policy and emphasis. As with many such questions, these changes in approach reflected changes in government, and in public opinion.
The focus of this office continued to be addressing the “Indian problem,” the problem that Native Americans posed to the United States, rather than addressing any of the problems the United States had caused for Native communities.
A comprehensive list of the treaties and agreements the United States made with various Native nations, then broke, would be too long many times over. Historians have built good careers addressing just pieces of this relationship.
Westward Expansion, and even the long tradition of the United States breaking treaties, brings up a fundamental question: Why doesn’t might make right? “Might makes right” can’t work when we see each other as equals, because if I can do it to you, someone else can do it to me. But if I place you into a different group than me, and cease to see you as an equal, I know that I can do as I please knowing that no one from my group will do the same to me, and no one from your group would be able to. This is how this country enslaved Africans and their descendants, and why that racial inequality exists to this day. This was also the attitude toward Native Americans. If they are not “us,” they’re “them.” Therefore, the rule of “might makes right” can be applied to them, without us having to fear that it could in turn be used on us. For many years, this was the choice that faced Native Americans: become “us,” or be destroyed. The fact that we were capable of destroying their cultures and their very lives was all the justification that was needed for the United States to subject Native Americans to decades of destructive policies. Whether by relocation, by assimilation, or by death, the United States sought to destroy Native American culture, and thereby destroy Native Americans as a distinct set of groups within American society.
It remains to be seen what Deb Haaland will bring to the Department of the Interior. It is important to not get carried away by the historic significance of her appointment, and attach unrealistic expectations to her tenure. Regardless of how it turns out, the choice to nominate a Native American is a huge symbolic gesture that hopefully indicates a new direction in US-Native relations, and a renewed commitment to addressing the struggles of Native communities.