The case of the noble savage: the myth that governance can replace leadership

Abstract

The presumption of American’s noble savage provides the foundation for the creation of one of the world’s most recognizable stereotypes – the American Indian. The stereotype, lodged in the minds of most Americans as the Plains Indian warrior, contributed to decades of misunderstanding about leadership in traditional American Indian societies and governance in contemporary American Indian tribes. Review of both indigenous leadership styles and governance structure, defined as Public Law 93–638 or the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 USC 450), will provide the framework for a critical analysis of culture and American Indian leadership and governance. We argue that the individualist and democratic culture of white America has generated a particular approach to American Indians that promotes western governance systems at the expense of indigenous leadership cultures. In this approach, the nature of American Indians is reduced to an interpretation of the “noble savage” in which their either anarchic or tyrannical culture can only be tamed by the imposition of western governance systems. This implies displacing the indigenous cultures of leadership with the “universal” culture of democracy. This article will provide the context for discussions on the myth of self-determination, a construct of governance, and the indigenous leadership roles which continue to struggle against assimilation, cultural appropriation, and a history of genocidal policies. After comparing and contrasting indigenous concepts with western notions of governance, the authors propose a series of questions about the fundamental assumptions of governance in contemporary affairs.

Keywords:

• American Indian
• governance
• leadership

Acknowledgments

A version of this paper was presented at the 9th Studying Leadership Conference: Missions, Myths, and Mysteries, at Lund University, Sweden, December 13–14, 2010, where participant comments were incorporated into this final article. The authors are also grateful for the feedback from Michael D. Wilson (Choctaw), University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, George S. Briscoe, II (Comanche), Suahbetainu Kahni, OK, and Luther S. Williams, Provost, Tuskegee University, AL.

Notes

1. Descendants of the indigenous peoples of the Americas have had various designations in historical documents and narratives. Indian, Native American, and Native Peoples have been accepted as a collective designation throughout history. When citing other authors, we will use their original designation. As a result, the terms American Indian, Native American, Native Indian, Native peoples, and indigenous peoples may be found throughout. In original references, we typically use American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian. These designations are preferred by the American Indian professors’ group. We also try to use specific tribal references, if known and used by the tribe/individual.

2. The antecedents to McGregor’s (1960) theory X and theory Y should be clear from this.

3. Descendants of the indigenous peoples of the Americas have had various designations in historical documents and narratives. Indian, Native American, and Native Peoples have been accepted as a collective designation throughout history. When citing other authors, we will use their original designation. As a result, the terms American Indian, Native American, Native Indian, Native peoples, and indigenous peoples may be found throughout. In original references, we typically use American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian. These designations are preferred by the American Indian professors’ group. We also try to use specific tribal references, if known and used by the tribe/individual.

4. Oneida, Tuscarora, and Stockbridge.

5. Member of the American Indian Movement (AIM) occupied Alcatraz Island on three separate occasions. The first began 9 November 1969. See Troy Johnson’s history which highlights the primary goal of the Indians on Alcatraz: to awaken the American public to the reality of the plight of the first Americans and to assert the need for Indian self-determination, http://www.nps.gov/alca/historyculture/we-hold-the-rock.htm.

6. Lakota scholar Vine Deloria, Jr. analyzes treaty relationships, raising questions about the status of American Indians within the American and international political landscape, arguing that many tribes have more impressive landholdings than some members of the United Nations (Deloria 1974).

7. AIM members protested the 1868 Sioux treaty for the Black Hills of South Dakota and called for the US Senate’s investigation into the BIA and Department of the Interior, including an investigation into the 371 treaties between the Native nations and the federal government. For an in-depth analysis see Deloria (1974).

8. Signed on 18 June 1934 and also known as the Wheeler-Howard Act or the Indian New Deal. See 25 (USC 478).

9. The Dawes General Allotment Act signed on 8 February 1887; US Statutes at Large 34:388–91.

10. Public Law 93–638, The Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act was signed on 4 January 1975.

11. Founded by Stephen Cornell and Joseph Kalt in 1987, the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development is the systematic, comparative study of social, economical, and political conditions on American Indian reservations. For a complete history, see The State of the Native Nations: Conditions Under U.S. Policies of Self-Determination (Oxford University Press, 2008).

12. In 1948, all traditional Hopi spiritual leaders met and spoke of things I felt strongly were of great importance to all people. They selected four interpreters to carry their message of which I am the only one still living today. Thomas Banyacya, Hopi Tribal Elder from Kykotsmovi, Arizona (1992).

13. More complete descriptions of these projects and others can be found at The Harvard Project of American Indian Economic Development website: http://hpaied.org/honoring-nations/awardees (Harvard University 2006).

14. Statement of Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs Oversight Hearing on the Bureau of Indian Affairs Capacity and Mission, Washington, DC, 28 April 1999.