Volume 5 Number 1
October 1965

James J. Wilson

HISTORIANS are not agreed on how long the American Indian has inhabited the areas we generally refer to as the Americas, but it is certain the Indian has been here for many thousands of years. This can be stated in other terms: He came long ago and survived!

Survival of a culture may be looked on simply as people surviving to pass on to their offspring those things they adapted into a pattern of living as aids to survival. In short, only those behavioral acts which further the chances of survival do survive. Again we can see a pattern similar to the evolution of species.

Using these points for the bases of a discussion of modern Indian Reservation cultures, one has little difficulty seeing some cause and effect relationships in the existence today that have long been in need of explanation. That this discussion may be judged theoretically does not in any way lend credence to the "do-gooder" objection that it probably is an attempt to exploit these Indians.

Basically, these points are brought out in any discussion of Reservation Indians: (1) they have no regard for time; (2) they have no concept of saving; (3) they are not dependable, and (4) they cannot learn the idea of planning for the future. Let’s look at them in terms of their behavior and of survival.

Before the coming of the white man, the Indians had a generally well-worked-out pattern of behavior in the relationships of tribe to tribe and individual to individual within the various tribes and bands. Cultural patterns emerged as the various tribes settled into particular geographic areas. These patterns varied with the climate, soil, food, etc., and according to the kinds of neighboring people on each side.

With the coming of the white man the Indians underwent cultural changes as they discovered adaptive behaviors which let them survive as individuals and groups. Individuals and groups who failed to adopt new behavioral patterns, and hence cultural patterns, failed to survive so that behaviors which did not contribute to survival were eliminated from the group culture.

In regard to the lack of concern about time, it would appear that (1) the Indian had no need to adopt time-consciousness as he was not going anywhere or doing anything wherein an exact timetable was of great consequence as far as his survival was concerned, and (2) the very nature of time-consciousness was of an aversive nature to the Indian just as it is to the modern factory clock-watcher who bemoans how long the days are as he painfully watches the minutes tick-away.

Can you blame a group of people for developing what we now generally consider a negative behavior characteristic into a cultural pattern with an extremely high survival correlation? Take the matter of saving: Why save for tomorrow when the chances are good that you may not be here tomorrow? Times and conditions for the pre-Columbian Indian were at best a continual struggle for survival against nature. How better to be sure that your neighbor would help you in your moment of need than to share your belongings with him today. The same situation, with variations, prevailed during the frontier day of the Americas when at times there were actually bounties for the scalps of Indians! Who could think of saving and accumulating belongings that might on the next day weigh you down and delay your escape from the long guns? So, you see, saving was anti-survival and this idea was simple enough that cultural transmission was probably never a major concern of any Indian group with the possible exception of the permanently settled pueblo-dwelling Indians.

When I hear people commenting that Indians are not dependable I always know by whose standards the generalization is made. Again it is simply a matter of survival--the Indian cannot continue to be an Indian and at the same time do everything he is told to do. The result is that while he fails to survive as the ideal product of acculturation, he is proving his survival as an Indian. He is usually quite dependable from his own reference point of survival both as an individual and as a member of a group towards whom he looks for approval.

In regard to learning to plan for the future, it might be said that when the Indian was alone in the Americas, long-range planning was one of the essentials for survival. The Indian had to plan his migratory following of the game, the cycle of the fish, the seasons for his crops and harvesting. Although he saved not for the morrow, he planned for it partly by not saving but sharing. More recently it must be conceded that by and large little long-range planning is apparent. But that is not to say that planning does not take place. Frequently the Indian finds planning as futile as desert farming. Since the beginning of Indian Reservation days the Indian has not really been responsible for his own planning, and in many cases where he has wanted this responsibility he has been deprived of this right and the eventual development of abilities of discrimination between rights and responsibilities.

Perhaps by this time the reader wonders why the writer has white-washed the failings of the Indian. The point is simply this: The behavior we see in the Indian has been conditioned and will not be changed simply by telling him he is again wrong--this would only strengthen some of the other behavior characteristics which tend to crystalize into a pattern that is fairly consistent with the over-generalized projected image of the Reservation Indian of today.

Since the Reservation Indian has so often been told that he is incompetent, undependable, and was treated, legally, for many years as a ward of the Federal Government, he has observed that deference to his white brother is a means of survival (for to resist would be akin to suicide) and has developed to some extent a self-concept which in turn causes him to fulfill these prophetic descriptions.

The question, then, that is posed to the social reconstructionist is this: What can we do about the present situation that will make things better for all concerned? I see a number of choices--each one simplified for purposes of discussion. First, we can eliminate the reservation system entirely and withdraw Government aid completely and leave the Indians on their own to develop new behavior patterns for their survival. Or we can try scattering them in as many different parts of our country as there are Indians.

Or perhaps we could "phase out" the Indian reservations by denying residence to those who meet certain predetermined standards such as completion of high school, military service, etc. But could any of us justify splitting up families as would be inevitable because of individual differences in human growth and abilities?

Or better yet, we could let reservation life remain optional and welcome back all of the young educated Indians. But can one be sure that the things you learn in a faraway school are the things which will lend themselves to cultural survival? It is often said that learning is indicated by a change in behavior so the problem could again turn out to be the randomizing of probabilities of success as we have had for many years.

Each of these efforts to acculturate the American Indian has been tried and the verdict has nearly always been the same--failure.

Well, then, why don’t we put into practice some of our psychological knowledge about human beings and proceed with a plan of deliberate conditioning for specific purposes. First, we must decide as members of the dominant culture what we want of these Reservation Indians and then, secondly, we must draw our plans, and, third, proceed without hesitation to shape the behaviors which in combination will give us the kind of people we want.

Let’s put into writing some of the things we have been thinking and saying so we can measure our progress over a period of time. It is not enough to say that we want the Indians to have the opportunity to get an education, the opportunity of training and employment, the opportunity to live in decency and dignity, and the opportunity to share in the high standard of living we have achieved in our great country. The Indians have had these opportunities even with certain geographic restrictions. Then why have they, as a group, caused such concern when we generally look at an individual and say he had his choice and now has to live the life he chose? Most likely because responsibility for the Indian has been assumed and now our failures are coming home to haunt us when we look at our results in relation to others about us.

I think it is time we set our goals in terms of specific behaviors and behavior patterns. Together we must state how we want the Indian to act! An example of how we should define our goals would be to take a particular reservation group and together (1) define present behavior patterns existing among that particular group, (2) define desirable behavior as currently approved in the surrounding social strata, and (3) by comparison find out which behaviors must be eliminated and which new behaviors must be introduced, reinforced, and internalized by the Indian group in question.

Obviously, each particular reservation should be evaluated because of the area and regional differences in behavior patterns, but one should be able to expect enough commonality to quickly establish an overall pattern of generally desired behavior.

Using the present War on Poverty programs as an example of a vehicle for the accomplishment of our goals, we can easily plan our action. Let me make a number of basic assumptions here for purposes of illustrating my main points. First, let us assume that the earlier mentioned points of discussion regarding Reservation Indians are to be reversed. Secondly, let us assume that a major part of the dignity of man comes from being self-supporting and self-directing.

Now, if we are to apply a plan of action to a program, we must start them together in the planning stages. We could plan, for instance, a Neighborhood Youth Corps project something like this: One hundred young Indians between 16 and 21 to work on a project to develop a new community in conjunction with a new industry on the reservation. The individuals employed would be given a set of work regulations which would clearly define the hours of work, the purposes of the work, the expected behavior while at work, the expected behavior while away from work. Then the workers would be required to draw up their own 1ong range plans with aid from a vocational counselor, establish a system of regular saving, and be a part of a seniority system which rewarded exemplary behavior by monetary units added to the individual savings system and opportunity for leadership by a ranking system.

When an individual achieved a certain level of self-direction and skill he would be "placed" by a placement officer in a position either on or off the reservation with free counseling for up to two years, during which time his independence would be the determining factor in the amount of counseling he received.

The openings created by "placements" would be filled by others from the community who in turn would go through the same cycle.

Needless to say, such a system should have as an integral part of it an ongoing basic education system that would perhaps require one full day of classroom instruction each week, so the individuals also would achieve certain minimum levels of understanding and skill in areas such as communication, personal business management, and computation. A well run school system would do the same for the more academically able members of the tribe over a longer period of years and in a more subtle way.

In effect we must establish as our goals the behavior patterns we want, then create situations for these behaviors to take place where we could reinforce them and finally proceed to condition the individuals to internalize their own reward system by reinforcing a sense of accomplishment from becoming more and more self-supporting and self-directing. With time, and a number of successes to present as community examples of desired behavior patterns, we would establish within the communities groups of people who would be the ones who determined the new acceptable behavior patterns.

The principle of survival should be a guide to understanding that we cannot accept the status quo because it is here and now; it should serve as a lesson that if we are ever to gain any degree of control over our destinies we must experiment.

Our democratic society is an ideal proving ground, as the diversification of control limits our experimentation to such a minute segment of the general population, that despotic use and expansion of control is near impossible!

We have the know-how, the money, and the time to make these accomplishments. The only question remaining is whether we want to do it.