Gov. Noem Targets Indigenous Leadership in South Dakota
Oglala Sioux Tribe president Frank Star Comes Out testifies before the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on Jul. 19, 2023, in support of the Wounded Knee Memorial and Sacred Site Act. Source: Indian Country Today (ICT) News
During a town hall meeting in Mitchell, SD on Mar. 13th, Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota,, commented on the lack of educational attainment in local Native American tribal communities. Gov. Noem partially attributed her accusations to the presence of Mexican cartel affiliated drugs in those communities, even going as far to say that the tribal leaders are “personally benefiting from the cartels being there and that’s why they attack me everyday.” In response, leaders from both the Oglala Sioux and Rosebud Sioux tribes have called for an apology from the governor, denying her claims about their apathy towards their youth and alleged illegal activity.
These opposing claims follow a long history of animosity between the tribes and the South Dakotan (and U.S.) government. After years of persecution and war against the Indigenous people of what is now considered South Dakota, the U.S. signed the Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1868. This treaty stipulated that the Black Hills be included in the Great Sioux Reservation, where the people of the Great Sioux Nation were originally and forcibly relocated. More recently, Gov. Noem has made other moves to increase the divide between SD and the Sioux; in 2019, she publicly expressed support for statewide anti-protest legislation, which sought to inhibit the ability of the Sioux to protest the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline and ultimately failed due to its unconstitutionality. The pipeline runs less than half a mile through current reservation territory and directly through land that Congress stripped from the Nation in 1958.
Regarding her most recent statements, there is some validity in her claim that tribal youth exhibit lower educational attainment rates than non-tribal youth; SD Native American absenteeism in public school systems increased from 31% in 2018 to 54% in 2023. However, her assertion that tribal leaders are benefiting from a cartel-facilitated drug trade and that these drugs are connected to tribal youth’s absenteeism is entirely baseless; Indigenous youth drug use has not increased by a notable figure since 2018, which negates the alleged correlation between the two. In actuality, the prime majority of the issues faced by Native populations can be correctly ascribed to discriminatory policy and insufficient federal aid—none of which are by fault of tribal leaders, contrary to what Gov. Noem evidently believes. One such policy is the U.S.’s severe restriction of tribes’ use of natural resources located on reservation land, which is the main reason that some Indigenous communities rely heavily on tourism and gaming attractions. Policies of this nature are legally backed by the federal government’s self-conferred duty to, “Protect Native American assets and resources,” and their enforcement does nothing short of perpetuating the Indigenous poverty that the U.S. created originally.
Regardless of her contentions’ accuracy, she has made it clear that she aims to extend her jurisdiction over the Nation’s constituency, despite the fact that the independent Nation is not subject to state law. During the Mitchell town hall meeting, she told the electorate, “My next step would be to do what I can to get a tribe to participate with me to help their kids be more successful,” and, “They have a tribal council or a president who focuses on a political agenda more than they care about actually helping somebody’s life look better.” Although this sort of public discrediting might seem jarring to those unfamiliar with Indigenous-U.S. relations, it is certainly not the first of its kind. In fact, an interminable pattern can be observed throughout U.S. history—one in which tribal leaders have been both defamed and defunded. One such example can be found in the exclusion of two tribes from the distribution of millions of dollars in Wisconsin state funding, presumably because of the tribes’ demonstrated opposition to the construction of roads and buildings on both reservation lands and Native burial sites. This example stands alongside Gov. Noem’s denigration attempts as a signifier of state governments’ continued resistance against the sovereignty of Indigenous Nations despite it being principally the only thing of substance that the U.S. government offered to the Nations following their brutalization and involuntary removal. Indeed, most of the basic needs of Indigenous communities, such as housing, education, health care, and rural development, have still not been met by U.S. funding—-even though the actions of the U.S. prompted those needs.
The governor’s claims against the administrative ability of Sioux leaders, in tandem with the historic trend of officials vilifying tribal leaders, paints a cynical image of the U.S.’s public servants and their perspectives on Indigenous sovereignty. The resulting political and humanitarian discourse is one of concern, and one which raises the question of whether Gov. Noem will ever attempt to establish rapport with Native communities.