Volume 1 Number 2
January 1962

Joan Ablon

Research Assistant, University of Chicago

For a detailed history and analysis see Nancy Lurie, American Indian Chicago Conference in

Current Anthropology, II(5), pp. 478-500 (1961).

While American Indian education has improved markedly on the elementary and high school levels in the last decades, little concentrated effort has been given to adult education programs, particularly in matters of Indian Affairs. The problem of reaching the Indian people who represent diverse cultural and educational backgrounds, and live in almost every geographical area of the United States, is immense. There is no clearing house of information on Indian Affairs for all the Indian people. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has few effective channels of communication with the people within its jurisdiction and none with those communities that are not federally recognized. For the Indian people, lack of clear knowledge and understanding of their status and of the opportunities for the improvement of their conditions has contributed to a feeling of helplessness, disorganization of action, and factionalism among those few who try to initiate programs. The telling result has been a sad absence of efficient leadership on the local level.

The American Indian Chicago Conference (AICC) held on the campus of the University of Chicago June 13-20, 1961, was a first attempt at making information available to Indians on a nationwide basis and using this information for positive action. Over 500 Indians representing 90 tribes and bands assembled to exchange information and to discuss major issues for the development of a formal statement of what Indians want for their future.

The conference was educational in many of its aspects. It was organized on the premise that a group of people if properly informed of the alternatives of action is able to choose what is best for it more wisely than outside "expert advisors" or well-meaning planners. Such a principle for national planning in American Indian affairs is a novel one. Since the federal government first took responsibility for Indian Affairs, planning has traditionally been thought to be in the province of government personnel rather than of Indian leaders. For the coordinators of the conference it was also an educational venture in gaining new insights into patterns of planning, cooperation, and decision making that occur when a colonial people have the opportunity to face and decide issues for themselves.

The idea of the AICC originated with Sol Tax, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Chicago. Dr. Tax has worked for many years with Central and North American groups, and most intensively with the Sac and Fox Indians of Iowa. Confronted with some of the modem day problems of American Indians, Tax and his students, beginning in 1948, developed an action "anthropology" approach in their work with the Fox Indians, an approach which differed markedly from the standard practices of applied anthropology. Rather than making a study of the problems of the Indians as defined by outside authorities and then handing back an analysis to those same authorities to implement as they wish, the action approach entails a stage-by-stage evaluation of the community's problems as presented by its members, and a feedback of these developing ideas to the client group together with a clarification of alternative paths of action among which the community could choose. Self-determination in the setting of short term and long term goals must be the essence of any action program. The actionists stress their equal responsibility to the people whom they wish to help, as well as to the scientific community of which they must remain members and to whom they must continue to contribute scientific data (see Note 1). The AICC was conceived and carried out with this approach as the premise for planning and the guide rule for procedure. In afterview the coordinators feel that the conference could not have succeeded had it been planned or carried out in any other manner.

Dr. Tax was approached by the Emil Schwarzhaupt Foundation in the spring of 1960 to conduct a study of the current Indian situation. He suggested the idea of drawing people together for a conference, although at that time he did not think in terms of a conference as large as the AICC. When the Schwarzhaupt Foundation showed interest in such a project he presented the idea to the National Congress of American Indians and later to the American Anthropological Association. Both groups were interested and promised endorsement. The Schwarzhaupt Foundation and the University of Chicago (and later the Winner-Gren Foundation) agreed to give the major financial support. He then asked Dr. Nancy Lurie, anthropologist at the University of Michigan, to assist him as Assistant Coordinator. They began to compile a mailing list and asked for names from the NCAI and various other Indian and scholarly organizations.

By June of 1961 this mailing list was to grow to about 5000 names, about 4000 of which were of Indians. This was the first time any attempt had been made to form a mailing community of American Indians across THE country and use it for positive action. On December 27, 1960, the first piece of literature was mailed out. This explained the idea of the American Indian Charter Convention, as it was then called, and included a "model charter" drawn up by a committee from the NCAI to illustrate what type of document might be produced by the projected conference as a statement of Indian opinion on present problems and Indian desires for their future. Such reference materials as selections from the Meriam Report of 1928, the first "comprehensive" report on Indian affairs; a map of American Indian population in 1950 drawn up by several of Professor Tax's students; and other pertinent materials on Indian problems were also included. A variety of reference materials, letters from the coordinators, and progress reports with letters from individual Indians and reports of preparatory local and regional meetings were sent out from the AICC headquarters during the next five months.

Local and regional meetings were held in New York, Washington, Chicago, Seattle, Reno, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Tempe (Arizona), Lincoln (Nebraska), Norman (Oklahoma), Great Falls (Montana), and Pembroke (North Carolina. These meetings, usually held in scholarly institutions, were open to interested Indians and non-Indians and further explained the purpose of the AICC, defining and clarifying the issues to be discussed. A Steering Committee of Indians across the country was organized and came to Chicago for meetings in February and April. At the first meeting of the Steering Committee it became apparent that "American Indian Charter Convention" would not be a suitable name because the words "charter" and "convention" had implications other than those intended in the original purpose of the meeting. Charter seemed to imply to many a dogmatic statement or contract and was reminiscent of too many tried-and-failed government sponsored programs. Convention suggested a regular meeting of an organization, and the AICC was organized only to prepare and hold the one conference; it was not formed to be a new organization. The Steering Committee suggested the name "American Indian Chicago Conference" which was more general and made use of the already widely publicized initials, and a subtitle "The Voice of the American Indian."

As interest developed it became apparent that the conference would take on much greater proportions than Tax had originally planned. He added to his coordinating staff Robert Rietz, anthropologist and Director of the Chicago American Indian Center, and later Albert Wahrhaftig and Joan Ablon, both graduate students in Anthropology at the University of Chicago. The Coordinators faced many problems. One of the most urgent was finances. How could Indian people with their common handicap of insufficient financial resources be able to come from all over the country to Chicago and stay there a full week? A distance subsidy was worked out so that, according to a seven zone scale, those Indian registrants who came from the greatest distances would pay less for their week's room and board in the dormitories than those from points nearer to Chicago. Local persons in Zone 1 would pay the maximum fee of $45, while those who came from the West Coast, scaled as Zone 7, would pay only $15 for the week's room and board. Non-Indian registrants would pay a higher standard fee to help subsidize Indians.

Through all phases of publicity for the conference, the coordinators stressed three main points: first, that they were not trying to "run" the conference in the sense of influencing what would be decided at the conference or the document that would be its result. Aside from arranging the mechanics and facilities of the conference such as dormitories and meeting rooms, the duty of the coordinators was simply to facilitate discussion, to assure fair and open communication so that all persons would have the opportunity to express themselves and be heard equally no matter what beliefs they held. Second, the coordinators stressed that they were neutral scholars interested only in seeing the Indian people have an opportunity to speak and plan for their future in their own way. The coordinators represented no particular interest groups. The meeting was sponsored by the University of Chicago, an independent scholarly institution, and was not to be influenced by the government, NCAI, or any other specific body, although many organizations endorsed the conference and were very helpful in promoting publicity for it. Third, the conference was to be held for the Indian people, and only Indians could have the right to speak. Interested non-Indians could attend as observers, but they could not speak out in sessions unless, as special resource people, they were asked for advice by Indian participants.

The Steering Committee arrived several days early and set up rules of procedure. On Monday, June 12, and Tuesday, June 13, crowds began to fill the registration headquarters. Newcomers arrived throughout the week. About 500 Indians attended the conference, many sent as official delegates from their tribes who either partially or fully paid their way. More than half of the Indian registrants came as independent persons. As individuals, they came from more than 90 tribes and bands from almost every state in the union. Alaska was represented by two Tlingit registrants from the Alaska Native Brotherhood. Also, 145 non-Indian observers registered, representing a variety of professions. Most were scholars, members of religious organizations, and officials of local, state, and federal governmental agencies. W. W. Keeler and William Zimmerman represented the Department of the Interior's Task Force on Indian Affairs which had recently completed its tour of hearings around the country.

The conference began with an opening Calumet Ceremony and Welcome Feast. At the first night's session Sol Tax gave a brief history of the AICC. Dr. Edward Dozier, a Santa Clara Pueblo Indian from New Mexico and anthropologist at the University of Arizona, gave the keynote address, and Judge Earl Welch, an Oklahoma Cherokee and a Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, was the chairman for the evening. The business of the evening was the acceptance of the Steering Committee's rules of procedure. The three days which followed were the core working period of the conference. Each registrant spent most of his time in one of the nine small group round table discussion sections of about 40 persons, exchanging information and working over a preliminary statement that the Steering Committee had drafted in April as a working model to be revised or rejected as the conferees saw fit. The entire body met in large plenary sessions briefly in the mornings and for several hours each night to discuss progress made in the smaller and more formal round table sections. The Steering Committee was dissolved for the period of the conference, and the business of operation was conducted by the Rules, Credentials, and Drafting Committees which had been elected by the whole group in session. Most of the non-Indian observers attended an Indian Institute three afternoons of the week and exchanged information, opinions, and philosophies of service. The days and evenings composed a more than full schedule of activities. But at the close of the evening sessions a great many of the Indian registrants would drift over to the registration hall, and there, accompanied by drums and chanting, would dance far into the night.

Saturday and Sunday had been originally planned to be free of conference work to give registrants a chance to relax from the busy first four days. Saturday afternoon was taken by a trip to a major league baseball game. A planned evening visit to the Museum of Natural History was cancelled in order to use that time for the Drafting Committee's presentation of the first draft of the projected document as taken from the nightly reports of the discussion groups' results. Sunday morning church services were conducted by Indian clergymen of various faiths. The afternoon and evening were given to a Pow Wow and Dance Contest. At this time the formal dress and serious manner of the discussions gave way to gaily colored costumes, to hours of chanting and dancing, and to an afternoon picnic.

Monday and Tuesday were tense and serious days taken up by a section-by-section consideration of the Drafting Committee's revised document. Any Indian had the right to stand and voice suggestions for additions or deletions, and many did. The question of differential voting strength to be given to persons formally sent as tribal delegates from federally recognized tribes, as opposed to those persons coming independently, was the one largest issue of contention at the conference, just as it had been an issue of difficulty in the preliminary Steering Committee's meetings. It was feared by some that the Indians living in urban areas or in those communities not recognized by the federal government would vote against reservation interests, and likewise that the reservation delegates would begrudge their city brothers' appropriations. It was finally decided that the vote of the tribal delegates would count as a block vote of 60%, and that of the individuals 40%. In actuality, the matter of block vote never was carried out, and when voting occurred in the last several days, the vote count was in every instance taken by individual voice or standing vote.

There was a high degree of unity on major issues involving what the Indian people wanted. Differences of opinion occurred most frequently about the best ways to express their feelings and about which procedures would carry out their aims most successfully. The majority wanted the language of the document to be outspoken and direct in stating the wish to retain their Indian identity and in listing what types of government programs they wanted. A small group shied away from strong language and preferred to be more diplomatic and reserved both in words and demand for government action. Some conservative or "traditionalist" groups were so suspicious of the conference and any possible government sponsorship that they did not come. Others did send delegates who voiced opinions quite different from the majority, such as rejection of the Citizenship Act of 1924 which, in the view of some, forced citizenship with its obligations as well as privileges on tribes who preferred their status to remain as independent nations. Although this was a minority view, it should be noted that the greatest majority of persons in attendance were strong in insisting on their right to maintain their Indian identity in the face of impinging "White" culture, and their right to pick and choose what aspects of this new culture they want. Many of the young Indian people were especially insistent on the expression of this right of selective acculturation (see Note 2).

The 49-page document that resulted from the conference was called "The Declaration of Indian Purpose". In eloquent language, it set forth the position taken by this representative group on many of the important issues confronting American Indians today.

Various appendices accompanied the statements of the conference. A summary of the Meriam Report of 1928 and a review of the progress in Indian Affairs since was given, along with information on the Termination policy and reports on a variety of subjects that were submitted by individuals and groups at the conference. The document was printed and sent out to persons on the mailing list and registrants after the conference" (see Note 3).

In evaluating the conference certain limitations are clearly recognized. The shortages of money and time limited communication. Only a small proportion of the total American Indian population was on the mailing list, and a much smaller proportion was able to attend the conference. Doubtless a great many Indians still have not heard about it. More regional and local meetings and reservation visits would have been desirable. Yet the great number of tribes contacted, even if represented by one or two persons only, the hundreds of letters which were received from Indians who could not come, and the readily apparent fact that Indians of all statuses had given thought to each other's problems made the concensus that developed in Chicago more representative than the registration numbers alone would indicate. It was recognized also that through the selective factors of literacy, financial ability, and cultural and personal patterns allowing aggressive action, more "progressives," and middle-of-the-roaders were represented than "traditionalists." Yet, the strong feeling for the retention of Indian identity reflects a growing desire to protect "Indianness" and Indian rights among an Indian people throughout the country.

For the anthropologist coordinators in the short term perspective that can be obtained at this time, the conference appears to have been successful on a number of levels. The Department of the Interior took a continuing interest in the conference and indicated it will consider the views expressed there in conjunction with the reports turned in to the Task Force in planning new policy. The ultimate impact of the document's suggestions for government action remains to be seen in the following years.

The preliminary reference materials and progress reports served to provide a source of much needed information to Indian people around the country, as well as to spread a feeling of assurance that with effort it would be possible to improve their situation. This effect was accomplished for those who could not attend the conference and would have been accomplished, even if the conference at the last moment had not been held. The conference was extremely well publicized across the country (and in some areas abroad) in newspapers, magazines, radio, and television. This provided what may be regarded as the greatest amount of concentrated publicity given the American public at one time about the American Indian and his problem in many years.

The immediate effect of the conference itself was that persons representing a variety of tribes, cultural and educational backgrounds, legal statuses, and geographical areas came together and productively exchanged experiences and opinions. Reservation people, rural and urban dwellers alike, were able to see the whole range of problems of their Indian brothers, and it appeared that each Indian voted in the interests of all Indians. Reservation Indians have relatives in the city and thought of these, as well as of their tribes on the reservation when they made suggestions for the Declaration. Likewise the city dwellers thought of their people on the reservation that they had left and which in all probability they visit frequently, and they spoke and voted with reservation problems as well as their own urban adjustment problems in their minds. As one Indian woman expressed it, "When I came here, I thought only of my people and our problems, and now I think of all the Indian people and all their problems."

The action anthropologists also learned more about the pan-Indian thinking that these attitudes represented, the compatibility of voting on resolutions (a custom absent from pre-Columbian America) and singing traditional Indian songs, the strength of traditionalist ideas and the system of communication among the holders of these ideas, and many other important facts which they will add to the storehouse of science.

More important, perhaps, the AICC served as a novel experiment in social science planning, by proving that a people so long deprived of the power of self-determination can draw up an articulate and forceful statement of belief and action when they are provided with information and an opportunity to make intelligent choices and to determine their own future without the imposition of solutions ready-made by outsiders, no matter how expert.